NGCOBO J [122] It is true that the immigration laws already prohibit the immigration of those who are likely to become a burden to the state purse.20 But that fact in itself does not detract from the importance of the purpose advanced to defend the legislation at issue here. Nor does it detract from the clear relationship between the limitation and its purpose. It is important to bear in mind here that those who, after immigrating to this country, find themselves destitute and unable to provide for themselves are not completely left in the cold. They could be catered for through the extension of the definition of a citizen or through the waiver of the residence requirement for naturalisation. [123] So too is the fact that the elderly, physically challenged and children will not be encouraged to work because they are simply unable to work. As a matter of public policy, I cannot say that the impugned provisions are unreasonable simply because some immigrants who are unable to work will not be induced to work to provide for themselves. In the legislature’s view, immigrants might have to rely on their families or sponsors rather than on the state purse. The impugned provisions are reasonably related to that goal and there is a close relationship between the limitation and its purpose. 20 The permanent residence permit is now governed by sections 26 and 27 of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002. Both those sections authorise the issue of permits to foreigners who have “received an offer for permanent employment” or who are spouses or children under the age of 21, of such a foreigner. In addition, section 30 provides that a person who is “likely to become a public charge” may be declared an undesirable foreigner. 76