With the advent of cosmopolitanism during the last decades, it is quite difficult to determine placement of nationalism over liberalism and if there must be a dividing line between the two. The concept of cosmopolitanism both defy and yet at a closer perspective, strengthen these two ideals being that cosmopolitan is signified as a character that has adopted a mixture of cultures or is representative of various, and probably, all countries.
New York, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Los Angeles as well as London are basic examples of "cosmopolitanized" cities around the globe embracing an eclectic mix of people with various cultures and traditions in a seemingly harmonious way.
But this does not mean that there are no concerns being raised. In fact, elsewhere, discrimination still permeates even in highly cosmopolitan cities like New York where "cosmopolitan" lifestyle has been a trademark as against "other" cities. There exists a stark idiosyncrasy on perception of being a "cosmopolitan". Either one has embraced and integrated the word to one's own lifestyle or "tolerate" the existence of this culture, if it may be considered as such.
The United States, for one, in trying to protect and allow all the Constitutional privileges of its citizens, which at present vary in their "origin" or nationalities has its scholars and thinkers argue on which must come first: the individual which is associated with liberal rights, or the group which also exercises their rights to organize as provided for by their liberal rights.
Barry (2002) aptly argued in his "Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism" book that "What we might find out by experience ...