But okay, let's get specific then. Which country are you talking about and what views?
Also, we are not saying the same thing at all. I am making a claim, which is true and very very visible, that when you allow large scale migration the country being migrated to begins to resemble the country being migrated from. And this is unsurprising. How could it not? There is no magic passport stamp that updates someone’s views and attitudes upon entry. As a meta comment this whole debate is really fucking strange because my position is the nominal position throughout basically all of human history, and yours is an extreme version of the blank slate hypothesis. Strange to encounter, to say the least.
Just because there are differences in public attitudes between groups or nations does not mean you can look at one applicant and assume they personally believe whatever the average person in that culture believes.
Most immigrants are not a random sample of the country they come from, they may be educated, secular, religious minorities, political dissidents, LGBT themselves, liberal, etc.
If you're worried about a particular belief or ideology then make that the standard for the applying individual and do background checks, interviews, security screening, civic knowledge, etc, rather than a blanket country of origin ban.
It is inherently discriminatory to take group-level generalizations and turn them into blanket exclusions of individuals.
As for the "destination country becomes like the origin country", that is far too simplistic and reductive of a take. Selection effects, institutions, education, intermarriage, generational change, laws/culture of the host country, all matter in shaping behaviors of immigrants in society. Immigrants affect a society but the society also affects immigrants.