The Real Question Is: Egalitarianism or Selectivism?
Championing an immigration policy that takes account of group demographic characteristics makes me guilty of empirical thinking. Does it also make me guilty of collectivist thinking? If so, then anyone who advocates age of consent laws is guilty, too. So is anyone who grants even the potential for a legitimate war waged by one nation against another.
Immigration policy is a branch of foreign policy. It pertains to a nation's relationship to other nations, which are collective entities. It's not feasible to judge every person in the world individually. No one self-identifies as a future rapist on immigration forms. But the immigrant populations responsible for disproportionate quantities of rapes are identifiable.
Western civilization is being raped, is being replaced, is committing cultural suicide in the name of egalitarian non-judgmentalism. If we know that people from Muslim country X are consistently more prone to be rapists, terrorists and moochers than people from Free country Y, then is an “individualist” morally obligated to act as though the two populations are equal?
If so, then “individualism” serves as a Trojan Horse for egalitarianism – which prescribes a single collective value judgment to be heaped upon all humanity.
Those who recognize individual differences and act accordingly – but pretend not to notice patterns of differences among groups of individuals – are operating on the premise that trees exist but forests don’t. A well-functioning mind not only processes the particulars it perceives; it also categorizes them. It forms concepts of types of trees, cars, dogs…and humans. A rational individual judges based on his values. I value liberty and judge individual and group threats to it negatively.
I seek to prevent my country from being overrun by tribalistic aggressors, through a selective immigration policy that takes probabilities into account. If that’s collectivism, then so be it. Only a farcical form of individualism would require individuals who value their freedoms to stand idly by and allow themselves to be slowly conquered by leftist-aiding Islamists, who state explicitly that their aim is undermine and destroy Western freedoms through demographic conquest.
If individuals inhabiting a geographical area can justly form a government for the purpose of securing their individual liberties, then there is no such thing as an open-ended “individual right” of foreigners to become citizens at will, irrespective of the consequences they impose on the liberties of the inhabitants. Rather, it is the job of government to discriminate among all residency seekers – on any individual or group basis that is relevant to the objective of ensuring that immigration inflows don't cause a net erosion of liberties.