It is impossible to help all people in the world, so governments should only focus on people in their own countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The general belief is that it is impossible to aid citizens of other countries, so governments should only prioritize their local residents. Personally, I am against this idea owing to the subsequent reasons.

One compelling justification for refuting the aforesaid position is that the problems which people in some other communities face can be much more serious yet easier to solve than those in the donor countries. For instance, when children are dying from curable diseases in poor regions, a small donation such as a single payment for readily available vaccines from governments and individuals in wealthier countries can save lives and have a much greater impact than helping in the local area. Another case in point is the dire situation of inhabitants living in nations recently struck by natural disasters, which means emergency aid such as food and water is likely to be of greater help to these overseas victims than to some local residents.

Another explanation as to why this standpoint should be opposed is the long-term financial benefits of international charity to the donor countries. In other words, alleviating poverty abroad contributes to foreign nations' economic revival and independence, which in turn, improves the former's own economy. What is more, the principle of reciprocity indicates that assisting those living beyond one's national borders promises the prospect of receiving similar monetary support when it is one;turn to suffer disasters or other crises.

In conclusion, I am convinced that national boundaries should not stop us from helping those who are in need beacause this is a humane practice and it also enhances the relations between countries