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!

zoom in on the bill of rights. the other side was just as divided: some antifederalists opposed the constitution only because it lacked a bill of rights, and others opposed it on other grounds and merely used the bill of rights as an excuse to campaign against it.

may i ask which amendments?