What limits can be imposed on free movement?

The correct answer is focused on the concept that limits to free movement can be justified by the needs of public policy, security, or health concerns. This aligns with the principles found in various legal frameworks, such as those established by international treaties, national laws, and local regulations. Such restrictions are seen as legitimate when they are necessary to protect the welfare of the general public and maintain order.

For instance, a government may impose restrictions on the movement of individuals during times of public health crises, such as a pandemic, to prevent the spread of disease. Similarly, concerns related to national security might prompt authorities to restrict the movement of individuals from certain regions or backgrounds perceived as posing a risk. Public policy might also justify limitations intended to preserve social order or protect vulnerable populations.

Other options, while they could theoretically limit movement in some contexts, do not carry the same weight or recognition in legal contexts as justifiable reasons for restricting free movement. Restrictions based solely on economic status could lead to discrimination and social inequities, which are not considered valid under principles of equality. Cultural integration requirements and language proficiency barriers might be viewed as unjust or impractical, as they could unfairly disadvantage certain groups without a clear public interest justification. Hence, the most defensible and widely accepted