Rich countries should not employ skilled labour from poor countries, as poor countries need the worker more. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

Powerful countries tend to absorb workers from broken lands, which is not appropriate as these communities are more needed in their own locations.

Whereas

, I completely disagree with

this

statement as I will discuss in the following paragraphs. First of all,

it is clear that

by joining worthy adults to a nationality which is already successful as labour, the needy country will find a lesser chance to improve and soar itself. It is

while

the wealthy region will continue being more and more superior.

For instance

, the number of Third Word public leaving their homes to take jobs as a worker in First Word to erect some new skyscrapers, can build up their unblessed houses and

also

make an effort to reclaim their own environment.

Additionally

, there is no doubt that these mentioned migrated ones are obviously under the pressure of being unworthy in these new places, and

this

can significantly damage their pride and

subsequently

, impair the picture of their nationality. A clear example is Afghans who always receive disrespect from the society whom they are working for all over the world as they are mostly known as poor labours.

Overall

, I strongly believe that adopting employees from miserable countries will result in destroying these crowd's nationality and pride and

also

,

therefore

, they will remain in their position as a poor land, or worst, it leads to even weaken it.