Maybe he is defining Nation separate from State, like Tamils or Kurds are a Nation without a state.

Another good example is the Polish nation, which lost and regained it's state more than once.

It's easy to get confused because of how nation, state, and nation-state are often conflated. The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that. Language, culture, and other ancillary features are also all strongly heritable.

> The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth

No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language.

> and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that.

Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.

> No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language

Wrong.

> Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.

Right.

You had me at the etymology of nation (I cannot be a native of the US, because I wasn't born here, and that's what being native means). So treating nation different from state, got it. E.g. Navajo Nation is a thing, distinct from the US states that happen to be around it at a given time.

But then you lost me with language and culture being heritable (as opposed to strongly influenced by the people you grow up around, who of course are usually related to you).

Your comments seem to be objecting to the term "Nation" (which comes across as a pedantic nit-pick), as well as a nativist argument around heritable traits (which sounds vaguely racist, but dressed up in fancy language).