---

@theelench wrote:

I have to agree with you although I do think allowing some refugees in is a good idea.

 

For some reason it has become accepted that these displaced people are "the biggest refugee problem since WW2".  Comparing the two is misleading IMO.

 

Back then the huge movement of people was caused by displaced people returning to their homes after the war ended, so there was no net increase in Europes population.  This influx is made up of new population for which we don't have the infrastructure to deal with.

 

Back then the refugees were Europeans with largely the same culture as whatever country they ended up in or passed through.  These new arrivals have a completely different culture and outlook.

 

Both the above mean that back then the refugees were easily assimilated into society.  The refugees now will not be and if they arrive in large enough numbers will not need to integrate.

 

IMO this influx is more like the 5th century Roman empire.  They had been letting in small numbers of refugees for a century or more  and successfully integrating them, as we have done  They then let in a huge population of Goths, fleeing from invaders and war in their land.  They were then unable to deal with this huge influx in so short a time.   The land they had been promised to farm was unavailable, even feeding them became difficult.  In desperation the Goths moved out from their holding areas and began taking what they needed.

 

Coming back to the present.  Where is the work and housing etc. to come from for these people.  Europe has high unemployment already.   IMO the same thing could happen again.  Large numbers of unemployed, disaffected people in poverty stricken enclaves of non-European culture.  We will then have two cultures in Europe again.  The Goths eventually headed west, sacked Rome and brought down the Western Empire.  It could all happen again.

---

Well said that man !