I disagree because a republic is a fundamentally different form of government than an absolute monarchy, in which the state's territory is actually the private property of an autocrat. As such, there simply is a completely different relationship between a republican state and its territory than the relationship between a private domicile and its owner. The entire point of a private home is as a retreat the public sphere; the territory of a republic is the public sphere.
It's the public sphere
for the members of the republic (i.e. the population part of said republic), not for the whole world, just like the home of a family is the shared space for the family and not the whole neighbourhood.
You DO need a visa to be allowed into a country (which represent the agreement of allowing you in), just like you need the acknowledgement of the members of the family to enter a home.
The analogy does seem to stand, here.
Do I even need to point out the absurdity of this position? The responsibility for fascism and racism falls squarely on fascists and racists, not on their opponents.
If people want to speak about something and you prevent the discussion, then yeah you're responsible if they end up turning toward the ones who actually do answer back. Just because it ends up in a situation you don't like doesn't make it absurd - that last point is really something that comes up a lot.
Saying that the anti-immigration position has been "appropriated by the far right" is roughly equivalent to saying "there is a legitimate Jewish question, but it has been appropriated by the Nazis". It is just completely at odds with what is happening in the real world. It is obvious that racism is the animating framework for anti-immigrant activism and theorizing. People like you who insist you are anti-immigration but not racist are a marginal and, to all appearances, entirely insignificant part of the real-world political coalition.
Also, I'm not ignoring your reasoning by accusing you of racism. I am saying I disagree with your reasoning because it looks fundamentally racist to me.
What is the 'point made?' My position is that it is essentially inherently racist, or at least ethnic-chauvinist, to "feel threatened" by demographic change, period. How is this conflating anything or misrepresenting your position that it is reasonable and not (necessarily?) racist or chauvinist to feel threatened by sufficiently fast demographic change? It is just simple disagreement. You may not like to hear me say that your ideas or arguments are racist, but it is what I honestly believe, it is not a dishonest tactic of any kind.
Both case are just strawmen through amalgams.
From your own wording here : you consider racist/ethno-chauvinist to feel threatened by demographic change/immigration.
Yet, the entire reason why words like "racism" and "ethno-chauvinism" are negative is because they mean that someone consider a person "less human" than another due to its ethnicity.
But then you're applying this negative connotation to "preserving one's culture", where the opposition of demographic change is not about the "worth" of other humans, but the fact they are "different".
So you conflate "not wanting to let people not from your heritage and culture in" with "considering people who don't have the same race inferior", and you act as if denouncing a moral failing in the second proposition, also denounce a moral failing in the first. Which it does not, because both aren't the same principle to begin with.
It's like attacking taxes by saying that stealing for one's own profit is bad.
The point is, you end up conflating "preserving one's culture and heritage" with "considering others subhuman". If that's not dishonest, then I don't know what is.
People can infer things without bringing them up by name. Lexi has already mentioned the historical connection of "family = nation" propaganda; you are being pedantic about wording to derail the conversation.
And it was explained to him that it's not because someone bad is using a concept, that the concept magically only belongs now to this bad person and anybody who uses also shares all the opinions of said bad person.
It should be especially obvious to people who spend their time defending communist-adjacent concepts that were also used by Stalin and Mao, and then routinely fight against the idiocy of others who start to act as if bringing up anything socialist implies automatically it'll also means gulags. Sounds familiar ?
