But how has that worked out for you Europeans, socially and politically? Is a USA taking in 600,000-1,500,000 refugees annually a wise idea, a viable long term solution to things? All while propping up the Continent militarily? It is not a solution at all. Particularly when you tout the "need" to get our growth population "under control".
Can you imagine the political backlash? An American version of the anti-immigrant right?
It wouldn't be really comparable. The U.S. is in and of itself much more multicultural, while for Western European countries, this is something new. The U.S. has historically been an immigration country, Western European countries haven't. In Western Europe, national identity is primarily based on ethnicity (whether people like it or not) - in the U.S., that's just not the same.
But I get what you're hinting at and you're partly right. First of all, it's not as if the amount of asylum seekers is fixed. If any country (but especially the U.S., a country that is extremely attractive) is willing to take in more people, then more people will come, because who doesn't want to live a better life in a developed country? Secondly, taking in more and more people is no long-term solution. Sure, true refugees from war-ridden countries need a place to be safe and we should treat them humanely, but in the long term, it would be better for the Western world to try and help solve the structural issues in poor/war-ridden areas instead of simply taking in many people. Lastly, and this is more a reply to Tender Branson, I disagree with the notion that "our" European refugee problem has been caused by the U.S., for the Middle East and Africa are simply no peaceful regions, regardless of any form of Western intervention.
