Ask Lemmygrad

There's two approaches, you can try to slowly break down to them why those things are fallacies, or you can skip to the point and say that they're being manipulated by the rich to hate people who do no material harm to them, when we should be unified against the ruling class who create the scarcity they're reacting to in the first place.

Since the former is hard and the latter is easy, I'll just contribute some ideas for the former here:

1. You're not putting your culture last by skipping pork in the cafeteria. I don't know what country you're in, but generally speaking, meat consumption in modern society is incredibly high compared to any point in history. There is no culture on earth older than 100 years that valued eating pork every day for lunch except for very wealthy people. The amount of labor, land, and animal exploitation necessary to make an average person's diet consist of so much meat consumption just wasn't really a possibility until the 20th century in specific parts of the global north. On an individual health level, you could honestly benefit from taking the opportunity to change your diet too.
2. Letting girls wear religious vestments doesn't allow their families to abuse them any more or less. For starters, Westerners generally have an erroneous view that no Muslim woman wants to wear any kind of Hijab. That's simply false; they aren't just religious attire, they're also fashionable items of clothing that are just as much of a means of self expression as a dress or piece of jewellery. But even in the case of girls who don't consent to wearing their hijabs and are forced to do it by their families, why should one expect that the family (hell even the girl herself) would suddenly be fine with the state stepping in to force a different kind of dress code? You're going to cause more friction this way.
3. There also is a phenomenon where Westerners understand immigration, and benefits for immigrants backwards. Especially in countries with falling birth rates, immigration helps bring in more workers who can strengthen an economy^[Note that this is a liberal argument; it fundamentally relies on the assumption that the "economy" is something that a) exists neutrally for all its participants i.e. it can improve for all people simultaneously, regardless of their relation to the means of production b) stands to actually employ labor and use an expansion of labor to benefit all members of society. But the flaws in the argument actually work in favor of a full, socialist answer: these assumptions which aren't true in the present capitalist society, which seeks to disposses, racialize, and exploit immigrants as a reserve army of labor can be made true by taking the power to keep immigrant workers down out the hands of capitalists; the issues can also be remedied with social democratic programs that give benefits to immigrants because it gives them a better position to bargain from, instead of having absolutely nothing and thus bringing wages down for everyone. The TLDR of this is that the native citizens who are workers should support giving immigrants benefits, because immigrants who don't get any benefits will serve as the reserve army of labor and make it harder for all workers to get higher wages.], making it more productive, and in many cases bringing in talented people that will be productive and make life better for subsequent generations. Too often liberals paint immigration as something that should be virtuously accepted, like it's a self-sacrifice to take in more workers. If anything, this is backwards; the self-interested thing for capitalists to do is to take in more immigrants and exploit them more, while for workers it benefits us all if immigrants are entitled to living wages, security, and the same rights as everyone else. Ideally, these conditions would be available in all the world, but that's not the reality of imperialism.
4. Follow-up from the last one (and this is a useful thing to understand when talking with reactionaries and liberals regardless of the topic), but also taxes don't work that way. The government spending money on benefits for immigrants means more money is being created, which goes into the industries providing the benefits e.g. healthcare, agriculture, etc. This economic activity is just generally good and necessary for a capitalist economy. Without giving people benefits, capitalist economies spiral into deflation because capitalists find ways to produce more stuff while paying workers less to produce it, which means workers can't buy as much stuff, but capitalists are in deeper debt (having invested more to produce stuff with less labor input) and end up crashing the market. If you're talking with someone conservative who reads a little (rare but possible), the standard counterargument to this Keynesian/MMT thesis is that government driven economic growth in capitalism also isn't a sustainable model because, when it was implemented in many countries following the Great Depression, it eventually led to stagflation in the 1960s which only recovered in the neoliberal era. I think the simple counter-counterargument here is that neoliberalism only delayed a problem that capitalism inevitably will be consumed by, no matter what brand, and that it's extremely contradictory for workers to support neoliberalism as a means of extending capitalism's lifespan. These contradictions can only be resolved with socialism.