>>>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.

She did, and many see it as the least sane option for managing the crisis. But then again, the migrants were headed to Europe, and that's where they went. What she did could also be seen as opening the arms to something that was going to happen anyway. She could have thought that turning them back (to where?) was definitely a major aggravation to their suffering, if not virtually a death sentence. We talked before about regional solutions, but it appears that by the time the massive migration to Europe intensified, smaller Arab neighbors like Jordan and Lebanon were already overwhelmed. Also, other Arab countries claim that they had already been helping or offered to host their "brothers and sisters", but that their numbers were not counted because most Gulf countries are not signatories to the UN refugee conventions. I'd say their records on human rights didn't make them particularly attractive destinations, either.

>>>... 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.

US, and European countries are signatories to UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which includes the 1967 protocol ... applied to refugees "without any geographic limitation". Again, the option to legally challenge such treaties might be an option for the US (which due to its geographical position is not as easily reachable, or subjected to a sudden massive migration crisis), but not for Europe considering the urgency of the crisis.

> 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?

In theory, that is still considered the best option, and I am sure that Trump was not the first to advance it as a possible solution. IN practice, setting up a safe zone in that area was seen as an almost impossible task, considering that Assad, Russia, Iran, Turkey, ISIS, the Kurds, ... have had each their own agenda. The Obama administration did consider establishing a no-fly zone, but as soon as the Russian planes would have started to violate it (see Turkish air force shut down Russian fighter jet)... in short, the Russians did not like a commonly enforced no-fly zone (and later they proved in Aleppo that a true safe-zone was not high on their priority list), so Obama must have thought that sticking your finger in such a hot mess might end up costing an arm and a leg.

>>>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.
*
The Europeans did reach a deal with Turkey for establishing and maintaining refugee camps (and I think with Greece, too), but that was after a long process of negotiations with Turkey, and after internal struggles among EU members to actually get something agreed upon, since it requires funding. Of course, the EU is funding it; funds go both to Turkey and to Greece. It seems to be working for now. So, the only "novelty" in Trump's proposal is locating the safe-zone in Syria. Where, at what cost, and who would enforce it?... At this point, everybody is expecting more details about such plan. I hope there are options, but I am afraid that it won't include many American terms.

>>>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?

The conference was in Astana, and George Krol, as the US ambassador to Kazahstan, did attend. As an observer. Need we say more?

>...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.

Not an option, at this point.
*