Nope, sorry, Jpod, still not getting it.
You say that “Maintaining ethnic balance is not fine. It is chillingly, horrifyingly not fine.”
OK, let’s take two nations — say Japan (pop. 127m GDP per capita $30,700) and Indonesia (245m, $3,700). Plainly, the lives of, say, 100m or so Indonesians would be improved if they were allowed to immigrate into Japan. Do you think this would be a good idea? Or would it be better for Japan to strive to maintain her current ethnic balance? Which policy, in your opinion, would be better for Japan? If I could put you on a plane to Japan and get you up in front of the Diet, what arguments (just outline them, please) would you make to the assembled deputies to persuade them to let those 100m Indonesians in? Or: What would you say to make them “horrified” and “chilled” by the idea of not letting them in?
You don’t of course, have to restrict the argument to Japan. Many other examples of present-day states that wish to maintain their ethnic balances will come to mind.
What, exactly, was the moral imperative on the United States to let Catholics and Chinese in in the 1850s and Jews in the late 1800s and early 1900s? If the American people did not wish to let in Catholics, Chinese, and Jews, was that a collective moral failing? Why?
I must be missing something.