People have a legitimate interest in the preservation of their distinctive cultural identity, their language, customs, habits, institutions, traditions etc. Opening the borders and welcoming massive numbers of immigrants – something that I favor – is supposedly incompatible with this interest. Relatively wealthy countries in particular risk being overrun by masses of poorer migrants, often from very different cultures. Opening borders or even relaxing immigration restrictions in such countries means cultural suicide.
There are some hidden assumptions behind his argument:
- There is a uniform culture of the host country.
- The culture of immigrants is fundamentally different from the culture of the host country.
- Immigrants will be numerous and permanent enough to make a difference.
- Immigrants will, on balance, influence the hosts more than vice versa. In other words, they will generally fail to assimilate and they will be hostile to the host culture.
- Cultural change, occurring independently or following intercultural contact, is a bad thing.
- Cultural change in the host country would not occur independently, i.e. without the physical presence of immigrants in the territory of the host culture, or will do so less rapidly or extensively (e.g. cultural change through other causes such as globalization and intercultural exchange).
- Because people have an interest in preserving their cultural identity – to the extent that this identity exists – they also have an absolute right to preserve it.
- The right to preserve a cultural identity supposes a right to exclusive control over a part of the surface of the earth.
- The right to preserve a cultural identity always trumps the right to free movement of immigrants.
I would argue that none of these assumptions is correct. More here.