The degree to which classical liberal, individualist principles of Western societies are seen as (in)compatible with multiculturalism and minority rights is a key issue in diverse societies. Classical liberalism is grounded in individual justice principles, suggesting that individuals are responsible for their own fate and should be treated according to their personal characteristics, regardless of group membership. Multiculturalism, in turn, is grounded in collective justice principles, recognizing cultural differences and seeking greater equality between groups. The present research investigates how asymmetric group membership in dominant and subordinate groups shapes perceived compatibility between classical liberalism and multiculturalism. A correlational study (N = 141) first shows that cultural minorities perceive greater compatibility between the two justice principles compared to native majorities. A second (N = 202) and third (N = 164) experimental study involving the description of a fictitious society manipulated perspective-taking as a function of social status, cultural origin and numerical size of groups. The findings show that respondents taking the perspective of immigrant groups perceive greater compatibility between classical liberalism and multiculturalism as an abstract ideology compared to a native perspective, and that a low status perspective leads to greater compatibility between classical liberalism and multiculturalism as a concrete policy compared to a high status perspective. Overall, these studies suggest that membership in subordinate groups generally increases perceived compatibility between individual and collective forms of justice. Implications associated with growing civic integrationist policies in Europe are discussed.