>First, that is not a leftist argument
Yes it is. The Left = labor unions, and labor unions do not function unless immigration is controlled by the State. Illegal immigration acts as scabs toward working class jobs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker
That is because fundamentally, unions operate on the same economic principles that cartels and monopolies use. Unions only work when they can bargain for -everyone-, which is how cartels drive up prices for their goods too.
>hat is a right-wing argument that people have some kind of divine right to land. That's not how the world works and it never has
No I am afraid you are wrong. The basics of international politics, not even realist international politics, is that a country is 3 things: a government, land, and people. This is the basic definition, and the basic definition of nationalism since 1848 or so. It's not right wing or left wing, because nationalism supercedes petty political differences. Hell, socialism, fascism, and capitalism barely existed in the 1800s like that.
>You misunderstand hbomberguy (not that this guy should be listened to either, like all Youtube politicians they live in a bubble of retarded arguments).
I will admit that I haven't watched too much of him so I may not get his subtleties. From what I have seen, he is all too willing to jump to conclusions and Gish-gallop (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop go figure there's a term for Americans being retardedly disingenuous, enjoy) just like alt-righters.
>he is just showing the fallacy of the argument.
The problem is, the process of showing the fallacy just proves alt-righters right. If you say "lmao native Americans deserve all of the USA's territory because X" and X is the core of the alt-right's argument, you just proved them right.