Immigration, Asylum, and National Identity
In our modern world, the movement of people across borders creates intense political arguments. Do rich countries have a moral duty to accept those escaping war and poverty? Or does a country have the complete right to protect its culture and economy by closing its doors? In this unit, we explore the vocabulary of prejudice, integration, and basic survival.
1. The government unfairly used the immigrants as an easy to blame for the bad economy.
2. A huge number of people had to run away and formed the largest crisis we have seen.
3. Without proper papers, workers are treated very badly by rich bosses.
4. He faced immediate after his visa fully expired.
5. Systemic sadly makes it very difficult for new arrivals to find good jobs.
6. Providing free language classes easily helps with the fast of new citizens.
7. They cleverly managed to quickly across the sea before the war started.
8. Military forces totally blocked the national to stop anyone entering.
When discussing serious national politics perfectly smoothly, native speakers frequently use these special idioms.
Notice how complex sentences are beautifully connected using Relative Clauses.
Many terrified families, who truly had absolutely nothing left, ran quickly to the border to seek asylum. However, the troubled host country, which was sadly already extremely poor, ordered the army to shut the major gates. The leader gave a very loud speech where he claimed that formally letting them in would powerfully open the floodgates and quickly destroy the economy. Critics, whose honest opinions were completely ignored, strongly accused him of pure xenophobia and using desperate immigrants as a weak target.
The situation logically got much worse when a local judge officially ruled that no true refugee should ever be sent away. The national government strongly pushed back, stating that any nation has the proper right to strictly stop illegal crossings immediately. This dangerous political standoff, which lasted smartly for many difficult months, sadly left thousands of people stranded outside.
When arguing politely about complicated political topics, you can connect ideas securely by using Relative Clauses to effectively add more specific information.
| Relative Pronoun | Usage | Debate Example |
|---|---|---|
| Who | Used nicely for people. | "The politicians who make these harsh local laws do not properly suffer." |
| Which | Used clearly for things or ideas. | "The new policy, which is very harsh, totally failed completely." |
| Where | Used smoothly for places or specific situations. | "A situation where innocent people easily suffer is safely unacceptable." |
1. The loud protesters, ____________ completely disagreed with the leader warmly, calmly marched successfully today.
2. The controversial rule, ____________ was easily passed perfectly last night, caused massive anger.
Type the missing words to correctly complete these heavy dramatic idioms.
1. By completely denying exactly them the basic right to vote, the country treated them like second-class .
2. The broken nation quickly lost its very best doctors, unfortunately suffering a huge brain .
Before you debate, look at these points and use the sentence starters below.
Don't just nod your head in conversations. Master the advanced phrasing to eloquently defend your opinions in high-level debates.
Come and join me for a bespoke English lesson at nativeuk.com designed specifically to build your conversational confidence.
Book a Private SessionWant to speak clearly about politics, tech, and the modern world? We've got the secret vocabulary you won't find in textbooks.
Check out our Good to Know section and dive into our Blog. You’ll be leading conversations like a native speaker in no time.
Explore Free Resources