> the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people
The era of strongest wage growth and increase in living standards coincided with the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965 immigration act, resuming immigration. In that interval net migration was roughly zero. It's tough to argue the USA was badly suffering for want of more foreigners in that time.
Can you think of any other events in that time period that might have had some effects on the economy? It's not exactly an experiment with a control...
> I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in nations and rooted associations and loyalties.
I suppose it's a bit harsh, but IMO that kind of thinking is what breeds mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become. My loyalty is to my family, my friends, of whatever nationality they happen to be, and after that it gets a bit vague. I'm lucky to have been born in the US, certainly, but it's one country of many, with good things and bad things.
> mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become
A cohesive citizenry with a voice in policy leads to illegal spying? WTF?
Being from the US, with an Italian wife and a daughter born in Austria, and working with people from all over Europe and the US, yes, I suppose I am some kind of "open borders weirdo" in that I tend to see the value in other people as something inherent and not depending on where they happen to be born or what their passport says.
Granted, I don't think Lichtenstein should probably open its borders 100% to India tomorrow, but in general I don't believe there is a fixed amount of labor to go around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Immigrants have brought a lot of great things to the US and elsewhere. For that matter, the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people.