Maybe I should clarify as you missed what I was getting at a bit. It's less about every must be exactly the same as English culture and have no differences and more about not having something that comes directly in conflict with that. For example I know Muslims who obviously don't eat pork and don't particularly like others eating it, however they also realise that it is widely accepted in this country and so allow it. I would never demand Muslims must eat pork but by extension they must also realise that it is acceptable for others. That arrangement of mutual co-existence is fine. However if you have Muslim immigrants who then demand that other non-Muslims stop eating pork and that pork should be banned for everyone, this is ceased to be a point of difference and is now a point of conflict and imposition. Obviously the eating or non-eating of pork is a relatively trivial matter but that's more what I'm getting at, when people immigrate whose views are in direct conflict with what the general British / western views are. More extreme would be something like the demand for Sharia courts or using them in substitute of the actual legal system, that's no longer a point of bringing diversity and instead is a point of bringing conflict. That does nothing to enrich society. Again there is a reason I specified Chinese immigrants with those views. Chinese immigrants in general are no bad by default, however ones with those specific views actually are bad. Likewise Russians by default are not bad but those with those specific views are. This is more what I'm driving at, it's not the race or nationality of the person that really matters and judging by that is false. However there ARE groups out there with views that directly conflict with this country and who would very clearly not provide any benefit to the country, nor should we welcome such people in the name of diversity. Chinese are perfectly welcome, Chinese who desire us to be subservient to China? No. Russians are welcome, Russians who want to see the destruction of the west? No. The UK is apparently the hotbed of Islamic extremism in the west, that is in part due to things like online influence but is also in part due to people who came here with those extreme views and either acted on them themselves or instilled them in others. Hence my point is don't argue about a pointless technicality of whether the numbers are correct now or in 10 years, it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Instead an argument needs to be made about what contributes to a diverse society in a beneficial way and what doesn't. Diversity done right is good, diversity for the sheer hell of it isn't. It's like the position that a society that tolerates absolutely everything, including the most extreme views, will inevitably fall to those extreme views. Nationalism should not be used as a blanket denial of anyone who isn't a white Brit from participating in our society but diversity should not be used as a blanket denial of the fact that there are people in the world that actually will no offer anything to our society and we should not welcome. It just seems the debate has gone to the extremes, either everyone is terrible and we shouldn't let any non-whites in or any desire to control who comes in immediately makes you racist. There is a sensible middle ground that both sides seem to keep veering away from. It should also be noted that attempting to destroy the cultural identity of people who have moved here and are perfectly productive and integrated members of society is just as wrong.
