Some people believe that a country becomes more interesting and develops faster when its population includes a mixture of different nationalities and cultures. Do you agree or disagree? v.2

Whether or not cosmopolitan societies develop more rapidly and are in general more interesting has always been a matter of vigorous debates. Some people are in favour, whereas others tend to contradict them. I am inclined to concur with the former, which will be elaborated in this essay. To begin with, the phenomenon caused for the most part by immigration seems to be conducive to building stronger relationships between countries, which, beyond doubt, bolsters the economies of the countries and, in turn, leads to prosperity and higher living standards. For instance, immigrants graduated from overseas universities inevitably introduce some new approaches or knowledge, which apparently is beneficial for the countries admitting thereof. Furthermore, people of different cultures and religions appear to have numerous topics to discuss or traditions and rites to adopt. As opposed to, for example, sports events, discussing or narrating foreign traditions or lores might be far more intriguing or even thrilling. On the contrary, some people claim that outlook people of certain nations bear has proved to be rather incompatible with that of other people. This aspect can hardly be deemed interesting nor beneficial for the development of any kind. Another aspect might be that, at times, people tend to segregate into rather enclosed communities basing on nationality. Isolating from the rest of the nation such people do not contribute to the growth of the economies nor they might be considered interesting for the others. All in all, although different nations and cultures may be seemingly incompatible, I would claim that such benefits as a stronger bond between nations and novelty which such people may bring outweigh it.