Statement–Argument — Should all refugees who enter a country without authorisation be forced to return to their homeland? Arguments: I. Yes. They leave their colonies and occupy a lot of land. II. No. Many flee hunger or terror; on humanitarian grounds they should not be forced back.

Introduction / Context:
The policy question pits administrative strictness against humanitarian considerations. We assess which argument offers a substantial, ethically grounded reason.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Claims land occupation as the primary reason to expel.
• II: Notes life-and-limb risks (hunger, terror) and appeals to humanitarian treatment.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments should reference weighty, policy-relevant reasons. Humanitarian protection—especially for people fleeing danger—is a core public-interest rationale; a generic land-occupation claim is comparatively weak and does not engage protection needs.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I is weak: it provides a narrow resource-based objection without addressing protection obligations or due process.2) Argument II is strong: it identifies fundamental humanitarian concerns that directly bear on the treatment of refugees.3) Therefore, only II is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Admin control can coexist with humane treatment (screening, asylum procedures), reinforcing II’s policy salience.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/either/neither” understate the centrality of humanitarian grounds in such decisions.

Common Pitfalls:
Reducing the issue to land pressure while ignoring protection imperatives.

Final Answer:
If only argument II is strong.