Willravel

The strawman was in you suggesting that I didn't want a border. I am fine with a border. A border is simply how we know where we end and someone else begins. The point (or one of the points) is that it shouldn't be a 30' tall electrified fence with razor wire and trained police dogs. The people crossing he border are looking to find a better environment to live in, and I'd venture to say that a vast majority of them are more than willing to work extremely hard to earn that priveledge. Those that don't work do not earn the trust of others and are more likely to go back. I've seen it happen.

Speaking to your inclination: Why not allow the tests to earn visas or to become citizens specific to what their contribution can be? I'd love to teach Mexican people a trade or skill set of some kind. Schools in Mexico are usually pretty bad, only teaching a bare minimum if that.
There is a problem with that. Each tribe often had it's own heirarchial government with it's own laws. This means two things: there was no unified law in North America, and there is basically only a verbal record of laws preceeding the arrival of Europeans. We'd have to move to a case by case basis to deal with this issue. Luckely, I loved my cultural anthropology classes, espically those that delt with the Sioux. There were many Sioux tribes that lived in what is now the Midwest. Preceding the arrival of the Europeans, there were small wars between tribes on occasion over land. Generally, however, it was considered unnecessary to clash with other tribes. Most tribes can be considered hunter/gatherer, and many were nomadic (though not all, such as those that quarried stone). If two groups moved into the same area, their leadership would meet and discuss which would stay. Often, one tribe would stay, and the other would leave with some sort of compensation (in addition to trading). This could be considered to be a "law" in that it was general practice between each independant tribe state, and when it was broken it could result in war. Drawing on that, one could make the case that the Europeans, who removed the Natives by forced relocation, illegally stole the land that was legally occupied by the tribes.

Again, it's not cut and dry, but the case can be made.
Ah, but it's a hypothetical exercise no matter what because we can't remove european descendants. The original settlers were invaders that illegally removed the Natives from their land, so hypothetically the Natives would have been within their right, had they the means, to resist and even remove the Europeans from their home.
Okay, I'll address that. That issue is atually with overpopulation, not immigration. Our towns are already growing into cities. Our cities are already growin into metropolises. The population of our country has grown by 150 million (100%) since 1950. And those are all legal residents. The immigrints are a drop in the bucket.
Not all viewpoints are valid, but anyone who's dealt with team building can see how well diversity can bring the best option to the forefront. I have 4 teams under me and I've found that while like people tend to group on their own, they do better if you step in and diversify. I try to group workers from different cultures and backgrounds together, and I see real world results consistantly. Why can't that work on a larger scale?

You keep citing the usage of resources, but you neglect to mention that we use the resources that they bring. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I see the positive result of immigrint work every day. When I go to the market to pick fruit, when I smell a freshly cut lawn, when I eat basically anywhere out, etc., etc. I worked with Mexican immigrints at a landscaping company, and whitnessed that the 'lazy mexican' cliche is only true on break. They worked harder than anyone I've ever seen. I wish I could hire them at my current company.

BTW, I'm white as snow. While this really doesn't seem to effect me, I just feel very strongly about this.