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

This is certainly a sensible topic and I'm afraid there's no easy answer as it's very dependant on context.

The criteria for rejecting or accepting certain immigrants will vary depending on the cultural and political relationship between the country where each immigrant comes from and the country they intend to relocate to.

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. To achieve this, it would require governments a sustained effort to educate its people in favor of diversity and apply policies that encourage freedom and protect civil liberties. However, this is a long and arduous process that history has shown sometimes may take several centuries.

In many cases, the tensions between different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds are so high at the present time, that there's no other way to ensure safety than limiting specific types of immigration in certain regions. 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!

2686-2181 bce-- "egyptian civilization developed along the nile river in large part because the river’s annual flooding ensured reliable, rich soil for growing crops."

1069-664 bce-- "ancient egyptians developed wide-reaching trade networks along the nile, in the red sea, and in the near east."