Honestly, I don't see the issue here.
Imo there are standards out there against which one can measure individuals and cultures, and culture is formed not just by environment but by genetics.
Obviously, my list may be different than someone else's, but I think my list is better, more fair and more humane, but also practical.
Let's look at it in terms of individuals. Some individuals are more intelligent than others, some more athletic, some more talented in music or art. They are "superior" in some ways to other individuals and "inferior" in others, and if they're honest with themselves they know where they rank. I'm mentioning things which imo can be measured or tested because there are grey areas we still don't know how to test or are too subjective, like attractiveness.
I don't see anything inherently immoral in acknowledging any of this as an individual, and acknowledging that much of it is owed to genetics, at least as much as to individual application and effort, traits which also have a genetic base. It also keeps you humble and grateful. The only immorality arises if you treat others as less than you, do not treat them with the respect and concern they deserve as fellow human beings, because you possess certain traits which are superior to theirs.
The same applies to cultures. I have a definite set standards by which I judge whether a culture is "better" than another one, and so do committed leftists like Ailchu even if they won't admit it. I'm pretty sure if he were honest with himself and others he'd admit that a culture which doesn't abuse LG etc. people or people of a different "color" or "religion" is "superior" to those which do.
So do I for what it's worth. I have a whole series of standards. No culture meets all of those standards, and that includes both of mine. They are superior in some things, inferior in others or just middling.
That doesn't mean that I don't "prefer" certain cultures, prefer living in certain cultures, because I do. That's because of the weight I put on certain cultural traits, and not only because I was born and partly raised in one culture and have spent decades in my adopted culture. So, I accept the "flaws" in both my cultures, would wish to see them ameliorated, but the "good" far outweighs the "bad". I could never live in certain cultures even if they were "objectively" wealthy, granted human rights etc.
I'm a humanist and I judge all things by that standard, but I also understand what is necessary for a society to function as optimally and efficiently as possible. Those are the bedrock, and all judgments flow from that.
My standards and my preferences are my own and I'm entitled to them. When you deny me that right you're implicitly saying your standards, your "ideal" culture is superior to mine, whether you see that or acknowledge it or not, so it's total hypocrisy.
I repeat, however, I'm not entitled to treat people from another culture in an inhumane or even just disrespectful way.
Also, it's obvious that each human being from a certain culture is not going to be identical to every other human being from that culture and must be judged as an individual.
As for this open borders nonsense, whether its supporters recognize or admit it or not, the outcome would have to be planetary government. That's anathema.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power accumulates in government, and the bigger the government, the more people it controls, the more intense the control, the more oppression for everyone who lives within the sphere of that government.
Personal failings aside, Thomas Jefferson was correct: the least government is the best government; the least number of bureaucrats in your system, the better. They stifle creativity and ultimately will impose oppression; it's happened in every government in history. That's one of the many reasons I've always opposed the European Union. It's one of the reasons I have so much respect for the American founders; a federalist system, a republican democracy, is the best available option up to this point. We chip away the rights of the smaller members at our peril.
I absolutely do not believe that a country which has husbanded its resources relatively wisely, managed a relatively good living for most of its people, works toward providing certain human freedoms to its citizens is obliged to let every member of every failed state in the world into its borders to strain its resources and make worse the lives of its own citizens. A government has an obligation to its citizens.