Nowadays, well-developed and affluent countries should shelter and render humanitarian aid for a large number of refugees by providing them with basic provisions and accommodation. Personally, I partially agree with this statement because giving refugees the chance to live and be a part of the country might lead to both positive and negative consequences.
On the one hand, it is totally right to help others in severe cases, such as natural disasters or wars. After providing foodstuff and giving them initial accommodation, they might then be hired for construction or cleaning works that always need employees by authorities and contractors. Thus, already wealthy countries will improve their domestic position, and refugees will have opportunities to grow. Moreover, migration and assimilation of refugees can gradually increase the population of the country due to the fact that more and more refugees are leaving their native land because of severe situations.
On the other hand, there are several reasons why rich countries do not need to have refugees. In fact, it is the tax burden. When the government provides society subsidies for living costs, the subsidies will be paid from the budget, which is funded by the taxes that taxpayers pay. It is certain to recover the tax rate. As an illustration, the US has kept receiving more and more refugees, and they now face a huge financial planning issue even though they are one of the richest countries in the world.
In conclusion, having said that sheltering refugees can lead to increasing population, improving domestic position, and tax burden, it would be up to the government’s powers to accept them or not.