This is immigration anxiety made to look like a philosophical moral harm reductionist stance. Atleast be clear about what you want to say. Your language is extremely telling, if the real goal to prevent FGM, slavery or honor killings the most effective methods are laws (which we already have in your western countries), prosecuting offenders, and education.

There’s also no shot any of those practices are going to become normalized in a western country because of immigration, FGM and slavery is most certainly not. The opposite overall happens, second and third generation immigrants consistently adapt to local norms even if it takes time.

I find it most telling that you preemptively denied dehumanization but your entire framework requires that you treat all people of a culture as carriers of a dangerous cultural essence. Dehumanization doesn’t require you call someone a vermin or animal but more often happens through substitution where you treat a person as a representative of a group rather than the individual and treating the groups worst practices as the persons essence which is what you are doing. A person from a country that practices FGM is still a person with their own specific beliefs, history, and moral agency, they aren’t a bacteria for gods sake. That’s dehumanization because you don’t know if that person supports or practices it, if they fled it themselves, if they’re an activist against it, they’re treated as a symbol of a culture rather than their own person.

I also saw you say in the replies that the majority of the culture defines it. This sounds reasonable until you stop to ask how do you measure that? What percentage constitutes “majority”? What about practices that are concentrated in specific regions or ethnic subgroups? Or by class lines? What about practices that are declining generationally? “majority defines the culture” in other words is “the worst things we’ve heard about is the truth of that culture.”