Do you think it legitimate for countries to establish immigration quotes based on national origin or to classify certain potential immigrants as unacceptable or undesibale on the grounds that their national, racial, or religious origins are incompatible with the culture of the prospective host countrys? why or why not

Every nation should aspire to generate conditions of tolerance in which ethnic or racial differences don't represent a threat to the safety of their communities. However, this is a long and arduous process that involves many factors and may require several centuries in some cases.

Sometimes the tensions between different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds are so high at certain moments in history, that there's no other way to ensure safety than limiting specific types of immigration in regions that may will be hostile to them. That is why to me, it is legitimate for a country to take nationality, race and religion into account when deciding who they let in, as long as the government keeps moving towards tolerance in the long-run.

Hope this helps!

using the map image above, answer a, b, and c. a. briefly explain the historical context of this map image.b. briefly explain one economic or social development in the period 1607–1754 that could be used to explain what the cartographer (mapmaker) shows in the map image. c. briefly explain one social development in the period 1607–1754 that could be used to explain the distinctions shown in the map image.your responses: a.during this time period the colonies had recently been formed by the british. the colonies were grouped into three sections based on common beliefs, lively hood, and how they interacted. the new england colonies had passed the mayflower compact and they focused on trade, shipbuilding, and fishing. the middle colonies had purchased land from the native americans and dealt mostly with the export of wheat, banking, and shipping.

hope this