Q.Examine arguments for/against freedom of movement/occupation for citizens. Should long-term inhabitants get job preference? Should states fix admission quotas for non-state students?

'Full and equal membership' sounds simple, but working out what it actually means in practice raises real questions. A useful way in is the insider/outsider pattern: people fighting to get onto a crowded bus or train, once inside, often develop a shared interest in keeping others out — and the same pattern shows up at the level of cities, regions, or a whole nation whenever jobs, land, water, or other resources are scarce (the 'Mumbai for Mumbaikars' slogan is a well-known Indian example). This raises the question of whether full and equal membership means every citizen — wherever they are from within the country — should be able to enjoy equal rights and opportunities wherever they choose to live, study, or work.

Freedom of movement is one of the rights citizens have in most democracies, and it matters especially to workers, since labour tends to migrate to wherever jobs exist (I.T. workers moving to cities like Bangalore, nurses from Kerala working across the country, construction workers following infrastructure projects). But this movement is often resisted by local populations — over jobs going to 'outsiders' at lower wages, demands to reserve jobs for people who belong to the state or speak the local language, and in the worst cases, organised violence against migrants. Society also tends to respond very differently to poor, unskilled migrants than to skilled ones — raising the genuine question of whether poor workers deserve the same right to live and work anywhere as skilled, educated workers already enjoy. …