not all nations are strictly defined by their ethnic groups, and even then they weren't for all of history

NA isn't a nation

I said NA

because

the USA wasnt there yet

duh

Also they fought to change that minority status didnt they

to conquer the land for their people and their future generations

Do you mean the thirteen colonies <:BIGBRAIN:501101491428392991>

North America

if it happens naturally, then it is generally slow and of little consequence

welfare, on the other hand

provides an unnatural pull for immigration

The British had other land in NA that wasn't the 13th colonies

“Guys getting disinherited out of the nation you made is a bad thing. But for you white people nah it’s just payback!”

since the 1960's america has taken in over 60 million immigrants..

all immigration outside of Western/northern European immigration is bad

i think we're good for now.

for America

for awhile. a long while

inb4 "But what about the GDP?!"

none of yall argue on principle

just arbitrary results

it'd be nice if some of you showed a bit more backbone

what

What principle are you in contest with coothlic

Nationalism is a pretty good principle

yessir

The goal is to maintain the land for our future generations.

^

which you are strictly against, in favor of ethnic nationalism

Immigration in general is bad for any country unless the people immigrating have a skill or some other thing they can sell

recall, Ford is actually an unironic ethnosperg

A nation, by definition, includes the people

the people

ethnic nationalism bad <:npc:502497359419408384>

There is nothing wrong with wanting to maintain the current demographics of your country

are defined by many things

Not just abstract ideals on a geographical territory

@UnScottable it's not the makeup that matters, it's the rate of change that does

I'm for mass immigration, every year we should accept massive amount of immigrants, like 10 or maybe even 12