Which principle aligns with the argument against restrictive residency requirements in the context of state benefits?

The principle of equal opportunity for all citizens is aligned with the argument against restrictive residency requirements in the context of state benefits because it emphasizes that individuals should not be discriminated against based on where they live when seeking access to state resources. This principle supports the idea that all citizens, regardless of residency, should have an equal chance to benefit from programs and services funded by the state, promoting inclusivity and fairness.

Restrictive residency requirements often create barriers for non-residents who may need essential services such as healthcare, education, or welfare benefits, undermining the notion that every citizen has the right to access these services equally. The principle of equal opportunity ensures that access is based on need rather than residency status, thus fostering a more equitable society.

Other principles, like limited access to necessary services, prioritization of state residents, and promotion of local employment may have their own relevance, but they do not fundamentally address the broader issue of fairness and equal opportunity that the argument against restrictive residency requirements is primarily concerned with.