Is Immigration destroying countries?

No, I don't believe there are any historical accounts of a land or country being utterly "destroyed" due to immigration. But from the additional comments following your question, it seems that what you are really asking is:

Does immigration sow strife, and/or alter the character of a nation or people to the extent that they lose the original qualities which made them good or valuable?

A valid question, since this might seem to be what has happened to more than one civilization in history.

It is also a highly charged, politically-themed question which we could endlessly debate. However, since Inward Quest is a "spirituality, reality creation, metaphysics, mind power, human consciousness" themed website...

Let's try to answer this from a metaphysical, Law-of-Attraction based perspective.

To do this, let's take an issue from past history which most people have heard of, and, to most, seems just so horrible and unfair:

The immigration of Europeans to America, and the subsequent displacement of the American Indians.

I will attempt to summarize what I believe is the prevailing modern sentiment about this historical situation:

The American Indians were a mostly peaceful people who were the rightful indigenous inhabitants of America. When Europeans arrived, they were welcomed with nothing but the best of intentions--with open arms by the natives. However, the Whites, in their cruelty and greed, began to steal and cheat the Indians out of their land. The Indians united in a pan-Indian alliance and attempted to resist...however, the vastly superior numbers and technology of the Whites was just too much for them. This conflict culminated in a massive holocaust in which the Indians were completely wiped out, deprived of their culture, and forced to live on pathetic reservations, where, due to White oppression, they live in eternal poverty and servitude.

Having a lifelong fascination with the American Indian, about ten years ago I began reading everything I could written by the Indians themselves, as well as firsthand accounts of the Indians by the early white colonists and explorers. What I found was a bit different than the summary I posted above. To wit:

The American Indians were a mostly peaceful people

The Indians were (and are) a highly diverse bunch. Many of the tribes first encountered by European settlers, such as the Iroquois, Narragansetts, Powhatans, etc., regularly fought each other in struggles for power and territory, and typically practiced ritual torture (to the death) of their captives. Although I will not go into further detail here, those who need evidence can read a Jesuit account here: http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/relations_05.html or, from a Indian's own account, the autobiography of Red Cloud here: http://books.google.com/books?id=PpE-zGJZmk8C&q=103#v=onepage&q=scalped%20alive&f=false

There also existed vast Indian Empires such as the Aztec, as well as the Iroquois Nation --the latter whom completely dominated the American Northeast and North Midwest, and counted plate body armor, walled cities, and siege engines among their various tools of war.

Rival tribes frequently slaughtered and displaced each other.

Also, it should be noted that many of the apparently "genocidal" actions perpetrated by the Europeans were considered retribution for similar actions perpetrated by the native Americans. An example of this is the Sullivan Expedition (during the American Revolution), which was ordered by George Washington in direct response to the Cherry Hill Massacre and Wyoming Massacre. Another example is King Philip's War, in which nearly half of all towns in New England were burned to the ground--an attempt by the Indians to completely wipe out the white settlers. When Narragansett Indians approached Providence, Rhode Island, full of peaceful, neutral Quakers, they were met by a pleading Roger Williams. The Indians dismissed his pleas and burnt down Providence.

How does all of this look from a like-attracts-like perspective?

When Europeans arrived, they were welcomed with nothing but the best of intentions--with open arms by the natives.

In many cases (the pilgrims, for one), Indians immediately began devising ways to use and manipulate the colonists in their power-struggles with other tribes. See the stories of Squanto and Massaoit for examples as related in Nathaniel Philbrick's Mayflower.

The Whites, in their cruelty and greed, began to steal and cheat the Indians out of their land.

To be sure, many did. Others were simply poor, desperate squatters trying to eke out a living any way they could. Others maintained excellent friendships with the Indians, such as Benjamin Church and Roger Williams.

The Indians united in a pan-Indian alliance and attempted to resist.

Some tribes did manage to unite and resist. Other tribes sided with the whites and aided them. Still others remained neutral and did not engage in fighting at all. Many conflicts with the Indians were only won by the Whites after they themselves obtained the aid and alliance with other tribes.

The vastly superior numbers and technology of the Whites was just too much for them.

Almost immediately after the first white settlers arrived, Indians began eagerly acquiring and using European technology. King Phillip's War, the most devastating American war ever, was fought in 1675--only 55 years after the first settlers arrived. By this time, Indians had become so reliant on firearms, that many no longer knew how to use a bow and arrow. Indians were described as fearsome marksmen, superior to the whites, and during King Phillip's War Indians used firearms to the exclusion of all other missile weapons.

This conflict culminated in a massive holocaust in which the Indians were completely wiped out, deprived of their culture, and forced to live on pathetic reservations, where, due to White oppression, they live in eternal poverty and servitude.

A few things should be noted here:

1. Many Indians such as the Cherokee , simply adapted, and "assimilated numerous cultural and technological practices of European American settlers."
2. Many Indians simply integrated.
3. Some tribes simply abstained completely from the major conflict, and kept to themselves to such a degree that their culture was not polluted or destroyed, but preserved intact. One such admirable example are the Hopi , who to this day remain one of the most isolated, secretive people on the Earth.
4. Some Indians, like Ohiyesa (Charles Eastman), went on to attend college, captain sports teams, attain a doctorate, and write numerous books elucidating and preserving his culture.

This is not to say that, when viewed through a macro-cosmic lens, that Indians did not get the "short end of the stick" as far as land and resources were concerned. But it's not quite the simple tale of unjust oppression that it is made out to be.

And clearly not all tribes and individuals followed the violent and depressing momentum of the majority of their race.

So, from a law-of-attraction perspective, how did the Indians who perished attract all of this?

In addition to the above examples already cited, it should be noted that many of the Indian tribes adhered to doomsday prophecies, the Aztecs being one of the most noted examples.

Also, among many Indian cultures, death in battle was considered the most desirable, glorious fate that one could wish for. As a Sioux warrior said, "It is better to die young on the battlefield, than to live to carry a cane."

It is also worth noting the following quotes from Sioux warriors:

The way I felt about this question is that I felt that the white men would just simply wipe us out and there would be no Indian nation. I felt this when I was a boy. - Standing Bear, 1931

We roamed the country freely, and this country belonged to us in the first place. There was plenty of game and we were never hungry. But since the white men came we were fighting all the time. The white man was just going to kill all of us. - Black Tail Deer, 1931

When I was old enough, about fourteen, I remember that the white men were coming and that they were going to fight us to the finish and take away our land, and I thought it was not right...So I started out on the warpath when I was sixteen years old. - Fire Thunder, 1931

It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days. They will not be many. The Indian's night promises to be dark. Not a single star of hope hovers above his horizon. Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance. Grim fate seems to be on the Red Man's trail, and wherever he will hear the approaching footsteps of his fell destroyer and prepare stolidly to meet his doom, as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching footsteps of the hunter. - Chief Seattle, 1854

You might say that the American Indians were an excellent vibrational match for the European Colonists that immigrated to their country. A perfect match, even.

So what does this mean for all of us?

In a nutshell, we will get the future we expect.

If you believe immigration is destroying your country, and it upsets you, then you will continue to shift into that possible future.

If you believe that your country will "survive" whatever issues immigration brings, and you feel good about the way your country is headed, then you will continue to shift into that possible future.

If you love, wallow in, and focus on violence, you will attract more violence.

If you believe that your nation will be destroyed, then you will start to attract that experience.

No point in re-wording what others have already said about the Law of Attraction and "problems of the world" type questions...so I'll direct you to the following thread. Take what's been said here and see how it applies:

http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/77815/are-there-any-good-astrologers-in-iq-or-any-kind-of-person-who-can-predict-the-future-of-my-country

It is true that if they would make the change in their own country they would not move out of their country. it is true that often they do not respect the country and people in it trying to reproduce the same pattern in their country. in those time they should start to change their inside first that is where it start for a true change. why would someone escape something not working for a better place and try to make the same bad pattern in the new better place that he is now in. it is not weapon that will change all this. weapon brings only destruction. if you live by the sword you will die by the sword. bring light on the problem that is darkness and ignorance and it will dissolve or will make battle not accepting the truth and trying to mock you it will show is true colors void, stupidity and emptiness. what the immigrant should ask him self is why do I try to change this country to make it the same that the place I have left that was full of problem that we could not solve?

also before changing this country for the worst first change your self and go change the country from where you come from. if you are not willing to change your own country why do you want to change someone else country? as long as you are in division and in your own ignorance you cannot help your self or other because you do not know your self and other. it start from the inside to the outside. do you expect to change outside things from the outside. for how long do you think it will last? you can remove pollution from a lake if there is a company dumping toxic waste in the river that supply the lake how long will the lake stay clear and pure? then did you really change something or did you make the illusion that you changed something?

if you have a problem in your own home why do you not solve it and go try to change your neighbor home? solve your own problem them you will be able to go help your neighbor.

Let there be light, be the light that you can be, experience and enjoy.

Being a product of a multicultural and multiracial marriage, I am all for a mixing of cultures. I don't think that the issue is as simple as you portray it. You can't really discuss this without taking into account other factors such as integration, education, class issues and racial issues. And history.

Integration is a huge issue. For example: I went to an international school in Africa and many of my friends went on to immigrate to other countries all over the world. Being former international school students, my former classmates are good at adapting to other cultures because they have done so their whole lives. I now live in the UK, and many of my friends here are also immigrants, but have been very successful at integrating into British society. They are also well-educated, which helps them make a positive contribution to society, and better the economy. They enrich the culture because they have been able to integrate while still retaining their unique cultural perspectives, thus exposing natives to positive multiculturalism.

Then again, it is much easier to integrate here (especially in London, where I live) than it is in other countries. I have lived in less immigrant-friendly countries, and it's really interesting to see the LOA coming into play. Immigrants are viewed with distrust, and it is harder for them to integrate, and a lot of them just give up trying since they will always be treated as foreigners. This becomes a vicious cycle.

I am really not well schooled in the statistics and hard facts about immigration, so I can only answer this from my unique perspective. I view immigration as something which can be very good, something which can enrich cultures and improve economies, provided that the immigrants want to and are encouraged to integrate into their new society. Racism, classism and prejudice (from both sides) make this a lot more difficult.

If immigration were to be made illegal in all countries, people would still find something to fight about, for sure.

And I just want to quote @fred - "perhaps immigration is the fall guy for the real issue of unequal distribution of world resources". Excellent comment, and very true in my opinion. Without the long history of imperialism, there would not be as many immigrants as there are today. I am speaking mainly from a perspective coming from having grown up in Africa, which was heavily colonised, and not that long ago either. Resources were stolen from the colonised countries, and cultural imperialism was heavily practised, with the colonisers trying to replace native cultures with Western ones, and glorifying Western civilisation, making it very attractive for African natives who were taught that their own culture was inferior and lesser.

I could go on and on about this, but I have to be off, and really it's a huge complex issue which can't be answered in one question. But I hope I've given someone some food for thought at least.

No because I'm from America, the home of immigration, the great smelting pot.

My parents to this day are very happy together, if immigration was never allowed, they would have never known each other. I would have had different parents. Maybe I would be pure Italian or pure German, maybe pure Welsh? America would still be 100% American Indian land, all the world technology would not exist since everything started with the American industrial revolution.

So no I believe it wouldn't myself. As I said I would myself be completely different with different parents.