>Mostly agreeing with you, but the EU has created some of the lure for welfare tourism across the mediterraen sea by stupid politics: why create an incentive to try crossing in boats not build to cross when after saving people aboard from drowning they are brought to Italy? Offer them safe and dry passage back to north africa or let them take their chances.
>

Not sure, but possibly, formally, most European countries are bound by international treaties for the status of refugees, and turning them back may have been in violation or defiance of such treaties. Other than that, it is hard to imagine that, in general, entire families are putting their own and their children lives in danger for a promise of assisted welfare in a foreign land. Obviously, this crisis has created a lot of problems in Europe, exacerbated by the inability of the EU members to deal with it. Unfortunately, Germany was probably hit the hardest.
*
> Vet there, let them enter the EU only after asylum process has resulted in acceptance, thereby eliminating any discussion of what to do with those not given asylum.
I think that's what US has been doing all along with refugees from overseas; it can afford to do it since it is a remote destination. Unfortunately, Europe, due to proximity, does not have the same options. Similar to issues of US immigration from south of the border.