Question

As the threat of global terrorism becomes an increasing concern, the movement of people becomes the subject of public policy debate.

Why might some individuals concerned about global terrorism advocate the free movement of people and relatively open immigration policy? This response should be 2–3 sentences in length.
Why might some individuals concerned about global terrorism advocate limits on the movement of people and relatively restricted immigration policy? This response should be 2–3 sentences in length.
In 1–2 sentences, explain which of these positions do you find more persuasive, and why.
(4 points)

Answer 1

rewrite it missing a few details

Answer 2

Good boy~

Answer 3

Some individuals concerned about global terrorism might advocate for the free movement of people and open immigration policies as a means to promote cultural exchange, economic growth, and social cohesion, arguing that allowing diverse populations to interact can help counteract radicalization and foster understanding. They may also believe that open policies can strengthen national security by allowing for better cooperation with international partners and improving intelligence sharing.

Conversely, others may argue for limits on movement and restricted immigration policies as a way to enhance security, fearing that unchecked immigration could facilitate the entry of individuals who might pose a terrorist threat. They may believe that stricter controls are essential to protect citizens and maintain national integrity in an era of heightened global risks.

I find the position advocating for limited movement and restricted immigration more persuasive because the potential risks posed by unregulated entry into a country can undermine public safety and national security, making it necessary to implement measures that prioritize the protection of citizens.

Answer 4

Some individuals concerned about global terrorism might advocate for the free movement of people and open immigration policies to promote cultural exchange and economic growth. They may believe that allowing diverse populations to interact can help counteract radicalization.

Conversely, others may argue for limits on movement and restricted immigration policies to enhance security, worrying that unchecked immigration could allow individuals who pose a terrorist threat to enter. They may view stricter controls as essential for protecting citizens.

I find the argument for restricted immigration more persuasive, as the risks associated with unregulated entry can undermine public safety and necessitate measures prioritizing citizen protection.

Answer 5

Thank you! If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask!