>so what is it?
So you admit you didn't bother to learn the other side's argument before arguing against it?
Ethno-Nationalists argue that, for example:
The Irish have a right to remain the demographic majority in their homeland. They have a right to have Irish culture as the dominant culture within Ireland, just as the Ugandans have a right to have Ugandan culture be the dominant one within it's borders.
^That's basically all the Ethno-Nationalist argument is. Ethno-Nationalists may disagree about how large a Demographic majority should be (e.g 90%) or what economic/social policies a nation should follow. But we agree that nations have a right to have ethnic majorities.
That argument stays the same regardless if the economy of the nation is good or bad. So for example, you might be able to make an argument that Poland could be economically better off if it was more open to immigration, and so become more multi-racial. We argue it's Poland's right to stay as ethnically homogeneous as they are, if they wish, regardless of the economic outcome.
We care more about culture than economics, and we recognize that culture is downstream from Ethnicity/Race.
Plenty of Western Economists argue that Japan should follow the mass-immigration, multicultural model. Japan so far refuses. Good for them.
If Japan became minority Japanese, then Japanese culture would no longer be the dominant one within Japan.
We actually want to celebrate and preserve the diversity of cultures in the world, not erase them by pushing peoples together. It's the Multiculturalists who destroy global diversity by making every place the same.
Economic good times come and go. But once you give your country away to foreigners, you can never get it back.
Majority European countries have tended to be more socially cohesive, socially harmonious when they were more ethnically & culturally homogeneous. E.g. Sweden.
