The argument presented here is that the autonomy of a country is based on its strength of security through is borders and that immigrants, if left unchecked, would be a detriment to that country. The author arrives at this argument through several different assumptions; first the strength of a country is solely based on its borders; second, that immigrants are in some way a threat; and third, that immigrants in some fashion hurt the economy and national identity. There is no evidence provided to support any of these assumptions. Therefore, it is unlikely that we can accept this conclusion as it is presented now.
	The author makes the assumption that the strength of a country is solely based on its borders. While securing a countries borders are an important part of keeping a country safe, it is not the only way that a country is made strong and independent. Rather, the strength of a country is based on many different factors, chief among them being the strength of its economy. This typically through trade with other foreign countries, such as tech giants like China or Middle Eastern countries for the natural gases and textiles. Thus, the assumption that the strength of a country’s borders is the key determining factor to a country’s strength and autonomy is not completely supported. 
	The author believes that immigrants impose a threat to the country they come into. However, there is no evidence provided in the argument that states how immigrants are a threat and who in the country threaten. Is it simply a social stigma of being a new arrival in a new country or do they fear that immigrants bring with them the problems of their old one? There is no evidence provide that states immigrants are a threat or would cause bodily harm to others and as such, the assumption falls flat. The argument could benefit from evidence provided by immigrant deportation specialists or programs like “I.C.E.” stating that in some capacity, immigrants are harmful, truculent in some way, or have the potential to commit serious harm.  
	Additionally, the author assumes that immigrants hurt the economy and national identity. How exactly can that be true? Take for example, the USA. It is a country known fondly as the “Melting Pot” due to its long-standing reputation for its assimilation of immigrants. The USA is a country that has been built by immigrants who have not only become the backbone of the country but have helped it to flourish. The author states no information in which immigrants that come into the country pose a threat to its economy or to its national identity. In fact, many journals and newspapers tout the arrival of new peoples and admire bravery. Again, without any evidence to support the assumption that immigrants harm the national identity and economy, there is no weight to the author’s conclusion. 
	In summation, the author argues that the autonomy of a country is based on its strength of security through is borders and that immigrants, if left unrestricted, would be a detriment to that country. However, the assumptions that the strength of country is based on its borders, that immigrants are dangerous and that immigrants will cause harm to country’s economy and national identity are unfounded without any empirical data to back them up. Thus, we cannot accept the conclusion as it stands now.
