If someone were to argue that he could eat as much as he wanted and whatever he wanted without any ill effects, you would naturally assume that he was either stupid, a liar or a late night TV pitchman for some sort of miracle wonder diet powder.
But that's exactly the argument made for immigration. A country is a living organism, social instead of biological, but still governed by the same basic rules that govern all life. And the most basic rule is that what you consume must be in proportion to your own size.
Someone who eats everything will quickly become bloated and corpulent. A country that takes in everyone who comes will also experience bloat in the form of an increasingly unmanageable population, sizable unemployment figures during an economic downturn as all the immigrant labor that came in the boom years turn into disgruntled and angry out of work ghetto residents (which is the sort of thing that has helped drive the Paris riots) and a corpulent bureaucracy as politicians strive to appease them with social programs.
Someone who gorges on foreign substances that are not compatible with his natural diet will become sick. A country that takes in people in large numbers who are not compatible with it will experience troubles and social illnesses. Sometimes those are worth it, but the cost has to be reckoned against the gain.
It's only logical then that for countries to treat immigration as an All You Can Eat buffet in which they can absorb all comers with no ill effects is neither realistic nor responsible. And when problems develop, the reasonable thing to do is to go on an immigration diet.
This doesn't mean that immigration should be an all or nothing proposition, just that it should be reasonably managed. Just as you wouldn't go into a restaurant and eat dinner and afterward dig through the dumpster out back for spoiled leftovers, immigration policy has to make sense. A selective immigration policy is not racist unless the selection itself is based on race. And a racial immigration policy would itself be foolish and irrational.
The first step is to reevaluate the premise of immigration itself, which for many Western countries means using immigration to import cheap labor. This might have made economic sense back when industry was booming and people were expected to make their own way. Today as Western industry continues to decline and outsource, bulking up on cheap labor is foolish and self-destructive, as the cost of cheap labor is usually borne by the taxpayers themselves in terms of social services expenditures.
Businesses may want cheap labor but it's the public that has to pay for it, this too is part of the high cost of low prices that has steadily exported Western jobs to the East and imported Southerners, North.
The second step is to look at immigration in terms of the larger national picture. The first purpose of immigration must be to preserve the host country, this is for the benefit of both natives and immigrants. Time and time again responsible immigrants have shown their agreement, because any reasonable person wants their host country to retain the things they immigrated there for in the first place.
Immigration that disintegrates a country is to no one's benefit, intentionally or unintentionally it becomes a parasitic infection that eats away at the country's vital parts.
Just as a diet must be for the health of the person, so too immigration must serve the greater good of maintaining the health of the nation. Therefore it cannot be the right of immigrants that holds primacy, but the sacred obligation to generations past and present, native and immigrant, to preserve the nation itself.
Thirdly, immigration must be viewed in terms of values. Obviously no two people will share the same carbon copy values, but there are general principles and standards that exist, even if they are only ones of mutual tolerance. When an immigrant culture, for example, flagrantly tolerates and even celebrates rape, whether it is the Sydney gang rapes , in the Jerusalem attacks or across Europe, from Germany to Sweden to France -- such immigrants are manifestly incompatible.
Cultures in which women or members of other religions are subhuman and fair game are clearly not acceptable immigration material. The ability to tolerate others is the lowest standard that can be expected from immigrants, it is the basis of democracy and any sort of country that mingles more than one culture together. It does not require acceptance, but it requires non-interference and non-violence.
To import cultures which cannot accept this is unacceptable. It is the equivalent of feeling hungry and downing rat poison. If on top of this that culture also believes it has a right to your country, then substitute a virulent infection for the poison that will set up shop in your vital organs.
Immigration must exist for the sake of the health and wellbeing of a country. Immigration that does not serve this purpose becomes a form of disintegration and throughout history civilizations have fallen through the gruesome form of cultural hara kiri known as the immigration disintegration.