How exactly do you decide where one river bank of the Rio Grande ends and the other begins? Rivers can change over time. Do we use the old measurements of the river or the changed measurements? Serbia and Croatia have a border dispute over this question.
How exactly do you determine mine and not mine? Each country, province, and city have different laws on this that change based on new legislation. Some cases are so unclear that they even need caselaw to set legal precedents since the law isn't 100% clear 100% of the time.
You can join the religion. That doesn't mean you can join any nation or cross any border you want. The Bible even mentions nation in a similar way to family. You can have separate households for families and separate countries for nations. Neither contradict The Bible.
faithandheritage.com
It worked from 1790 to 1965.
People don't just drive to the border and hop over. They need jobs, public services, and welfare on the other side. We could get rid of virtually all illegal migrants right now if our leaders weren't corrupt. Eisenhower was able to deport 1 million illegals with "Operation Wetback". Require e-verify, restrict public services to citizens, beef up border security, make deportation an administrative matter like most countries do, and crack down on NGO's busing illegals here. The problem would be 99% solved in a matter of months.
White people tanning aren't considered nonwhite. Obama isn't considered white. You and I both know what white is. Police use racial descriptions to find suspects for a reason. With just a glance you can tell what race people are most of the time. America was a white ethnostate from 1790 to 1965. Rare, unclear cases of who was white wasn't a big challenge.
Black people weren't considered citizens until the 14th Amendment was passed (Illegally and at gunpoint). Dredd Scott explicitly denied both freed and enslaved blacks from being citizens:
en.wikipedia.org
I was wrong about the 1917 thing. It was 1924:
On June 2, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act, which marked the end of a long debate and struggle, at a federal level, over full birthright citizenship for American Indians.
constitutioncenter.org
Most countries aren't predominantly East Asian or White. So they're failing.
America is worse now than it was several decades ago. Our military is being harmed by political correctness and diversity. Our wages are stagnant as cost of living soars thanks in part to immigrants flooding the labor pool and driving up housing prices.
Look at California. Whites are now a minority there. It's becoming like a 3rd World country. Diseases are spreading. Police are very corrupt. Cost of living is soaring and the divide between rich and poor is massive. The entire country will look like California in the next couple of decades.
If Hart-Seller wasn't passed and we would still be predominantly white. We wouldn't have anywhere near as many problems as we do now thanks to "diversity".
The concept of an Italian ethnic group predated the state of Italy by decades. They didn't evolve into Italians. They evolved from Latins to Italians.
Ok.
The Welsh, English, Scottish, etc. already have a large degree of autonomy within their own nations. Plus they're not as different from each other as the average white person is from the average black person. So it's possible that they could stay within the UK. Scotland may seek independence again though.
In addition, approximately
every nation that doesn't act like the Sentinalese have accepted immigrants. You talk about your ideas like they are common wisdom, but in fact they directly break with the tradition of the past 2000+ years.
Classical Liberalism wasn't explicitly against Nationalism. The Founding Fathers were Nationalists. The addition of Civic Nationalism to the official Classical Liberal canon occurred in the Mid 1900's. The Classical Liberals of Enlightenment weren't like the Neoliberals today. They lived in an era where women weren't given equal rights, homosexuality was criminalized, and pornography was illegal. Neoliberals today would unanimously and fervently defend all of those ideas. But Classical Liberals didn't. Modern day "Classical Liberals" are best described as "Neoliberals" similar to how there is a distinction between oldschool "Classical Marxists" and SJW "neo-Marxists" of today.
Read my text above about California.
China has been supermajority Han Chinese throughout its history. Chinese who have lived in other countries are considered "Overseas Chinese". But a white American born and raised there is not considered Chinese. China also bans movies for featuring Asian-NonAsian relationships. China today and historically is an implicit ethnostate. Chinese identity is tied to Biological Nationalism. Terms like African-Chinese and Latino-Chinese make no sense unless the person is biracial.
India is very ethnically diverse, but not really all that racially diverse. But even with that amount of diversity there has been problems. There have been many ethnic conflicts and India has a highly federalized system that often times is hard to function. I could only imagine the nightmare of having Desi, Blacks, and Latinos thrown into India.
The Ottomans were Turks who conquered other ethnic groups and keep them in line with brutal force and bribery with slaves/treasure from conquests. They had ethnic problems from the beginning. But as the borders stayed stagnant and the Ottoman Empire declined these ethnic differences could no longer be suppressed. The Young Turks attempted a multicultural project called "neo-Ottomanism". Serb? Greek? Arab? Turk? It didn't matter - you could still be an Ottoman. It failed. People had no interest in this form of Civic Nationalism. The country suffered massive war and genocide until ethnic borders and mass ethnic migrations finally brought peace. I hope we don't have to suffer as much as they did to learn that multi-ethnic empires inevitably collapse.
Full Roman citizenship was restricted to Italians until the 3rd Century AD. Germans immigrating en masse to Italy was a big reason why Western Rome collapsed.
The English have been highly ethnically homogeneous until the 1960's unless you count the other nations they subjugated by force. England was mostly filled with English and smaller groups of other white nations. Massive demographic changes only started around the 1990's and continue to be a big problem to this day. The crime rate is skyrocketing. The black/brown occupied parts of London are as dangerous as the black/brown parts of the US. The UK will be at our current crime rate in a matter of decades due to diversity.
Babylon had massive ethnic problems that it had to solve with brutal force. I wouldn't use them as an example. They committed mass ethnic cleansing to stay in power. Then they were conquered thanks to a ethnic alliance of Greeks which failed to hold a multicultural empire together.
Nationalism isn't about being the Sentinalese. It's about defining your country based on blood and soil. You can have foreign diplomats, businesspeople, and even small settled minorities as long as a single nation is a supermajority in population and has most of the political power. That's how most stable countries are. The only exception are Empires which have to use bribery and force to keep the different nations in check. But once the grain (Or welfare) runs out and the Empire is no longer militarily strong then it breaks apart and descends into violence. America is a soft Empire that contains multiple nations within it. As whites soon become a minority and the economy falters we will Balkanize. I prefer peaceful separation. But too many Baby Boomers still think this country is still that supermajority white country they grew up with. Too many people live in predominantly white neighborhoods. They're delusional, but with demographics changing they won't stay that way for long. With the economy declining they won't continue to be comfortable. TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK - BOOM.
tvtropes.org
voxday.blogspot.com
