I am proud of being Canadian but until fairly recently, around about 1500 or 1600 the world was based on a feudal or king, duke, royalty, one man or woman system to look after. Only recently have people been united by a nation-state, and in some places in Africa, and Asia, and even in Europe, this nation state just doesn't work. Brings too much conflict, hostility, and racism against people within and without the nations borders. And the central government will have to have a wide section of people to take care of and try to gain their support.
So wouldn't it be simplier to take care of yourself, your family and maybe extended relatives?
In the ideal nation-state, the population consists of the nation and only of the nation: the state not only houses it, but protects it and its national identity (i.e., they coincide exactly): every member of the nation is a permanent resident of the nation-state, and no member of the nation permanently resides outside it. There are no ideal nation-states, but examples of near ideal nation-states might include Japan and Iceland. This ideal has influenced almost all existing sovereign states, and they cannot be understood without reference to that model. It also explains how they are different from their predecessor states. Thus, the term nation-state is also used, imprecisely, for a state that attempts to promote a single national identity, often beginning with a single national language (e.g., France, Germany, and Italy). These nation-states did not always exist, and most of the present nation-states are located on territory that once belonged to other non-national states; for example, in the case of much of western Europe, the original state was the Carolingian Empire.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-...tion-states.3F (external - login to view)