Should Americans be granted asylum in Europe?

[Lord Halifax]

Setting aside that you're clearly trolling I'm in favor of a regionalized asylum system, so if need be Americans should apply for asylum in other countries in the Americas. Europe has millions of Ukrainian refugees, a steady stream of boat refugees from Africa and long distance migration from Asian countries like Bangladesh to deal with so I don't see any hypothetical refugee problems in the US as their responsibility.

[Lord Halifax]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

who is fighting who?  For a battle to wage on, you need two sides that are at least near peers.  Whomever is fighting the US military in this civil war is going to lose, real quick.  Maybe the military stays out of it and it's just red counties vs blue counties?  But even then, one side has 80% of the guns, 85% of the food and 75% of the veterans.  That's not how you get a very balanced war.

A long low level armed conflict between multiple irregular forces like The Troubles in Northern Ireland is far more likely than a conventional war and it would be very difficult to contain.

[Lord Halifax]

Millions more Europeans immigrate to the United States than the reverse — which only makes sense, given how much higher the standard of living is in the United States relative to typical Western European countries.

most European immigrants to the US are from Eastern Europe

[Lord Halifax]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

who is fighting who?  For a battle to wage on, you need two sides that are at least near peers.  Whomever is fighting the US military in this civil war is going to lose, real quick.  Maybe the military stays out of it and it's just red counties vs blue counties?  But even then, one side has 80% of the guns, 85% of the food and 75% of the veterans.  That's not how you get a very balanced war.

A long low level armed conflict between multiple irregular forces like The Troubles in Northern Ireland is far more likely than a conventional war and it would be very difficult to contain.

so, something far less deadly than a civil war, got it.

what constitutes a civil war is a matter of definition, and The Troubles is considered a borderline case. It wasn't "far less deadly" than an average civil war in the early 70s when it was at its peak, and a similar conflict in the US would have a higher death toll

in this context what matters is how bad things would have to be before a significant part of the population started to flee and that level could probably be achieved by a death toll similar to NI in the early 70s.

[Lord Halifax]

what constitutes a civil war is a matter of definition, and The Troubles is considered a borderline case. It wasn't "far less deadly" than an average civil war in the early 70s when it was at its peak, and a similar conflict in the US would have a higher death toll

in this context what matters is how bad things would have to be before a significant part of the population started to flee and that level could probably be achieved by a death toll similar to NI in the early 70s.

sure, but my point is that a "Troubles" level event in the US would have a far lower death count than a "civil war" level event.  And a "civil war" level event is impossible now or anytime soon because the military will be on one side or the other and you have to have two sides to have a civil war.

and my point was that something with a lower intensity and death toll than a conventional civil war (but not "far lower") could be enough to unleash a refugee wave, and that such a conflict could easily have more than two sides and could not be fully contained by the military, at least not without using very heavy-handed counterinsurgency tactics which in itself would cause many people to leave the country if it happened nationally. But there'd still be far more internally displaced persons than international refugees in all but the most far-fetched scenarios, the US is too big and diverse for a conflict to easily go truly national and Canada would obviously get the vast majority of international refugees not Europe.