The Myth of Cultural Threat

Immigrants aren't the problem unless they destroy agency

A common argument against open immigration is the perceived threat immigrants pose to a nation's culture, stability, or safety. While such concerns can seem compelling, they often obscure a crucial distinction: cultural differences and demographic shifts are not inherently harmful unless they directly reduce net agency through coercion, violence, or systemic disruption.

Under our ethical framework, harm is explicitly defined as a reduction of agency, typically through coercion or imposed constraints. Mere aesthetic or emotional discomfort—such as preferences about cultural homogeneity or discomfort with new customs—is not harm. While cultural integration may challenge existing norms or practices, this is not equivalent to coercion or genuine harm.

Crime and violence are valid concerns, but immigration policies can address these selectively without blanket restrictions. Filtering mechanisms designed to prevent genuinely coercive actors—those who would commit violence or forcefully impose regressive norms—are ethically justified because they protect agency. Such filters are coherent with preserving voluntary interaction and agency maximization, unlike blanket restrictions rooted in cultural or demographic anxiety.

Concerns about illiberal or regressive values among immigrants also must meet the same ethical test: Do these values demonstrably reduce agency or merely conflict with aesthetic or cultural preferences? Only values directly promoting coercion or violence justify restrictive policies. Policies can, and ethically should, discriminate based on demonstrated coercive threats, not mere cultural difference or discomfort.

In sum, the cultural threat argument, when examined through the rigorous lens of agency and coercion, largely dissolves. Genuine harm arises from coercive behaviors, not cultural diversity or difference itself. Immigration policy should reflect this critical ethical distinction, selectively filtering for genuine threats to agency and liberty, rather than capitulating to unfounded cultural fears.