Right , that ' s being reasonable , not simply being opposed to any foreigners or racist . If your view is that it can be reasonable to oppose certain influxes of foreigners , that ' s different than tendency to reject foreigners . But what I am saying is that in some cases it could be understandable to want to stop the influx by default . And I am not even talking about rejecting someone because of hisher culture , but instead settling next to you . We now for a fact that immigration from other cultures tend to present new challenges to the local communities . The most evident or maybe the one I have more information about are the educational challenges . You don ' t need to a see a movie with Michelle Pfeiffer , you can go to France and go talk to a teacher in la banlieu . This really isn ' t comparable , we know where foreigners are coming from and they aren ' t bringing in more advanced weaponry or illnesses we ' ve never been exposed to anymore . So in a way you are agreeing that there is a threshold . We just don ' t know where is it . Maybe you don ' t want someone from a violent tribe in Papua with all my respect to the warriors of Papua to be living next to you when the police station is several miles away , and nobody would blame you . Again the risk is there , and the incentives to take that risk are not there . It also requires effort to oppose themThis is a good point . The local people should look at all the pros and cons , and if resisting is more costly than embracing the change then they should let it go . But I am not convinced at all that this is the general situation in all those smaller regions that resist cultural change . Like Tibet ? But if you narrowed your view down to reasonably opposedI don ' t want to narrow it down to that , I intend to generalize it and say that in general in the cases of stable small population it seems reasonable to try to reject foreigners by default .