How "Enriched" Should We Be?

Angus Robertson trumpeted on TV the other night:

“This debate shames and demeans us all.  Anyone in this room or anyone watching this debate from Cornwall to Caithness who does not understand the positive contribution that people have made to this land who’ve come from the rest of Europe and the rest of the world and demonising these people is unacceptable.”

I’m sorry Mr Robertson, nobody you mention is demonising anybody.  All we seek is a reasonable and unemotional debate in which expressing contrary views is not immediately branded racist or “unacceptable.”

It seems to me remarkable that amongst those politicians who have enthusiastically championed immigration, none of them, apparently, foresaw that the flood of new arrivals might bring deeply held social and religious views as part of their baggage.  Presumably, they thought that new immigrants would immediately embrace the liberalism of Western democracy and loyally cast off their religious heritage?  Well, they didn’t and they aren’t.

So, my question to Robertson and his fellow apologists is this:  how “enriched” should we allow our country to be?  Economics are not everything and, for me, a small decrease in GDP growth would seem to be quite an acceptable price to pay to defend our British cultural heritage and liberal democracy.