Are there any legitimate arguments against homogeneity?

Well, Japan seems to be progressing technology and science fine with basically no immigration. The internet facilitates information exchange incredibly well. Giving out some visas for foriegn scientists and businessmen isn't a hard thing to do.

But yeah, limited immigration is alright. It's really the scale of it that's the problem.

Mass immigration is wrong because it's non-selective, simple as that.

Why is mass immigration wrong? Shouldn't everyone have an equal chance for a good life?

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness"

I like Indian food but I'd be able to live without it. I get my music from the Internet and I don't care about art, if I did I don't see why we need immigration to put art in museums. I don't feel like the exchange of ideas and culture requires mass immigration to facilitate it. Tokyo, Soeul and Hong Kong are all global cities with enough diversity, different foods there are foriegn students, foriegn workers etc but none of them have the kind of huge minority populations we see in the west.

I mean it's nice to meet people from foriegn countries sometimes but I don't see how that means we have to have places like Tower Hamlets or Bradford which are 90%+ muslim/asian.

Well, that's all nice on pen and paper, but mass immigration just won't work. Imagine opening Oxbridge gates to anyone who wants to study there. Not all people have sufficient credentials to fit in a modern country such as this one. In the end the level will be dragged down and no one will be living in liberty nor happiness.

If everyone is capable of studying at oxbridge and is willing to pay the fees, or if it were to be free than to go on to pay suitable taxes, then I see nothing wrong with it.

But that's the point, not everyone is capable of studying at Oxbridge.

The level of selection most people speak of though is that we should cherry pick the best from other countries to come and join us, taking their medical professionals, their engineers, but shutting the door in the face of the shop-keepers and bricklayers.

Japan is not doing half as well as America is doing, they don't even have a tenth of the Nobel Prizes of America, so I would wager that America is doing better. Yea I agree the bigger the scale the poorer the prospects of integration, but small scale selective immigration has its benefits. Think of how many American nobel prize winners, scientists, entrepreneurs and engineers are essentially immigrants. What's wrong with bringing the best and the brightest people from the whole world to, essentially, work for you?

Btw:
According to the Japanese immigration centre,^[1] the number of foreign residents in Japan has steadily increased, and the number of foreign residents (excluding few illegal immigrants and short-term visitors such as foreign nationals staying less than 90 days in Japan)^[2] were more than 2.2 million people in 2017.^[1]

America has a larger population than Japan. And anyway, why does it matter where scientific advancements take place? As I said it wouldn't be hard to give out visas for scientists so they can work together. How many scientists do you know? They're a tiny handful of people. We don't need to import the 3rd world to make scientific progress.

No, shutting the door in the face of non-innovative workers that we don't need. What's the point of bringing bricklayers if they have no business or job vacancies in the country?

Because they, as a human being, shouldn't be denied the chance of working towards a good life for themselves.

I agree they shouldn't get benefits, and there should be systems in place for them to leave if they can't provide for themselves, but I'm strongly of the belief they should have the chance. We shouldn't just be stealing the best people from everywhere else.

I do agree that the areas dominated by immigrants can be bad, but that is due to our failings, not an inherent problem of multiculturalism. And you may not, but I'd wager that the majority of people appreciate the wider culture that comes from immigrants.

I'd be curious to see your response to my other post. I sense that no matter how reasonable, logical argument your position won't change.

Well, I'd love to study at MIT tomorrow, but unless I demonstrate my capability to do so, why the hell should they bother with me? I will be nothing but a burden on their society and will do nothing but bring their level down.

I said they should be given a chance, not a free ride to do whatever they want...

If someone can demonstrate the ability to put one brick on top of another, then IMO they should be able to come to this country and try and get a job as a brick layer. If they can show the aptitude to operate a till, they should be able to come and try and get a job as a shop keeper. They should have just as much right to be here as a doctor or engineer.

Only if they're needed, yes.

Whether or not they're needed.

Why!? How is it smart to bring 5,000,000 bricklayers from around the world when there are only 500 positions available? How is that going to work?

We don't need it, but why not? It will certainly improve our's, and the world's, status. We wouldn't have Apple if it wasn't for Steve Jobs, a Syrian. What's wrong with importing smart and bright people into the country?

Well for starters a lot more houses will need to be built