Diversity is a corruption of Martin Luther King Jr's dream that he spoke about. He was a Baptist preacher and his words should be read and heard in the context of a Christian sermon. "God doesn't give a damn about your skin color!!!!!" is the message of, "I have a dream today; that someday we will not be judged by the color of our skin . . ."
Diversity DEMANDS that each person be evaluated based on the color of their skin. It is an insult to MLK and his message.
In the long run, such a policy will breed resentment and disunity. In my opinion.

"Diversity + Proximity = War." I don't have any problem with people from other backgrounds coming here if they are willing to change over culturally. But if they're not they shouldn't be here.

Are diversity or unity values that should be endorsed?

The left thinks (feels?) that diversity is in diversity of nationality, race, etc., not diversity of thoughts or opinions. Even diversity of thoughts is not necessarily a good thing; for many things, but certainly not all things, there is only one correct answer. For engineering solutions, there are often many correct answers, all of which satisfy basic requirements, and the best solution depends on what one values.

As for unity, I do want to be around others who think like I do, but am open to people who think differently. I am not open to those who do not think and especially not to those who feel, rather than think. Most of all, I do not want to be around those who "blank out".

I'm sure glad I receive Imprimis...lot's of excellent conservative points of view to consider.

My analogy is a "soup," where by all the ingredients are tossed into the "melting pot" but left in their cellophane (plastic) wrappers. Great recipe but there is no flavor added to the outcome. African American, Mexican American, Jewish American, Muslim American, whatever American, as long as they stay in their wrapper,, nothing is added, no benefit to the outcome. The "melting pot" has become tasteless....

Totaly agree!

Diversity is not some sort of ideal for a society.

The really important thing would be unity in terms of how the citizens treat each other in terms of their individual rights and nature of its citizens.

I think people gravitate towards those who they share something with- and the most important sharing is that they respect each other as human beings.

Loosely termed "culture", it leads people to group together by whatever characteristics seem to indicate membership in a desired culture.

Forcing people to "accept" people of another culture only leads to resentment. Since Obama, I have a distrinct preference to stay away from black people who have become "entitled" and think that they deserve some sort of reparations for some injustices hundreds of years ago that I had nothing to do with.

If there is going to be immigration, and I see nothing wrong with it in principle, it should involve people who have something to bring to the table and will add to our society. Also, it should involve people who share the same values as we do here in terms of how we respectfully interact with each other.

In practical terms, that eliminates (for me anyway) muslims who subscribe to the tenets of the koran, "entitled" people who just want to milk our compassion for their own gain, people who have no practical skills, most refugees from "sh^&hole" countries who are just escaping but dont really want to become Americans

I would also eliminate the citizenship by birth laws. Citizenship (and the ability to vote), IMHO, should be something that is earned by showing that you are a good citizen, and not available until adulthood (not sure wht age that is), and is something that can be lost after conviction from serious crimes (I think that felons cant vote now).

We dont need people to come to the USA now, like we did when the country was starting up. We need special people now who will help our country, not just occupy space and feed off it.

The liberals would call me all those names they have available to discredit ideas, but I have to say that I dont care about their labels.

Traditionally in this country, diversities "melted down" in a proverbial pot where we all, as "Americans," respect the same "We The People" Constitution and the same UNITED States of America flag.
On a lake dock my now deceased father, born in America as a full-blooded Swede, used to proudly fly the Swedish flag UNDER Old Glory. He didn't wave that yellow cross on blue around at protests to demand open borders and to speak Swedish.
Imagine how all the way to nada far this country would have gone without a common language.
The advantage of having a common language is one of the greatest lessons taught by the far-flung ancient Roman Empire.
Another unifier used to be knowledge of American history. If Jesse Watters approached me dino with a mic and asked whoi did we fight during World War Two, I without hesitation rattle off Japan, Germany and Italy that was altogether known as the Axis. Then as a bonus I'd mention that the Nazi puppet Vichy French Army shot at us while American forces landed in German-held Africa.
No, I cannot recall which North African country that was. I'm guessing its the one with Casablanca in it, having seen the movie with Frenchies running the place.
Me ain't perfect. but I cringed when Watters asked the same question of a college student and was asked with intoned uncertainty, "China?"

I think that "diversity" is part of the action plan of certain progressives: "Let's you and he fight."

They claim to be in favor of fairness and kindness for all, but they cast you as a person who is not.

If you want to know what the globalists are after, I suggest you read Jean Raspail's 1973 novel, "The Camp of the Saints".