There's some vague benefits, namely that Germany's population is in decline and it requires immigration to sustain economic growth and prevent increased taxation to support the social care provided to retired citizens, which would inevitably happen as the working age : retired ratio draws closer to a 1:1 average. However, mass immigration on this scale simple causes structural problems given that those entering come with dependednt who all require support and most of them have a distinct lack of skills require to fill the gaps available, so you're left with a mass of unskilled labour which drains the system of the state, while depressing low skilled wages further. 

Then all the Liberals bitch and whine about the wage gap between the classes, when they caused the problem in the first place through their own ideological naivete. 

So germany had put forward the idea of an apartheid against all the muslim immigrants. How long till the camps go back in business?

No big loss. It's Eastern Europe.

The German police union is hardly Germany.


Oh, and I didn't know the Liberals were complaining about the wage gap?

I'm saying that the refugees are better off elsewhere, lol.

NAZI is a bit extreme. You guys haven't even said anything racist let alone supremacist.

Your views are fine. I don't agree with them but I will concede that every country has a right to control it's boarders.
Personally I think whilst we don't have to allow the new comers, I feel it is the compassionate thing to do.


It's compassionate for refugees because they have no other place to go and are likely to end up dead if we don't do anything.
It's compassionate for economic migrants because their current way of life is living on the bare minimum.

Castigation is a bit extreme for expressing a view that lacks compassion.
None of you seem like bad people so I don't see the need for personal attacks.

I say let them in, but don't just let them in. Think about how to accommodate them. Be pragmatic about how many you let in the country.
Find ways to ensure that they have a means of employment and a comfortable way of life. If the most you can let in is 100, well that's fine. Better to have 100 newcommers treated well than a 1000 newcomers treated poorly. If you're unable to accommodate anyone like Hungary well that's understandable.

The refugees travelling to Europe aren't fleeing persecution, they're searching for handouts.

As for the first point, I agree that Nazi is a bit extreme. But, it has been proven that politicians will be quoted as calling citizens Nazis if they are against immigration, or if they want to change the system. As for being compassionate, I can agree with that sentiment as well. I just believe that there needs to be a better system for sorting out how many are coming into Europe at a time. If you try to document them in a place like Hungary, they will just run from you. That leads to arrest, and the footage we see of them being arrested. I also have a problem with the increase in crime and the negative affect of being lenient on them because they are refugees. And, as I've said before, a lot of refugees are just people from the Middle East claiming to be Syrian. And, as one of the inforgraphics above me shows, they have the right to seek asylum in other countries. I feel as though I have pointed this out before, but Austria has the same policy on allowing in as many immigrants as Germany. The only difference between the two is less handouts. That is why, on average, only 100 out of every 1000 stop and stay in Austria as opposed to Germany. As for accommodation, I can understand why Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe doesn't want to take anyone else in. For a country that has had a relatively new national identity since the fall of communism twenty five years ago, you would probably have some odd/bigoted immigration standards. I can also talk forever about how refugees, mainly the ones from Africa, act like self entitled assholes, but that would make this post longer than it already is. Lastly, the solution that I propose is that they set up a type of Ellis Island on Malta and in Gibraltar, do better boarder control in the Balkans, and convince some Middle Eastern countries to take them like Israel or Saudi Arabia.

And that affects the host nation's decisions how? The migrants don't call the shots as much as they'd like to, while the heads of state need to grow a spine.

Beggars can't be choosers, "economic necessity" ah yes, I was wondering when that would come up. The entire population of sub Saharan Africa should emigrant given their "economic necessity, regardless of the crushing weight it would impose on the host nations social systems.


If it's physical necessity, well you aren't being shot in any of the above countries of eastern EU, so they're not migrating out of physical necessity.  While the migrants are predominately young men. It's not physical necessity, those who are in physical danger are stuck in the refugee camps north of the Syrian border. The migrants we see are swarming out of the middle east to secure beneficial entitlements. Ignoring the system in place to make applications for economic migration, they act like barbarians frankly and should be treated as such.