The fact that we sanction the residency and citizenship of, or perhaps, more specifically, the fact that we're to coexist with people who overtly want to claim American territory for another country (with that country being Mexico, more often than not), or who'd want to, for instance, murder the entire American white population, is without question one of the more logically baffling social mores we've appropriated as a result of the dominating liberal ethos, to the extent that any even remotely pragmatic outsider would be able to observe it as being such (just ask anyone from any other country outside of the West). We of course ideally rid ourselves of glorifying Mexican culture and anti-white sentiment (a la a suppression of white identity politics) entirely, but as of today, gradual cultural shifts and demographic trends aside, it's often overlooked that we quite literally have people living among us (who we also happen to be subsidizing, as a general rule) who espouse not only La-Raza Mexican "reconquest" narratives, but often times can be found advocating for the outright murder of whitey in our entirety. We've actually managed to reach a point where the former group, La-Raza, isn't even considered to be "fringe" these days, which is a salient testament to just how much power we've ceded to the 50+ million Hispanics (most of whom, of course, see no problem with La Raza-esque activism) that have entered the country since the (((Hart-Cellar Act))). To really drive this point home: THEY ARE LIVING IN OUR COUNTRY, THEY WANT TO TAKE AMERICAN LAND, THEY WANT TO KILL ALL WHITES, AND WE, WHITE TAXPAYERS, ARE PAYING FOR THEIR SUSTENANCE. The notion that these two polarities can exist within the same society for any extended period of time, let alone work in tangent to pursue "common interests" (when, really, there can be none) isn't compatible with any sane world-outlook, liberal or otherwise.
It's one of the fatal flaws in the liberal multiracial utopian proposition: There is no reason for huwhytes to accept multi-racialism in any capacity until huwhytes can be assured that no radical contingents of other races are intentionally attempting to make strides in quite literally eradicating them, or trying to take over their country (really, there's also no reason why they should accept this occurrence under the pretense that it's "inadvertent" either, but that tangent is invalidated by the premise of this thesis). There is even less reason for us to be complacent in our living among said radical contingents. Recognizing this impasse on a subconscious level, the solution is, from the liberal perspective, to reach a point where (ironically, for an ideology which prides itself in its individualist persuasions) a new "in-group" is composed of an amalgamation of people from utterly different backgrounds with entirely different visions for how society should operate, unified under the tenants of progressivist social theory. This is a non-solution, as individuals, and by extension, man, is forever inclined to impose his will upon the rest of society until he is in total control. People, groups, will always want to be the kings of their own castle, never content to share with others outside of their immediate in-groups (a la family, friends, ethnicity, race) what they don't have to (liberals being no exception to this rule, as the recent election has shown). And so it is more than safe to assume that the aforementioned liberal mixed-race conglomerate isn't going to, and can never come to fruition. Significant enough minorities (a la Mexicans, Blacks, Jews) have no interest in, and will never have an interest in settling for anything but total control (which they will ascertain at whatever speed their collective social capital and sheer demographic presence permits). All of this of course assuming that one acknowledges that different racial groups have their own unique cultural (and yes, genetic) backgrounds that they want to preserve and see grow, which it would be ludicrous not to.
Therein lies the fundamental (if unspoken of) reality of the proposition that is always going to be innately irreconcilable with white (or any host populations) interests: These radical contingents will always exist (as in, they cannot ever be entirely eliminated), and there's an overwhelming precedent for (what are initially) fringe-groups within ethnic/racial/political in-groups turning the unacceptable into the norm. Enabling multiracialism is effectively taking a massive and direct existential risk without there being any real reward at the end of the tunnel for the host population. The safety of my nation, my people, and my children take priority over my having access to a burrito of slightly higher quality than it otherwise would be in a white ethnostate. Ergo, a few bad apples does indeed, necessarily, spoil it for the rest of X non-Western group(s) living in the West who are of relevant size demographically.
There are already millions of such people living among us, and the number of non-white, racially charged radicals will only grow in size as the in-group tug-of-war for power swells in intensity, and as the racial nature of the social, political, and economic divide becomes ever more apparent to the layman. As per usual with the Left, there is no rhyme or reason to any of this, and discourse involving or alluding to physical division along practical, racial lines, is strictly forbidden by our minority overlords, who are unified only in their hatred for everything white.