>>I agree with mostly everything you said, but if we're still talking about protesting their immigration policies, Saudi Arabia is not exactly a champion of free speech, quite the opposite. Any such protest in that country may have dire consequences for the protesters. Japan, even though thorough in its support, throughout history has been very protective of their culture, and cultural diversity is not something they advertise as their strength, so I'm guessing that any protest about their immigration policies may be at most met with a shrug.

Gotcha. But India wasn't exactly a bastion of free speech and Ghandi found a way to move (or actually to not move.)

>>However, it is the EU that which has been confronted with the mass migration, and with very little choice since it has been impacted directly and suddenly by the humanitarian crisis developing on their doorstep.

A certain frau welcomed them all and said she could take as many as could swarm across. So they did, some dying in perilous sea or desert crossings.

>>But again, we're talking about a humanitarian crisis and if others are not willing to help, then some must.

Yes, but not necessarily by accepting refugees selected by the UN. Why not set up safe zones and help these people stay closer to home until the adults sort out the warring factions? That's more charitable if you consider that awful image of the child who drowned on the Mediterranean. Why the heck are people wringing their hands watching these dangerous crossings rather than doing what the Turks did = set up safe camps where people can escape conflict into familiar cultural surroundings, language and food?

>>If you put the above in contrast with the moral foundation of the US then one could see that Americans would be justified to protest anything that may compromise it.

If Trump had said he was simply washing his hands of the plight of displaced people, I'd be appalled. But he's asking why the heck the Europeans aren't setting up safe camps more easily reached by struggling refugees, in anticipation of eventual end to conflict. Of course they are, co-operating with the Turks, but why not take a chunk of Syria declared a safe zone by the big players with promises of hellfire if you break the peace? Then gradually expand it.

>>Given the high stakes, any interference in the Syrian conflict would have been very costly for the US, to say the least. Sure, it would be very nice if Trump and Putin would be able to come to an agreement... though I am not so sure that Putin needs Trump in this matter. Apparently, the Syrian conflict is a foregone conclusion. Russia, Turkey and Iran have met recently to negotiate a cease-fire (US has not been invited). The meeting has already been qualified as a "serious diplomatic success" by the Turkish PM. Russia doesn't seem to need any additional support there, so I wonder what kind of leverage Trump would have in a possible deal with Putin on Syria, and to what avail.

Didn't George Krol attend those talks? One issue is that Russia wants Assad to stay and Iran is absolutely determined on that, while the US wasn't so keen. Assad's forces now control all the area from Golan to Damascus, an area that would be a reliable "safe zone" protected by Israel on one border. So how about a virtual Trump wall across the country, protected by flocks of ferocious drones programmed to rain down hellfire missiles if you cross that line with mayhem in mind.