He wants cultural identity and the very idea of nationalism completely obliterated. Is it such a crime to want your nation and cultural identity to survive?
Get it.
The only thing I can add ist, that there are people who come from a position of "imigration is good" because it actually increases intellectual proliferation (big word), if societies are roughly on the same level. In fact, thats what we were partly (not in those terms) told in school. (Mosaic (america), vs. Melting pot (europe) - meaning, that the americans were "more successfuly" as societies, because of it.).
The point they are making, even is "social darwinistic" in a sense, since some of them often seem to talk about, that the people who make it to another country - first (before you close your borders..
), are actually the strong and motivated ones.
If you need a mental bridge, americans owe heir moonlanding project (and many technological advances because of it (people collectively solving problems for a target for about a century)) largely to a few german scientists. ("Competition about the best minds" - never looked at people through a racial or cultural lense.)
Then, and this is a better point - imho: Cost of labor for pretty much our entire parents generation always declined. First baby boomers, then women in the workforce, then automation, ... There basically always were people "willing to take the job" - if it was offered. Companies very, very seldomly had to actually raise pay, or benefits, just to entice people to take jobs. It kind of always was a "if you dont want to - someone else will" kind of environment. This to them immensely keeps costs down (stagnation in wage growth (while the economy growths, mind you) for 20 years and counting). Now the demographic switch over will be in 10-15 years (when the babyboomers get older), and companies dont like that one bit - their entire cultures arent set up do deal with it, basically.
So - "big business" in its entirety was pro Merkel "temporarily" opening Germanys borders for immigrants - because they wanted "demand side competition". Now Germany not only did it because of that, but also because Italy essentially told them, we cant handle it anymore, if you dont do anything we'll just open our borders unilaterally (chaos) - and the thing that no one had in mind was that Merkel being "very welcoming" (just a tactic so you get people in your society to be a little more welcoming as well) kind of "backfired" in that it actually had a "draw" effect, because of online media. That then quickly became the story, and the whole thing stopped. (Via democratic means.) Now we have a push back in action, where entire societies actually started to lean more toward rightwing positions. I dont like it, others do.
In our country we have a homeland ministry for the first time ever, because of it. That is now into preserving old song books, or whatever they do over there as days become longer..
So what I want to say is, that there are all kinds of factors behind any single decision of that magnitude. Rich political benefactors play a role - but then the outcome is varied.
Its hard to align trajectories at the right time - is the main lesson here. (See brexit having caused people to actually question the European Union project again...
) And maybe, that the concept of "intelligent planning" on most things political, is slightly overblown. At least from my perspective.
Of course there is always the question of who is paying for laws, or building economic syndicates, but even those change and crumble throughout history.
(Coin Francis Fukuyamas "The end of history" quote/concept.
)