Wealthy countries should accept more refugees and provide them with basic assistance, such as food and housing. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.18

It is often argued that affluent countries should welcome asylum seekers and provide them with food and shelter. In my opinion, I completely agree with this statement because it is a moral obligation that the rich countries can easily afford. The first main reason why developed countries should open its doors for refugees is that it is not morally acceptable not to do so. In other words, god bless the mankind to always lend a helping hand to others whenever they need it. Innocent people who are running away from war zones should not be left helpless to face difficult situations such as fear of death due to diseases and insufficient food. For example, India has accepted more than 1. 5 million Pakistani refugees during the period of partition of India and Pakistan. The second reason is that the strong economic condition of the rich countries can support the people fleeing from their own countries. Thus, providing them accommodation and food facilities will not put any burden on the government budget. In fact the economy of the supporting country might get strengthen due to the extra workforce that displaced people provide. For instance, a study published in the Times Now magazine showed that 10% of the German government annual budget was spent on Syrian refugees. The same study has proved that 40% of the Syrian refugees are working with German companies and supporting the financial growth of the country. In conclusion, I assert that rich nations should step forward and help refugees by providing them with all the basic amenities in their territory. Because it is humanitarian duty and it is not harmful to the economy.