All these comparisons to ancient Rome ignore a few realities. The Roman Empire thrived when it assimilated the peoples of conquered territories. Those who served the army for a specified period of time became Roman citizens. Many Imperial generals were not Italian. The Emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and Flavius Theodosius was born in Spain (though some were from families originally from Italy) and Constantine was born in Serbia.
The real troubles with foreigners coming into the Empire began with the treatment of the Goths, who were fleeing the Huns and pushing to move West. They were mistreated by by the Emperor, and shunned by Roman society. Instead of assimilating them, the Romans bred an enemy within their own ranks.
As much a factor in Rome's decline was their own internal decay and infighting. Finally, the Eastern Roman Empire survived another thousand years after the fall of Rome, and the peoples of the West, even the Germanic tribes, tried to live as Romans, or revive the Roman Empire in different forms for hundreds of years to come.
A few??
Those are all very valid points. Like I said, this article is a bit alarmist, but it does present a very interesting point of view.
You really ought to reread your convoluted analysis and try to prove you are not a liberal. You argue that the people who actually destroyed Rome were not responsibile. They had bad childhoods due to imperial policy.