Nativism is described by Wikipedia as:
1. “The political position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants”.
Alternatively it is also explained that:
2. “Nativism typically means opposition to immigration and support of efforts to lower the political or legal status of specific ethnic or cultural groups because the groups are considered hostile or alien to the natural culture, and assumptions that they cannot be assimilated.”
I believe these two closely related notions are incompatible with the following parable from the Gospel of Matthew
20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an
householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers
into his vineyard.
20:2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he
sent them into his vineyard.
20:3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing
idle in the marketplace, 20:4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the
vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their
20:5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did
20:6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others
standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day
idle? 20:7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith
unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that
shall ye receive.
20:8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his
steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from
the last unto the first.
20:9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they
received every man a penny.
20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have
received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
20:11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman
of the house, 20:12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and
thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and
heat of the day.
20:13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no
wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 20:14 Take that
thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto
20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is
thine eye evil, because I am good? 20:16 So the last shall be first,
and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
And so those who arrive first should not receive any more than those who arrive last, because they knew what they were getting and made their decision to move based on that, or were simply born there and made no choice at all, and therefore can have no merit, unless we accept the inheritance of merit, which is another discussion.
Here it is important to note that there is a distinction between inheritance of merit and heredity of merit. There is a certain advantage that comes from birth, but that advantage is not legal, nor political, but natural. Natural advantage cannot be overcome by laws of man. But again that is another can of worms.
But neither should they receive less, all else being equal.
The current set of rules for entry (if any) should be set by the Country based on current conditions, needs and merits, and not on historical privilege or lack thereof.
Fair rules, free of prejudice, lead to fair outcomes, for all.
Unfair rules, even if it be positive prejudice, lead to unfair outcomes, and sadly this is usually for the vast majority of the population…
Of course all this aside, it is hard to see how 1 and 2 can be upheld at the same time (since after 2 or 3 generations, all different categories are equally native, and the problems of prejudice no longer hinge on nativism proper, but on culture), and it is hard to see how one can uphold one principle and then reject the other. The only logical combination to me seems to be to reject both 1 and 2.