Originally Posted by GUWonder
I am pretty familiar with immigration policies in a few European countries and about the dynamics between the new EU member countries and the established ones. I'm also familiar with some ridiculous immigration things like Denmark's ridiculous immigration policy that forces Danes married to Americans to move to Sweden and commute back to Denmark for work while a Brit married to a Kazakh can live in Copenhagen without anywhere as much government stink. I'm also aware of some American immigration ridiculousness when it comes to spouses of American citizens, especially from VWP countries. And that's just the start of it if going down the citizenship debate.
The talk was about accepting immigrants .... not about giving out citizenship.
Sorry, the question seems to turn on the definition of immigrants. I think of an immigrant as someone who is permanently relocating (and perceived that way by the host government). Many of the non-nationals in Europe do not fit that definition. It is presumed that they will return to their 'home' country, even if that is not in reality the case. Your view seems to take a broader definition. So, on that note, I will let the matter rest.
I do not dispute any of your arguments about the current status of American immigration policy which is often arcane, inhumane, and non-functional.