I believe the argument is the dominant mosquito species are themselves invasive to the continent
If it took a couple hundred years for this species to proliferate, it's absolutely plausible that eradicating it in a few years will have surprising second- and third-order effects.
Do you understand that time scales are important here?
There are also species that have invaded areas that are totally impossible for them to reach without seafaring or airfaring human civilizations to carry them.
All terms are made up. Some are useful and some are not. This one is useful.
Merely calling it invasive does not answer that question, ergo it is not a useful term in this conversation.
And yes, timescales do matter. A species can become critical to its new ("invaded") ecosystem within a few hundred years such that removing it within a few years will cause catastrophe.
Even in situations where they replace a native competitor, they can still be replaced themselves with that same native species once they’re gone.
A species evolving in Area A and migrating to Area B is extremely common.
Camels, horses, marsupials, elephants, cats, opossums, New World monkeys, and even Homo sapiens all evolved in regions different than where they are found now.
Once they’re integrated into their ecosystems we just don’t refer to them as invasive. But calling something invasive or not doesn’t affect their ecosystem integration, causality works in reverse.
So the relevant question is, again, whether these have become critical to their now-local ecosystems.
No, we've come to a point where you've moved the goalposts and refuse to support an assertion you made by answering a simple question.
> Camels, horses, marsupials, elephants, cats, opossums, New World monkeys, and even Homo sapiens all evolved in regions different than where they are found now.
All of this seems to stem from you not understanding what "invasive species" means, and, apparently, refusing to just Google it.
Invasive species have to be introduced by humans and harmful to the environment. Some of the things you listed fit that definition and some don't.
But regardless, you haven't given any evidence that eradicating those things from their new environment would harm that environment.
"Can you name an invasive species that was integrated successfully into its new environment?" No! Because we don't label those things invasive.
But again, the label does not change the environmental effects, the environmental effects change the label.
The question being asked, which you continue not to answer, is whether these particular species are integrated within their new environments or not. Simply saying that they are invasive and they've only been there for 400 years does not answer that question.
Sure: Asian elephants are broadly regarded as a keystone species in their environments today despite not being native to Asia.