In the film, That Which Once Was, someone assert that country shouldn't use tax for helping environmental refugees. I disagree with tis opinion. First, country should use money and revival stricken areas or people because these area's people lost their house and cannot go to work. In Japan's case, Kimberly state that "This region was responsible for 6-8 percent of the country's total production". These area's people shoulders a part of Japanese economy and Fukushima is famous for the fishing industry. Helping these people get benefit for economy. Second, all the people are guaranteed the minimum standard for living. Environmental refugees lost their house, so country should provide living place and promise people's life. Moreover, those people who have no house may commit a crime because of poor. For those reasons, country should help people. Finally, helping refugees show the country's confidence. Relationship between country and citizen have to be strong. Citizen's trust build country stronger. To sum up, helping refugees mean not only moral sense but also build citizen's trust.
Works cited
Kimberly Amadeo. "Japan's 2011 Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster" The balance , 5 April 2017
You have some good information here, but your last idea is not clear. What do you mean when you write, "helping refugees show the country's confidence. Relationship between country and citizen have to be strong. Citizen's trust build country stronger." Perhaps another source would have helped. 83
返信削除