Q. Should countries accept migrants and asylum seekers?
A. Yes, with reservations.
Q. What are those reservations?
A.
A state may only accept migrants from its own region, so Europe was right to accept Bosnians fleeing the war, but would be wrong to accept non-Europeans. Europe should only accept Europeans. If Asians or Africans need to leave their country, they should be helped by fellow Asians or Africans, respectively.
A state must only accept asylum seekers from countries with serious disasters, such as major wars. A country should never accept people just because the standard of life is different.
Individuals must pre-apply and be accepted prior to leaving their home country. Anyone who shows up unannounced has forfeited her chance.
Anyone without documents will not be accepted.
Criminals, even those guilty of jaywalking twenty years prior should not be accepted.
Only the most vulnerable portions of the population should be considered, such as women and children. Able bodied young men should stay home and fix the mess their country has gotten itself into.
Q. Should those who meet the above criteria stay indefinitely?
A. No. Once the conflict or other disaster has ended, they must return to their homeland.
Q. What if a person shows up without meeting the above stated criteria?
A. Even if they meet every criterion, but show up unannounced, they must be sent back. There are to be no asylum centers, etc. The individuals must be repatriated immediately, and the costs must be billed to the country the individual comes from.
Q. What if a person shows up without documents? What if their home country refuses to accept the person back?
A. The person can be repatriated to the South Pole or the middle of the closest ocean.
Q. How are countries supposed to prevent people from entering?
A. Borders can be secured via automated drones that shoot on sight.
Q. How can the influx of migrants be stemmed?
A. Even in Europe, where capital punishment is illegal, the illegality of capital punishment should only apply to citizens and legal residents. If illegal migration was made a major crime, punishable by death, it would only take a few executions before people started realizing that they shouldn’t leave. A person tries once, they are sent back, the person tries again, has no papers, or commits any sort of crime, even spitting gum on a sidewalk, and it is the gallows for them.
Q. What is wrong with migrants?
A. They are dirty, they stink, they shit and piss in public, and commit heinous crimes. It is well know that most of the migrants coming into Europe are unwanted in their own countries because they are pedophiles and such.
Q. Should migrants be forced to integrate?
A. Yes. They must learn the local language and adapt to the culture of the place where they live. Of course, in some places that can be counter productive: Northern and Central Europeans tend to be very civilized, but Southern Europeans are often loud, dirty, uncultured, illiterate, sex-crazed monkeys who would sell their own mother’s soul straight to the devil to earn 10 Euro cents. Perhaps Northern countries should force southerners into re-education camps, but that gets beyond the confines of this question.
Q. Why shouldn’t there be a liberal migration policy?
A.
There are too many people.
There are too many people.
The more migrants are accepted, the more the poorer countries turn into baby making factories. If people and governments knew their people would be stuck at home, they would probably have 1-2 children max, like in civilized countries, rather than 35-40 children as in the barbarian countries.
When people leave poor countries, there are never improvements. If people knew there was no hope of ever leaving, they would, instead, put their energies into improving the place of their birth.
Q. Isn’t this horrible, heartless and cruel?
A. No. The current situation is far worse.