1) Border security: We agree, except for the racism thing. It is a false political argument that the wall is racist. The wall is just one piece of border security. We have one already. Do you think that wall is racist? Trump's addition to the wall is a symbol of his support for the American worker. I don't see how that is racist, unless you believe only whites work.
2) Amnesty for children: I gave in to your side, so you agree, of course. Check
3) Permanent residency for adult illegal aliens: You will accept my compromise on permanent residency and not full citizenship. Check.
4) Government assistance programs should focus on American citizens first, and should not be used to entice people to come here. We have a lot of people in the US who should be able to get in line first.
5) Citizenship rule change: You disagree, but why? There is no inherent reason that we should have that citizenship rule. A lot of countries which have socialistish systems you idolize also have a citizenship rule I outlined. I see no moral or poltiical reason to keep our current rule. Can you offer one?
6) Diversity as a domestice principle, not an immigration principle: To answer your question, the Obama Administration sought quotas for all countries, even countries like Saudi Arabia, with a stated goal of diversity. As I say, diversity should be a name for a belief that we should be tolerant when when diversity exists. Increasing diversity should not be a goal of immigration policy. That is foolish. The reason socialistish countries in Europe succeed (one reason) is that they were not diverse. Homogenous countries like Norway are very easy to govern. The people are unified, and socialism works better in that context. Increased diversity is a destabilzer, and socialism usually leads to populism against a minority group since socialism does not increase resources, but merely reallocates resources. We should not be seeking to destabilize our democracy.
6a) You said, "I love hearing families in restaurants or hotels speaking in their native language." Fine. But there is no reason that our DMV employees and polling place volunteers should be speaking anything other than English.
6b) There is no reason we cannot require a greater oath of non-citizens than citizens. There are some reasons that we should require a greater oath of non-citizens. Immigrants are applying to become subject to our rules (and our rights). They are not subject to them yet, and we have the right to set entry rules. Nothing in my statement indicated a preference for religious or atheist. I just require them to declare themselves under the system they state they believe in. It is just an effort to stop crazy zealots from coming in. Granted, people can lie under oath, but it doesn't hurt that we will have video of an ISIS Muslim swearing to Allah he will not do what he did...or denouncing Allah on video. It will be a good thing to play when he kills American children. Then you guys can say, "See, he wasn't Muslim!"
7) You said, "Disagree that immigration rules and laws should be established to make the lives of Americans better. That sounds a tad like we view immigration as 'servitude.'" That makes no sense. Nothing I said implies servitude. Please support that statement. Having said that, I will say that there is a clear hierarchy. Perhaps that is what you meant. By hierarchy, I mean that we owe something to our citizens, but we owe nothing to immigrants. So, Americans do in fact come first. We offer immigrants because we are kind, and we decide to offer them a gift. They have no right to make demands on how we give our gift; they can take it or leave it. We should give our gift of immigration only after we satisfy our obligation to our own citizens, such as our African-American population.