The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration. That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America.
Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part. From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US.
If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.
We're going to have to differ on that.
> The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration.
But native Americans did not necessarily benefit from that larger economy, in fact, in a very measurable way did the opposite. Mostly because the immigrants were exactly that which the current ones are unjustly accused of (being murderous bastards).
The one thing the Native Americans weren't saying was 'these Europeans are here because of our jobs'.
> That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America.
But for a different reason than the one you keep harping on.
It grew because of their capital and consumption.
> Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part.
Less than you think or wish to believe, but since you're somewhat stuck on this I'll just let it go.
If you feel open minded I encourage you to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_...
And not to just cherry pick the bits that fit your narrative.
> From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US.
That they did. But - again - they are not the predominant factor. In fact the employers needed the immigrants (so immigrants needing other immigrants) mostly for 'dumb' labor (hence also the import of many slaves from Africa and indentured people from Europe).
> If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.
No, the US would look more like England, which in fact it does.
The Native Americans had an economy too.
> The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration.
Yes, because of the increase in demand for goods by those immigrants who brought their money/gold/silver if they had it but very little in terms of goods, and if they didn't have anything they immediately went to work in order to make ends meet.
Immigration is good for the economy, which is exactly the conclusion I want you to reach but from the increased demand point of view rather than from the myth that the majority of immigrants in the past were skilled labor (they were rather, on the whole immigrating because of a bleak outlook on their situation in their home countries due to religious persecution or outright poverty, the skilled craftsmen were making good money back where they lived and were much more free in their choices to emigrate or not and contributed only a very small number to the total stream of immigrants).