Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
The argument was that noone should be let in because a few of them are/could be dangerous. Yes, it is collective punishment if you take away a real possibility for many because of the sins of a few.
We are not punishing anyone by not letting them in; it would be a security measure. When stores are locked for the night, it's not to punish the population collectively for theft because some people are likely to take goods with them without leaving money behind; it is a security measure.

Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
Wrong twice.

1) It is needed to stop population from dwindling, not increase it

Thing is, the population is still increasing in many European countries, including this one (when I was younger, I remembered the figure as 4.5). Without immigration, we would be closer to stagnation here.

In recent years, two thirds of Norway’s population growth has stemmed from an increase in immigration, while a third of the increase comes from more babies being born, Statistics Norway said.
2) The age issue (number of old vs number of young) remains
It will come and pass. If you import a lot of young people to fix it, you'll have a new wave of elderly people down the line.

Wrong again. They're moving because there isn't enough resources.
If there weren't enough resources, these countries wouldn't have a growing population in the first place - they'd all starve to death.

It's like if you have two islands with one population each of deers. One population has 0 net growth, while the other has a strong growth. The growth of the second population could have gone on until there became too many of them, and there was not enough food to sustain more growth. Alternatively, we could continuously move some of the surplus of the second population to the island of the first, and gradually both islands would become overpopulated, even if the transferred deers adopt the zero-growth reproduction pattern of the original natives.

All European countries suffer from that problem. Migrations within Europe won't change that.
This is simply untrue. There is no need for more migration to e.g. Norway. Unemployment is on the rise here.

Refugees from war zone should have precedence over economic migrants who can be put on hold for a few years.
Odds are there are more wars coming in the future. And "for a few years"? That wasn't much.

It's short term vs. long term security.
The Muslim population in Europe is a long term security issue; as can be seen by the number of second-generation immigrants that have become terrorists. Third, fourth etc. generations are likely to continue these trends to different degrees (it could also go in waves).

They don't really have to become terrorists, either. Having a significant fraction of the population in a country not feeling like their home country is theirs won't do good in times of crisis, like during war - or even just in general.

In the US, after one and half a century without slavery, they still haven't managed to brigde the European vs. African divide. Makes one wonder how much better the Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations will be in Europe one century from now on.