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 the rich nations should receive a larger number of refugees and help them to resettle by offering primary accommodation. This essay disagrees with this view because it will put heavier pressure on the taxpayers and can create more threats to domestic security.
The main reason why the prosperous states should not accept too many refugees because it will create more pressure on their citizens. Governments obviously must spend a great amount of money from their annual budget for supporting the newcomers to start their new lives. This would negatively affect to financial plans of these nations. As a result, local people will have to pay more taxes to help the governments balance budget deficits. For example, recent research of the University of Guelph in Canada reported that the Canada government spent nearly 5 million dollars to bring 25,000 Syrian people to Canada in 2015 and it led to the serious unbalance in the Federal's budget in that year. The research also linked this over-spending to the launch of new carbon tax in 2018, which has had a huge impact on the living expenses of Canadians, as one of the remedies to fix the government budget deficit.
Another reason why developed countries should not take more refugees is that it would make society unstable due to risks to national security. This is because authorities could not filter all ineligible people who are criminals entering these states through humanitarian immigration programs. They only have limited tools to scan these people because they normally come to these nations without any supporting documents. This would cause the rising of offenses in the countries. For instance, Germany and other European countries, which shouldered the obligation of the crisis of refugees in 2015, have been coping with more and more violence related to the huge number of refugees from Iraq and Syria came in 2015. They finally had to close their borders to stop the endless flow of foreign people to pass the borders.
In conclusion, rich states should not take too many refugees to their nations because of the serious consequences that may risk their national security and the harder strains to their people. It is recommended that they should have an appropriate plan to take the international obligation on humanity crisis before taking any agreement on this matter.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-18 | bluesky9667 | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-18 | bluesky9667 | 61 | view |
| 2019-10-29 | Helen Ng | 73 | view |
| 2019-10-23 | Dr. Blessy | 56 | view |
| 2019-10-23 | Dr. Blessy | 56 | view |
- In the past people store knowledge in books Nowadays they store knowledge on the Internet Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages 93
- Topic: Some would say that it is possible for a country to be both economically successful and have a clean environment. Others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 73
- Topic: Some people think instead of preventing climate change, we should find ways to live with it. To what extend, do you agree or disagree? 78
- Topic: Some people believe that the government should provide financial assistance to all artists including painter, musicians and poets. Others think that it is a waste of money. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 73
- Many people use distance learning programmes to study at home but some people think that it can not bring the same benefits of attending college or university. To what extend, do you agree or disagree? 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 211, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
... could not filter all ineligible people who are criminals entering these states through...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, may, so, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 24.0651302605 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1990.0 1615.20841683 123% => OK
No of words: 388.0 315.596192385 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12886597938 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59501528223 2.80592935109 92% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533505154639 0.561755894193 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 608.4 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.0845066262 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.375 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.8125 7.06120827912 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117468091882 0.244688304435 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0398450956402 0.084324248473 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0479863287157 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0804203536771 0.151304729494 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0354544168458 0.056905535591 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.0946893788 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.