I think, before that question, there are at least two others:

1/ Who is/are this “we” of which you speak? and
2/ Who, within that “we” gets to decide?

Come to think of it, perhaps an even more preliminary question would be:

Can a nation be ‘built?’

The interesting thing is that in the Dutch multi-party system several parties may have 1 or 2 reactionary points of view, but it’s always embedded in a liberal umbrella. For instance, even the most conservative protestant party (the SGP) has since 1996 allowed women to become member of the party.

I was born and raised in England and came here in the 1990s. I am now a Citizen.

With all of its problems and troubles, the USA is still the preeminent nation on this planet. This is the country that more people want to get to than anywhere else. The way things are going, however, this may not be the case for long. We have abandoned the values that bought about greatness, and have embraced a curious mixture of Corporatism, Liberalism and Marxism, and that, I fear, will collectively bring us down.

So I support target immigration of the best and brightest. I also support territorial sovereignty and giving the Border Protection folks the tools and funding that they need to do their job.

The key question here, is: “What kind of nation are we trying to build?”

I of course, have good reason to want to preserve at least some land for the ethnically Occident, whatever land can be salvaged from this balkanized mess known as the ‘West’, but have no desire for the continuation of Liberalism. The very fact that the voices of those mentioned above are needles in a haystack tells you all you need to know about the suicide pill nature of Liberal values.

Relevant when discussing ethnicity was Codreanu’s conception of ‘superseding rights’, and while I don’t like the concept of ‘rights’ at all very much, it was rather genius:

“There are three distinct entities:

1. The individual.
2. The present national collectivity, that is, the totality of all the individuals of the same nation,
living in a state at a given moment.
3. The nation, that historical entity whose life extends over centuries, its roots embedded deep in the
mists of time, and with an infinite future.”

As is obvious, the first entity must subordinate its rights to the second, everyone cannot simply do as they please, they must obey the state’s laws, and especially must fight if conscripting them would benefit the national collectivity and people as a whole. However, if we say that a national collectivity today might benefit tremendously in the economic sphere from importing millions of cheap migrant workers, this second entity is found subordinate to the third, and that is the past and future nation. This is where ethnicity matters. To import such people, for whatever financial prosperity it may accrue, will doom the nation to eventual demographic oblivion in many circumstances, and as soon as that happens, the legacy of those who built the nation, who now lie sleeping in the soil unable to defend what they built, is erased from history altogether. The case for immigration is made even weaker when it is only to the benefit of some particular businessman or company, and not even the national collectivity as a whole.

This is the greatest crime of modern mass migration. Not the death of Liberalism, which would be a Godsend. Not the practical problems regarding net gain/loss economically. Not the fate of petty politicians and their electoral chances. But crimes against the historical nation, the complete erasure of a people from the earth, all because of a few lousy generations with no will to fulfill their Traditional duty.