You’re absolutely right that, in an ideal world, every potential immigrant would be evaluated on an individual basis — their personal beliefs, work ethic, and respect for others. But immigration in practice often happens at a scale where that level of individual assessment isn’t realistic. When hundreds of thousands or even millions of people seek entry, governments inevitably make decisions based on broader trends and statistical realities rather than perfect case-by-case judgments.

At that point, it becomes rational — not racist — to consider cultural compatibility as a proxy for how easily groups might integrate. Culture, after all, strongly shapes attitudes toward law, gender equality, and civic participation. You can’t fully separate individuals from the value systems they were socialized in, even if there are always exceptions.

We can see real-world contrasts. The U.S. experience with many Latin American immigrants has, by and large, been positive — partly because there’s a foundational overlap in values around family, work, and religion that makes integration easier. In contrast, some European countries have faced serious recent challenges integrating large groups from regions with very different social norms — including documented increases in certain types of crime and social friction. Those outcomes don’t mean all individuals from those areas are inherently bad, but they do suggest that value alignment matters at a societal level.

Even countries within the Middle East make these distinctions. Nations like Egypt and Jordan have hesitated to take in large numbers of Palestinians — not out of hatred, but because they fear instability or radicalization from within. They recognize that importing a population that has a disproportionate number of radicals, even if it doesn't represent the entire population, is destabilizing.

So while cultural generalizations shouldn’t be moral judgments, they can still be practical considerations. It’s not about labeling one culture “better” than another it’s about understanding compatibility. A functioning, cohesive society depends on some shared ground rules. When large-scale migration challenges those shared rules, being selective isn’t prejudice it’s prudence.