You don’t have the highest immigration rates, and sometimes not even in absolute numbers.

The US has about 50 million total immigrants, or about 14 % of the population, that’s behind both Germany (19 %) and Saudi Arabia (89 %).

Considering why most of those people are fleeing their homes, the US might want to sit this argument out…

Almost the entire concept of The West is built upon concessions of Europe to the US in lieu of a guarantee against Russia.

Reneging on that will, and has already started to, isolate the US and leave it a lot more vulnerable to Chinese, BRICS, Russian, and other influence, not the least economically.

If only there was a way to get some actual facts, a quick calculation puts European direct bilateral contributions at about 150% of US.

I don’t know if you’re new to politics, but it is fairly common for politicians to present an opinion to spur certain action, such as giving more aid. It’s what’s needed to stop Russia, and stopping now won’t be enough.

Also, rearming, sending volunteers, adjusting to NATO, and increasing cooperation is also doing a lot to both ensure a future, and alleviate much of the worry for rebuilding.

Although hugely inefficient in both materials and energy.

Exactly like this article you mean?

Also, unwieldy phrasing and word choice.

Interesting perspective, but by the gods is it poorly written. AI written in paragraphs, each point repeats 3-5 times. Painful to read

I would have guessed that into and in are interchangeable for this case, at least in US English. But in other contexts into is a direction, in is a position.

Falling into it includes the travel time (potentially from a great height), whereas in mostly pertains to the end state?

That would mean into and down refer to different parts of the falling timeline.

As a non-native speaker, wouldn’t falling in the hole be the act of crossing the opening, and falling down the hole be the rest of the way?