Yes. But she is the baddie in this story as I see it.
I am not a no-immigration supporter, nor am I an open borders supporter. It's something you permit in moderation and in ways that suit yourself, subject to some degree of compassion for genuine refugees.
Merkel destabilised Europe with her encouragement of mass immigration a few years ago. Essentially she told every European country they had to accept an open border. Consequently, numerous people attempted to cross the Mediterranean and Aegean northwards. Many died en route. First point of entry countries (not Germany) were essentially besieged and had to reinstate border fences they hadn't needed for decades.
Merkel did it for self-interested reasons: because Germany has a shrinking population and worries about supporting the welfare state it cannot afford in the long run. Using immigrants to replace Germans would be fine if her policy only affected Germany. But within the EU, people can move from one country to another. So countries which are heavily populated and growing, with appealing economies like that of the UK, end up receiving the flood.
She is encouraging similar activity this year. Children are dying as their ships and boats sink when crossing the Mediterranean. And the resumption of the African wave has already caused Italy to choose a government which is more Trumpian in nature to stem the flow.
So corralling her is important. If America wishes to take people in these sorts of volumes, fine. It has such a tradition. Although the sense of losing an internal culture because of the volume of immigration is clearly a concern for many Americans.
But it isn't an obligation for Europe to provide open borders to the whole world. The grim reality is that African and Levantine countries have to figure a way to manage their own population growth and to make societies that folks wish to stay in. And Germans must make hard choices of their own.
| 