It is argued that richer nations should welcome more displaced people and assist them with essential life needs. I am in the favour of this idea because of humanitarian obligation and the economic stability of wealthy states.
The most prominent reason why fortune countries should render supports is because of the human rights. According to the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts, all men and women should be entitled to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind of reasons. No one wants to leave their homeland with their families unless it is essential to do so. That is to say, it is immoral not to help these people who fled from their war torn countries. A particularly good example here is the Syrian refugees, they try to enter the more wealthy land because of the continuous famine and war.
The second reason is that the affluent nations have abundant financial resources to aid those poorer states. Countries like USA, has a huge tax revenue from taxpayers every year. Taking a tiny fraction of this wealth to accommodate and feed millions of poor people would not impose any harmful effect on its economics. For instance, the European Union's combined GPD is over $18 trillion, and all displaced Syrians could be resettled for less than a billion dollars as long as the their economy is stable.
In conclusion, affluent countries definitely should give more supports to refugees because it is moral to do so and they are wealthy enough to give. It is recommended that to do so.
It
is argued
that richer nations should welcome more displaced
people
and assist them with essential life needs. I am in the
favour
of this
idea
because
of humanitarian obligation and the economic stability of wealthy states.
The most prominent reason why fortune
countries
should render supports is
because
of the human rights. According to the
Universal Declaration of Human RIghts
, all
men
and women should
be entitled
to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind of reasons. No one wants to
leave
their homeland with their families unless it is essential to do
so
.
That is
to say, it is immoral not to
help
these
people
who fled from their war torn
countries
. A
particularly
good
example here is the Syrian refugees, they try to enter the more wealthy land
because
of the continuous famine and war.
The second reason is that the affluent nations have abundant financial resources to aid those poorer states.
Countries
like USA
, has a huge tax revenue from taxpayers every year. Taking a tiny fraction of this wealth to accommodate and feed millions of poor
people
would not impose any harmful effect on its economics.
For instance
, the European Union's combined
GPD
is over $18 trillion, and all displaced Syrians could
be resettled
for less than a billion dollars as long as
the their economy
is stable.
In conclusion
, affluent
countries
definitely should give more supports to refugees
because
it is moral to do
so and
they are wealthy
enough
to give. It
is recommended
that to do
so
.