[Yetanfou]

   Just because you say it's "socially untenable forced immigration"
   does not make it so. You have no evidence that it is, indeed, untenable.

Have a look around the suburbs of [Sweden] Stockholm, the city of Malmö, some of the suburbs of Göteborg or [France] the banlieux of Paris to get a view on what the original poster meant. There is no need for 'rants from "expat friends"' to form an opinion on the situation which has developed due to untenable migration.

Also, what do you mean by 'immigrant refugees'? There is no such thing as an 'immigrant refugee', people either come as refugee or as immigrant. You can claim that refugees are by definition immigrants. Objectively speaking this is true as they migrated from another country, but in the context of the discussion on migration it only serves to muddle the view as refugees have a special status, guaranteed by international conventions, whereas immigrants do not have this claim. This is an important distinction due to the fact that many immigrants (without valid claims of refuge) came along with the refugees from the war in Syria and Iraq. In some countries - Sweden being a good example - the majority of those claiming asylum fall under this category and as such did not have valid reasons for asylum. The insistence on grouping these different categories together only serves to erode the public support for true asylum seekers as the number of people 'hitching a ride' on the crisis quickly strains the capacity of a country to take up (true) refugees to the breaking point (viz. Sweden, again). Sweden has now 'closed its borders' (in theory, at least, in practice it still takes up around 50.000 per year).