It should be no surprise that human behaviour has evolved a number of defensive strategies against intruders. The appearance of an intruder is discernible often from a great distance and is enhanced by pigmentation or other distinct attributes. Sophisticated image recognition neurology is present in humans who are able to recognise the “familiar” from the not familiar stranger.
Language is the supreme filter. Effectively it is complex (and extremely difficult to bypass) password. It gives more information that simply a binary “friend or foe”. It may well identify the stranger’s village or clan if not too distant and will distinguish the absolute stranger from afar with certainty.
Included in these behavioural strategies are various rituals for welcoming or frightening intruders. One is the Māori Haka. The reason for this defensiveness is that intruders will likely threaten to occupy, and hence dilute the “patrimony” of the existing inhabitants. In this context patrimony should be seen as the entire complex of the physical resources and attributes supplying the material needs of the occupants of the area. This can be distinguished from “culture” which is a compendium of behavioural patterns possessed by, and perpetuated by, the inhabitants of that region.
Patrimony is to be protected as it represents the “primary” wealth of the occupying group. As it is commonly defined patrimony refers to acquisition from an ancestral or parental hierarchy. However, ultimately those advantages of “wealth” which are available to be transmitted from forbearer to parent to child must, inevitably, arise from the area of inhabitation.
“Secondary” wealth is that derived from trade, and often has a multiplier effect if the primary wealth has a rarity value –either intrinsic or value added by the inhabitants. Examples might include manufacture of clothing, made from fibres (the primary wealth) originating in that patrimonage. Pillage represents tertiary wealth.
Data exists which appears to demonstrate that increasing the population in a given land area reduces the standard of living of all in that area (Beattie, Greg Clark).
The political arguments that immigrants will “accelerate the economy” are naive in the extreme. In fact, so distant from reality are they, that there is good reason to believe that this is a constructed fabrication, intended to benefit politicians or other groups in the immigrant receiving area. Overall, it cannot be doubted that increasing the population of any given area decreases the average standard of living of all.