Radical liberal non-discrimination.

. . . [I]individuals of different racial background can be accepted in a society if they are seen as fitting in and if their numbers are not large. The criterion for the host society is: can this person join us without changing our collective identity? If so, the person may be accepted. But with modern liberalism and the mass immigration of conspicuously different races with conspicuously different cultures, that common sense, pre-liberal approach to things breaks down.

This is a key point and must be made over and over. The problem with liberals is their stunning simple-mindedness and lack of moral imagination: EITHER we admit into our society basically everyone in the world, OR we are as evil as Hitler. They can conceive no other possibilities. For a different possibility to exist, the society must be outside liberalism. Meaning that the ultimate guide comes not from a ruling idea of equality, which in principle can accept no exceptions to total non-discrimination, but from a non-liberal, experiential "feel" for what "our" culture is and what it can and cannot comfortably accommodate, as in the examples you gave.

Radical non-discrimination is current U.S. policy. And there is to be no modulation of that policy by considerations of rate or willingness to assimilate, or or problems uniquely caused by immigrants. The only goal for which we must strive is non-discrimination.

The summum bonum and the solum bonum are to draw no line.

"On the acceptance of nonwhites in pre-liberal Western society." By Lawrence Auster, View from the Right, 12/18/07 (emphasis added).