Miller’s difference with Huemer’s conclusion lies in the extent of the concept once allowed flourish. There is no limit to it as it is allowed to expand in regions like United States of America. The answer to the concept of immigration is not limited to the right of national self-determination that calls for the allowance to an individual for the choice of nation he/she wants to live in but it also relates to the prevention of that national culture from infiltration. It is important to understand that right to immigration doesn’t only effect the people attempts to choose a nation as their own rather it effects the people already living in that nation. These factors are essential to consider when it comes to the decision of national self-determination. The whole concept of nation gets undermine when it fails to protect to the citizen against foreign threat no matter what kind. Answer 02:Huemer refuted the argument to a great deal by the presentation of his argument about prejudice that prevails in societies against the others i.e. we are better than the others. He thinks that undermines the notion of equality. He argued that nations are different from clubs and putting that argument of clubs not allowing certain people to save its culture hardly applies to a country rich in resources. People tend to join others too and this is not as simple as in case of clubs. To let people from poor state suffer just because the people of other state doesn’t want to make them a part of them violates the basic notion of economy and equality. No one from a good state would allow the people of poor state to come into their states. So my social rights to interact and compete is denied because people belonging to that group doesn’t want me is not a good argument Answer 03: Yes, Miller did well in keeping himself separate from racists and fascists. He attempts to define the whole argument in context of difference being brought to the people already living in the area as well as the extent of effect it would bring if the nation’s sovereignty is undermine under the concept of immigration allowance to everyone. It is important to understand the effects on the people already living and to see whether their rights are violated under the notion or not. The security of their rights is equally important and essential for the government and undermining of those rights is as unjustified and morally incorrect as the inclusion of those people in the category. People attempting to save their culture might ask people with closer affiliation to come in their societies while denying the rest or any country asking the immigrants to try and integrate in the culture is not racism rather a mere attempt to secure their culture.