I think they are asking “SHOULD states have a right to regulate immigration?” which is a much more complicated question to answer.
This question seems to be posed in a moral context, specifically reference humanitarian disasters. You are coming at it from a legal aspect, which can be entirely disconnected from morality.
The question seems akin to a question like “If the villages in the area are being pillaged and the villagers need refuge, does the king have a right to keep his castle closed to villagers who didn’t work his fields just because he owns the castle.” or “Was it morally acceptable for Noah to not take any people other than his family onto the arc”.
I could be reading it entirely wrong, though.
It’d be my personal assistant. I’d ask it to do in-depth analysis of claims I run across as well as doing logic analysis on those claims. I would certainly hope it doesn’t have emotions, 'cuz doing 24/7 political investigation would not be good for anything, mentally.
Anytime you enter a product into mass-production, you have to make compromises on the form - and the function in marginal ways - of your design. some shapes cannot be machined by CNC systems, parts can get stuck in molds if you design overhangs in them, etc. There are always a collection of limitations for any given manufacturing method.
This is a big reason why design flaws pop up on various products. worked great in the prototype, but tweaks ended up less effective to work on a factory line.
You can even get forced into certain manufacturing methods due to your design needing to meet certain requirements for its function (being affordable, having to withstand extreme stress or temperature, etc.)
A big reason for going with signal was that I could double-dip it as my default SMS app as I slowly got more people to use it. With the SMS going away, there’s not much reason for me to use it over other encrypted messaging apps. Kind of a bummer.