Resource is a scarcity when countries are being discussed, some might have plenty but they may only be enough for the sustentation of the citizens. Eakin’s point about trouble arises for some when there is an incursion of migrants is accurate because it sheds light on the problem that scarcity of career opportunity, land and financial aid for the citizen due to the staggering amount of legal tender is being poured in helping the refugees. Many other including Annan would agree with what has been pointed by Eakin; resources is vital in helping the migrants although his view on this matter is fairly …show more content…
Denying entrance to these people would not solve the issue at hand; it would only result in more deaths and uproar among the others. Then again, letting these people to freely enter the border would potentially lead to another problem; more migrants coming in as they would thought to be welcomed more by the receiving country. More migrants can only lead to one thing; over-population of migrants in a country which would not benefit both the migrants as more people are they making it hard for them to receive help and the country itself as more and more resources are being depleted to provide the necessity for the people. Proponents of Annan are right to argue that helping them to migrate should be a concern, but he exaggerated when claiming that it would be the only way to keep our hands clean from the deaths of these migrants. Being all courteous and generous all the way would also inflict a share of the damage; both economically and social stability among the citizen of the country and the migrants. If every country opted the strategy that is being used by the Swedish from Eakin’s article, the world might be facing with the deficiency of resources in some part of the world. An even more serious point of interest that needs attention is how the home country of these refugees are supposed to build up when all of their people are all scattered across the