fitzpratik wrote:
Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who have been refused asylum by other countries to become full-fledged citizens of Country M. So, All people will get asylum who have been refused one in other countries The result will clearly be a large surge in immigration applications, which, after a few years, will force Country M to institute quotas, granting entry only to a fixed percentage of total applicants from each country, based on the level of previous immigration from that country.
If the hypothetical quotas of Country M were to be imposed in 6 months, and a citizen of Country J wanted to minimize the impact of these immigration quotas on the attempts of his fellow countrymen to emigrate to Country M, which of the following would be the most effective action for him to take?
So take away points,
Scenario now: All can apply and get asylum
Scenario after few years: Only fixed quota of people will be allowed asylum in country M based on PREVIOUS immigrant number.
So, to minimize the impact of the quota system on the attempt of his countrymen to get asylum, a citizen of country J should do which of the following?
A. Agree with other citizens of Country J to cut back voluntarily on emigration. Does not help, question stem wants to talk about immigration into M, not cutting back on it - Goes out of window
B. Seek a new agreement with the government of Country M to allow any citizen of Country J asylum. Outside the scope of the argument.
C. Attempt to alter the policies of Country J so that there will no longer be any need to seek asylum. The basic conclusion is that people in J WILL emigrate, altering policies of J is out of the scope of this argument
D. Convince his fellow countrymen who wish to emigrate to Country M to do so as soon as possible. This makes sense, for next 6 months - No quotas - apply one apply all - all get asylum - minimal impact on the citizen of J in emigration
E. Choose impressive citizens of Country J to immediately apply for asylum in Country M. The argument does not talk about any impressive citizen of country J
Okay let's say more number of people are going in.
After 9 months the country M can allow for lower maybe 2-3% of percentage of people from country Z.
At this point of time, is it not that the quota of the particular country J will be affected because of large number of influx now?
It shall not be an effective and minimizing quota problem right?
Are we
assuming more people means more % quota allowed?If yes then how?
I am not able to understand this point.
Regards,
Rishav
Posted from my mobile device