In this contemporary discourse, the question of whether developed countries should refuge people that are escaping from nations in severe crisis or they should restrict them by enforcing the strict border controlling rules elicits polarized views. This essay will explore both perspectives before articulating my stance.
On one hand, a pivotal argument is that the countries are currently facing economic problems due to the single side concentrated global market, additonally few organizations trying to propogate agenda in developing nations to make them unstable. This fosters leaving citizens in such conditions where they do not have sufficient funds, additional passing everyday with the fear of survival. As evidenced by the survey conducted by Reuters in 2024 that, “Almost 90% of Iranian citizens claimed asylum in Canada due to rise of terrorism”. As a result, countries are now welcoming those needy individuals who are looking for safe place to grow.
On the flip side, opponents emphasize that the port of entries should be closed as the refugees claims in the wealthy countries have risen drastically, especially those nations who are lacking in the decision policies. People who are looking to enter or want to extend their stay claims fake asylum making it the easiest pathway to become citizen after that grabbing the opportunities that they are not entitled to. From my perspective, while these concerns about fake profiles are valid, I believe that the developed nation should provide asylum to people, also focusing on making the rules better so that only genuine profile can be selected.
Having weighted both sides, I adovocate that benefits from more affective immigration approach would help country to progess, surpassing the arguments of closing the borders permanently.