not quite.
"In 212 AD, during the reign of Caracalla, Roman citizenship was granted to all freeborn inhabitants of the empire. But despite this gesture of universality, the Severan dynasty was tumultuous—an emperor's reign was ended routinely by his murder or execution—and, following its collapse, the Roman Empire was engulfed by the Crisis of the Third Century, a period of invasions, civil strife, economic disorder, and plague."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Fall_in_the_West_and_survival_in_the_East

we dont give citizenship to people born in europe, and we routinely send refugees back to countries that are classified safe (even tho countries like afghanistan are not actually safe yet classified safe and syria safe but not classified safe). thats the US. also since US has such lax weapon laws and is a gigantic bundle of states that are united, the "turmoil" seems more likely to happen there.

first paragraph would make sense if they patrol the southern border, and if i didnt just showed you they actually do recieve aid tied to them regulating emigration. perhaps you have overlooked the links? and countries like niger or mali already have a pretty tight border patrol in the north, its called the sahara dessert. yet they close down any routes through it causing people to go off routes, potentially lost in desert and become dried up corpses. also libya is not representative to northern african nations, its one example where EU prolongs the conflict. I am not saying I support NATOs actions that lead up to the conflict in any way.

second point was already made in the comments by hamsterpowerii and i agree that funding terrorists to destabilize a dictatorship (that in the case of assad is not even that bad) is not the right course of action. one way to destabilize cruel dictatorships is making healthcare and education available (see my other comment on hamsters comment). i am against nato military intervention, except for mali where the government actually asked for help to deal with terrorists coming in from the south (not the north).

also about ur second point, the media is carefully manipulated to manipulate the "democracy". most people in europe dont know that most syrians are ok with assad and he gives them more freedoms than the "moderate rebels" give. they are also spoon fed lies about the chemical attacks (i did a few posts on them aswell). so can you blame them for voting wrong in this democracy? they dont even suspect the fraud.

as for ccp, their strategy is mostly get countries into debt traps and then install military bases or extract resources in return, while the current president benefits from corruption money. many african presidents are officially democratic but actually they are not, and the rural vote decides the popular president who is not the best. or like in benin they might get 2 choices of the same thing. i lived in zambia for a while and i watched the country go down as Sata was getting the rural vote against rubia banda. after his death the family squabbled for power. now they have opposition media crack downs. those dictatorships just need reforms enabled through healthcare and access to education.

and letting people in that need help is not nonsense or idealism but its a legal duty that came after the holocaust and the west signing the geneva convention. paying other countries to prevent refugees from coming is the way the west is trying to back out of its legal obligation. they are in the end paying countries to kill people through drowning or dessert in an extremely inefficient way. developed countries are obligated to give aid money to developing countries to help them out but if the help is spent on borders soldiers and arms killing people as ineffectively as possible then the money is not well spent and it wont help the country develop. it wont solve the problem.

i feel like in many points we agree to each other and just misunderstood each other. so i hope i cleared up my view point. as for the tied aid, it does happen.