Can someone please amrk my LNAT essay?

Is it more beneficial for countries to adopt open immigration or implement stricter control?
Certainly, countries should pursue open immigration policies. Open borders would be an incredible moment in history because of the economic and social benefits that it will result in.
Many, less informed people, propose that stricter control of immigration will be a quick fix to all of the problems encapsulating the modern world. This essay will argue, without any doubt, that such a stance is inherently untrue and that open borders would be the gateway to a prosperous future. I will discuss the economic and social benefits, moving on to directly challenge the alleged benefits of stricter immigration policies.
Let's first consider the economic and social benefits that open borders promise. Many critics of open borders argue that immigrants take the jobs of the native people. Economics have proven this to be inherently false, immigrants are far less likely to claim state benefits than native people, meaning that they are less of an economic burden.. Immigrants are also more willing to work menial or repetitive jobs that are snubbed by natives, meaning that they are not necessarily in competition for desirable jobs or in direct competition with natives. They are also proven to be good consumers, meaning that they will put money into the economy and will subsequently create more jobs than they occupy by simply increasing demand for goods and services. Furthermore, the cultural nuance that they will introduce will expose the economy and societies to new ideas, products and methods. In some instances perhaps previously foreign methods could be introduced to improve productivity, profits and efficiency. Additionally, immigrants have a proven tendency to return to their home country in later years of life, meaning that they are not a burden on the economy through healthcare. If countries were to open their borders the economy would soar as figures would multiply tenfold and would see a similar effect on the cultural variety. However, some may suggest that such cultural integration may lead to the loss of culture and national identity. To this I would argue that just because new ideas and traditions are being explored and embedded does not mean that one's own culture must be lost. Rather, they may become a more rounded individual, having been exposed to different norms.
A growing concern among challengers lies in higher level employment and education. Many opponents seem to have accepted defeat that at a lower level immigrants benefit the economy through their willingness to work and consume. Interestingly, the narrative has seemingly shifted to suggest that immigrants are being given an easy ride to the top in education and in employment. To this I would argue that critics are considering the situation in a flawed way. The rise of immigrants in high level positions is not a reflection of a “woke society” but rather a word which is appreciating the skills of people less discriminately. The role of open borders in this is crucial, the free exchange of knowledge between culture and integration of different ideas can only serve to benefit the economy as innovation will likely be exacerbated. Many great engineers and scientists have been discovered through cultural exchange and paired with the advanced technology preexisting in the West the potential for development (and subsequent financial rewards) are endless.
One should not simply dismiss a critic simply because they do not share the same view, we must consider it and identify inconsistencies and limitations if present. In the instance of the demand for stricter immigration policies, the holes are gaping. Many critics argue that a country should look to help its own people before it helps others. This essay has proven that the two do not need to be treated as separate issues, by promoting open borders, societal issues can be addressed. The economy would improve and society would be less divided. It also the opinion of critics that immigrants cause trouble and are violent or anti-social. I will not deny that by opening the borders some unsavoury figures may gain access. However, isn’t that happening already through illegal methods? At least with open borders we would be limiting the risk of harm to innocent individuals seeking a new opportunity. Additionally, we must also look inward at the people already in the country, violence and antisocial behaviour is no less prevalent among natives than it is among immigrants. As previously argued, most immigrants seek out employment and contribute in a meaningful way to economic prosperity. The role of immigration has been crucial in the development of Britain, with the labour provided which resulted in profound industrial strides. It seems to me that open borders is the next step.
While the thought of open borders and a liberal immigration policy may trouble some, this essay proves that there is little to fear. In fact the prospect of more liberal immigration stands to benefit the economy and wider life. The cultural exchange and promise of the mixing of different ideas evidences a promising future for a world where the borders are open.

"The LNAT essay section is a 40-minute task that requires you to write a maximum 750-word essay on one of three given essay prompts."
By the time you have looked at the 3 given questions, panicked, chosen one, and then decided how to tackle it and jotted down some notes, that's about 10 minutes gone. You then have about 25 mins, with another 5 minutes for checking your spelling. Its not '40 minutes of writing time' and you will not manage to write anything like this amount.
Criticism of essay 1 :
You have not defined what you are taking 'open immigration' to mean.
Always define your terms!
Certainly, countries should pursue open immigration policies. Open borders would be an incredible moment in history because of the economic and social benefits that it will result in.
Waffle / tortuous English. You are trying to draw a conclusion when you haven't yet argued anything.
Many, less informed people
Pompous, bordering on cheeky.
You can criticise an argument or an opinion, but don't take cheap shots at those who hold them.
all of the problems encapsulating the modern world
Which are what exactly? Don't make sweeping statements like this.
This essay will argue, without any doubt,
Again pompous and presumptive.
'I will argue that...' but not 'without any doubt', it comes over as over-wordy - and arrogant.
the gateway to a prosperous future
For everyone, and every country? This is far too vague/grand a statement.
native people
Please don't use phrases like this. Firstly it has racist/Imperialist implications, and secondly, you are immediately excluding those who were not born in your supposed country but who are also resident there.
immigrants have a proven tendency to return to their home country in later years of life,
Really?
If countries were to open their borders the economy would soar as figures would multiply tenfold and would see a similar effect on the cultural variety.
What 'figures' are going to multiply and over what time period? What do you mean by 'cultural variety'?
In the instance of the demand for stricter immigration policies, the holes are gaping.
What are you talking about here? What holes, what is gaping?
This essay has proven that the two do not need to be treated as separate issues, by promoting open borders, societal issues can be addressed.
My head just hit the desk.
I'm not going to nit-pick my way through your entire essay, but the language/tone is a bit smug and teenage-arrogant. As an LNAT marker, reading the first few lines I'm already gritting my teeth - not a great reaction to create. Many of your arguments are a bit presumptive, and your overall tone is dismissive of alternative viewpoints without actually convincingly arguing your own. You have not addressed the reality or impact of racism, or the arguments that rapid inward migration puts a strain on public services and infrastructure. You just seem to assume that an unrestricted influx of people will immediately be an answer to all of the receiving country's economic and social worries. What are the negatives of mass-migration? What would be the impact on the various sending counties? You just assume that its instant nirvana for everyone.
If you are going to tackle questions like this, the best way of doing is to simply examine why there are currently migration restrictions. Why do governments all over the world have rules about this? What are they trying to achieve? The question is asking you to consider both sides of the argument - open migration or stricter controls - you do not even touch on why controls might be justified.
I'd advise you to avoid any question like this - its one of those weasel questions that are an invitation to dig yourself into an enormous hole. Go for questions that have a more obvious 'two sides', and that you can outline quickly. Avoid making grandiose statements - keep to 'on one hand', 'on the other', 'one argument could be that', 'an alternative viewpoint is that' etc. And use shorter sentences. They have more impact.
If you want to have another go at this and send it to me via PM, I'll have another look, but I'm not going to get into long discussions.

Hi. Please can I send you an essay example?