Well, immigration needs to be regulated by the state if we are to have nations at all. At this point I would be willing to error on the side of less immigration than more.
And I think that is quite correct, for a multitude of reasons. States are organic bodies of people sharing custom and culture, who have familiarity with and care for the land in which they live.
As for birthright citizenship - it is preposterous and destructive, a deliberate exploitation of the language of the 14th Amendment that was intended to free slaves, not to allow for anchor babies and destroy the borders (and ultimately the existence) of the USA. The very idea that someone who has no ties to the USA, no history here, has contributed nothing, and perhaps even holds the nation in contempt (which their actions indicate) can walk across the border and give birth to an American citizen is obscene. If Trump could really get rid of birthright citizenship, it would be his greatest achievement as president thus far.
Jus soli is an American custom, though. Almost every single country in the Americas has it, while almost none outside of the Americas have it. I would say it is a complicated product of the history of the intermixing of peoples in the Americas, the demographic "Colombian exchange". To switch to
Jus sanguinis would put us in line with Eurasia-Africa, but separate us from prevailing custom in the Americas. I can see the virtues of what you speak, but I am hesitant to change the custom because it was part of the powerful engine which quickly assimilated all the immigrants we had in the past. To lose it now might be to also lose the ability to ever assimilate immigrants in the future--but have we already done so, seeing our current failures? I don't think I have the answer to that.
I also find it a bit bizarre to call European immigration policies racist when many of these nations bend over backwards providing immigrants with welfare, housing, and protections. Not only that, they bend over backwards accommodating many of these immigrants who hate European people and culture, even going so far as to arresting their own citizens who are critical and the suicidal immigration policies that politicians have been forcing on the citizens of far too many Western nations.
The only thing that wouldn't be racist to the enemies of nation, identity, racination and culture would be completely open borders. And this has come about quickly; even though I find its depiction of Indian people absolutely revolting, at the time it came out, serious, mainstream conservative authors and columnists were reading and debating
The Camp of the Saints as a serious, legitimate work on the potential consequences of overpopulation. Now it is held up as an alt-right Nazi manifesto (again, its treatment of the ancient and learned civilisation of India is so wicked that I don't really find that problematic--it's just a useful illustration of how rapidly the Overton is treated), and people seriously argue for the strawman-like open border policies the work contained.
And yet for all that, who would really want these refugees, especially the Syrians and Libyans? Aren't young men supposed to fight for the freedom of their homeland? Why are there so many running away when the battalions need reinforcements to fight against Assad? It may be to some extent hijacked by racists, but there is something very real and very profound going on that is seeing us intentionally make ourselves vulnerable. In the case of Europe, I can't help but wonder if it isn't a continued process from the end of colonialism. At no other time in history had such a great assemblage of Empires so rapidly and totally collapsed; we do not as yet know with the psychological-cultural impacts of it really are. Perhaps we are finding out.
