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?

It is argued that rich countries should admit and support more refugees with basics like feeding and accommodation. This essay disagrees with that statement because doing so will affect the host country's plan for its citizenry and put unneeded pressure on their resources. It is a well-known fact that becoming a prosperous nation entails a lot of planning and good policies. These policies and processes translate to good governance and, subsequently, improved living conditions for the populace. However, when unforeseen or unbudgeted expenses in terms of housing and feeding for migrants come up, it tends to mess up previous structures to make life comfortable for the citizens. For example, the sudden influx of Ghanaian refugees into Nigeria in the early eighties negatively affected the country's housing and accommodation projects. The Federal Government found it difficult to adhere to the policy of providing homes for its numbered poor as the migrants also joined the pool of underprivileged persons in the country. Again, resources are stretched thinly when there is undue pressure as a result of increased population. This is because refugees are on the rise worldwide, and if the wealthier nations do not learn to shut their doors, they will become overwhelmed. Ample evidence shows that resources are scarce and must be properly managed. When a country takes in excess migrant for food and housing, it should be ready to address other attendant needs such as schooling, healthcare, and even burials. For instance, South Africa stopped taking in displaced people from Zulu when their healthcare system became flooded with sick Zaka-Zulu natives. In conclusion, numerous well-to-do nations will need to be careful how they manage refugees as accepting too many of them will strain their resources and undo several excellent government administration strides.