No, because I hate the melting pot concept when broadly applied. I think national identity and cultural heritage are important and shouldn't be forgotten. It's what makes different people interesting. We'd end up like the neutral planet from Futurama if there was one of everything to abide by.
If it were up to me, North America would be a dozen different countries. Tying people together who can't agree on anything for the sake of preserving an outdated version of itself is stupid and is partly why nothing gets done. We'd all be further ahead if areas that desire self-governance received it and then treaties were written up to outline cooperation. Switzerland is a single entity, but it has a relatively homogenous population with a direct democracy that allows different regions within to write their own rules regarding business hours, official languages, and so on. That is fine when people mostly agree, but when they don't, split apart. Austria-Hungary is a great example of why you shouldn't stay together. So are Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia that were born of it. The only reason the former Ottoman lands are so awful is because Britain and France forced terrible borders upon the region that left everyone at each other's throats. If they'd be drawn along smarter lines, things would probably be better today.
Most of the misery in the world is the result of people being forced to live with others they don't feel a kinship with. From old tribal issues in the Middle-East and Africa to the various religious and political ideologies that are like oil and water, a segment of the population just can't seem to grasp that competing ideas will just be incompatible sometimes. Neither side is inherently wrong, they just want different things and are forced to compromise begrudgingly for no other reason beyond "these are our borders because they are."