I got you now. I agree it took me quite a while to understand you and i tell you why: I studied in Central Europe and we use another definition of native, based on the time of arrival of an organism in an area. We use
native, for organisms that inhabited the area for several thousand years, “organisms that evolved there”.
Archäophytes, Archäozoa for organisms that arrived recently in the area, but before 1500.
Neophytes, Neozoa for organisms that arrived after 1500 in the area.
This seemed to make sense to me, as the consequences of new arrivals (and the potential problems new arrivals might cause) are often related to their novelity and not to the establishment means.
E.g. In the Central European set of definitions Cattle egrets are not native, but Neozoa in the New World … and the fact that they cause new problems (e.g. are involved in the speading of tropical bont tick and cattle disease) is not unusual, as they are not native in this place. They could even be called invasive.
In contrast, in the iNat set of definitions, which is based on establishment means only, Cattle egrets are native to the New World. (while there is no clear evidence that they arrived on their own wing it is still suggested) As natives, they can by definition not be an invasive species there.
Well we could discuss for very long what a domestic or captive situation is, as e.g. here in the Caribbean there is certainly a continuum between wild (or feral?) helmeted guineafowl, helmeted guineafowl that occasionally get a handout of corn from local farmers, helmeted guineafowl that live on a farm and helmeted guineafowl as cage birds (the last one seems the least abundant). But this discussion certainly seems to way off.
Well i learned something, and want to thank everybody involved in the discussion.