The concept of the modern nation state is probably the most significant political innovation in recent times. I say this not because the nation state is a recent invention; far from it to be quite frank. We can go back to classical antiquity and find plenty of aspects of nationalism and realized nation states in western society, stemming from the multiple poleis of the Greeks. While each Greek was loyal to his polis before all else, he also championed their own communal culture above all the rest and saw other poleis as only competing kin. The same is largely true of ancient Rome, where Cato the elder even went so far as to write an entire book on Italian racial and cultural supremacy to all other peoples called "Origines". Now only recovered in small citations, this book went into excruciating detail on the origins of each tribe that inhabited the Italian peninsula. The Greeks and Romans had much in common, including their disdain for outsiders, or as they called them with such disdain, "barbarians".
The point of this being is that both peoples bonded with their own, and believed their individual commonality of genetics, culture, language, land and religion was what set them above the rest – and they were right. These qualities are the same qualities that were defined by the German romanticist novels which inspired the first formally defined western nation state of the modern era: The Kingdom of Italy. What was so special about the Italian kingdom vs the rest, you might ask? Simple: The Kingdom of Italy was founded not for the reason of sheer political and territorial expansion, but as a utilitarian cause to unite a common people that had been divided for centuries by foreign monarchs from Spain, Austria-Hungary, and France. This was astounding and shattered perceptions of beaten down and occupied populations from all over Europe. Not only this, but said kingdom went on to humiliate one of the most powerful empires in Europe: The Ottoman Empire, costing the Turks several defeats and their province of Libya.
The point being and the lesson learned is that a genetically and culturally common and united people make for a strong and healthy state. The more your immigrants are of dissimilar backgrounds, both genetically and culturally, the more problems, destabilization and balkanization a country will suffer. The term "balkanization" literally stems from conflict left over as a result of the Turkish conversion of Albania to Islam that started in the 14th century and dragged on into the late 20th century in the Balkan peninsula, with violence only being postponed by Globalist NATO forces and the US leveling of Belgrade with aerial bombing.
Countries like America, New Zealand, Australia and Canada are an interesting case, because while their founding is based in immigration, the immigrants were nearly exclusively European Christians who assimilated to a dominating Anglo culture and language. This in of itself displays one of the few acceptable forms of immigration, as these people came from a similar genetic background and culture – enough so to the point to where they actually could assimilate wholeheartedly. With immigration from Non-European countries this is impossible. Let me give you some examples regarding the middle east: 25 percent of modern Egyptians support suicide bombings (1). 36% of Muslims believe 9/11 was partially or wholly justified (2). 62% of Palestinians support the use of suicide bombings (3). Do you see these people being true Americans that you can marry your daughters off to? If so, I hope you and she enjoy paying for 90% of middle eastern immigrants in the US, because only 10 percent pay income tax without receiving money from the government (4).
Modern immigration has reduced the average skill set of Americans (5). Mexicans, Blacks, Arabs, Chinese, these are not real Americans and never will be, because America was founded by and for whites. Thomas Jefferson even wrote a letter to the governor of Virginia advocating for the deportation of nonwhites specifically to prevent miscegenation (6). Not only this, but criminal offense in America has been proven to be easier to predict by race than the common scapegoat of poverty (7). By this, I'm not advocating that all people of X or Y race are criminals or terrorists, however simultaneously that doesn't not negate the reality that they don't have any place in the west. One should wish the best for a decent man of any race, but one should also stand up and defend the integrity and demography of their country, by rallying against the insanity that multiculturalism has dragged into the miracle that is western society. As far as I'm aware there is not one example in history of a truly multicultural society of multiple races, cultures and backgrounds living together in harmony and prosperity without conflict. Not one.