[internaut]

Logistically it makes more sense to build shelter-in-place in Africa and the Middle East. They are easier to police and supply.

Then the applications for refugee status can be fairly processed. This way people won't be converted into organs, thrown off boats, enslaved or otherwise taken advantage of. It should also serve to distinguish between genuine refugees (for non-permanent visa) from warzones and the holidaymakers/opportunists.

The current scenario is the worst possible route. Talk of migrants obtaining work is a shibboleth that discerns whether you have your head screwed on properly.

Are we really supposed to believe that millions of migrants are supposed to integrate without understanding the language, law, culture and without the schooling of so much as a secondary school student?

It is preposterous. Inexplicably stupid.

Even with successful integration it can take up to a 100 years for it to work. Look at how long the Italians and Irish were outsiders in the United States. And they were whites in a country historically unusually open to migration. And they trickled in instead of millions per year. That's the easy route and it is not that easy.

[sanswork]

>And they trickled in instead of millions per year.

In 1847 New York had a population of ~375,000 and had 52,000 Irish and 53,000 German immigrants in one year.

Same year Boston with a population of ~115,000 had almost 40,000 irish immigrants.

During that time there was Irish immigration alone equal to about 3% of the US population(650,000 immigrants vs 17m). The current EU situation is equal to about 0.2% of the population(1m vs 500m)