Globalism sounds nice in theory, but in practice I think it is largely detrimental. Clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work because human nature is naturally tribal like our ancestors from thousands of years ago. This won't be undone because of forced social policies. People like to stick with those similar to them in ethnicity, you can see this with ethnic enclaces in large cities. In addition to this, with the advent of AI, many of these economic migrants labor will become obsolete in addition to the original inhabitants competing with an increasing immigrant population for jobs to worsen this issue further. I am generally anti-immigration, but it varies widely depending on the nation. For instance, with countries in Europe, Asia and Africa I am an ardent nationalist.
Humans can be tribal about many things, race being one of them. It doesn't mean everyone is like that, or that such a thing is normative.

Ancient Egypt was a society which combined two ethnic peoples, one Semitic and one African, into one nation, under the idea of Egypt. Later, others like the Greeks became "Egyptians" despite their foreign ethnicity; they adopted the culture. Certain peoples like the Hyksos and Hebrews didn't integrate so well; they rejected the culture.

I think it only really becomes about race when when race is associated with culture, otherwise race is irrelevant. In fact, race is irrelevant, but some people choose to keep it relevant.

I believe countries in those continents should be able to protect their ethnic identity and culture that have been around for thousands of years. It just so happens that only Europe is losing both due to mass immigration from largely economic migrants and only a small amount which are actual refugees from Syria. I am fine with Europe receiving actual refugees from Syria, but they are merely a small fraction of actual migrants to Europe. The vast majority are economic migrants from Africa and the middle east. They are not fleeing war, but rather poverty.

When it comes to countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand then my immigration stance is a lot more lax and less nationalistic given that these are European colonies that were originally Native American in origin. Their current ethnicity and culture only spans hundreds of years. They are largely populated by a mixture of European ethnicities and cultures that have largely become a melting pot at least with the US. I think immigration should be controlled in these nations, but not to the same extent as Europe. As for racialist theories of whites being displaced, I would not go as far to say that all whites will become extinct and that nearly everyone in Western countries will be of mixed race in the future. This is ignoring that almost anything can happen in the distant future.

However, when you look at the trends, a white minority is inevitable in almost every Western country and this is likely to occur in the near future within our lifetimes and only worsen in the distant future beyond that. You can argue that this is good, bad or neutral, but whether it is happening or not is not really debatable as it is clear that this is the future of Western countries. The only exception to this rule is Eastern Europe where nationalism is prominent there and maybe some other nations like Italy with an elected nationalist government, which is not even certain to last or be effective at curbing economic migrants with EU's influence at the helm.
Yeah, the fact that whites are being mixed with other races is neutral. I am critical of the term "white genocide" used to refer to this phenomenon because it is not a genocide, there is no violence. The definition of genocide implies violence against a group.

I do think immigration in Europe has largely resulted in negative consequences, but I think this is due more to the unwillingness of many to integrate into the culture. It's not the immigration in itself that's bad, or the mixing of ethnicities, we just don't have that many high-quality immigrants in Europe because many from Africa and the middle east come here with the intent of bumming off welfare. Get rid of the social safety net and the low-quality immigration will dissapear. The problem with Europe is that economically we are on the downturn. I suspect the main reason for this is a change in people's philosophy; we no longer believe in or have optimism towards the future. Also, post-colonial guilt, which makes us feel bad on an existensial level. Post-WW2 pessimism.

If European society doesn't believe in itself or its future, how can immigrants do so? I've nothing against immigrants per se, but I agree that Europe needs to reclaim its vision of the future before we can succesfully welcome them in large numbers.

I'm pro-immigration in the absolute sense, but there are of course cases where immigrants should be declined entry by government, mainly when they pose a potential threat to that country's citizens. There needs to be background checks on immigrants obviously, and when it comes to Syrian refugees, their backgrounds cannot be checked by any EU country since the EU is enemies with the Syrian government. That's not to say all Syrians are bad; I have met some and that's far being the case; but you have to draw a line somewhere.

The other issue in Europe is radical Islam, and that obviously needs to be dealt with firmly, by governments, that is. We need to be able to speak out about it, mock this religion if we want (just like we can mock any other religion) without the threat of getting killed, and governments need to protect their citizens from radical Islamists even if it's not a popular thing for them to do. Events like the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, are pure acts of barbary and savagery, and we should have zero tolernace and zero excuses for it.

So I've spoken about alot of different topics here...but that goes to show how complex this issue is, and how simplistic Trump's partisan's make it out to be (though we agree on this).