And that is their decision. I think it is best for each country to decide for themselves, based on their culture, objectives, history, and values. France has a way of doing it, Canada has a way of doing it, China has a way of doing it, and the US has a way of doing it. One size fits all is least applicable when it comes to nation states.
This is a motte and bailey fallacy and doesnt even merit a response. Why dont you start with a good faith argument for how the US is anti immigrant, since the numbers clearly dont agree with that statement.
There have always been limits to immigration. Almost no one is saying no immigration. Needs change. What the country needs now might not be the same as 150 years ago.
Absolute numbers seems legitimate. The US per capita immigration rate is largely the result of the high absolute number of immigrants taken in over US history.
Absolute numbers are heavily dependent on country size and most countries are tiny. Vatican City at the extreme end is formed 100% from immigrants, but has a tiny and self limiting population.
The Vatican is not a migrant friendly destination, despite being made up entirely of immigrants. If I were to try and migrate I would try to migrate to the States. All of a few hundred people worldwide are trying to migrate to the Vatican.
