French Presidential Election

[Viking]

but these countries don't always want or can't always take all of them

We could spend money we would otherwise have to spend on integration and anti-terrorism to sweeten the deal for such countries.

and they also don't always offer them the same chances of a better life.

Are they entitled to our quality of life right now just because we have happen to have it?

Telling people their lives are over and will be spent in a military-controlled tent-city for decades or for ever from now on is not as unethical as locking a group of people up? Aren't people basically imprisoned in quite a few of those refugee camps?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6996161.html

Doesn't seem like any worse conditions than what I would guess millions of very poor people the world over have lived in for all their lives; to put things in perspective. Are the people in that camp more worthy of Western help because they used to have a wealthier lifestyle once? Or should we empty the slums and move all their inhabitants to the West along with the migrating Syrians?

Note that the camp in question is in Europe. A more compelling argument, here, would be concerning camps in other Muslim countries, although that takes us back to my first point in this post: putting pressure on other Muslim countries to take them in, and help them with it where it seems useful and possible.

Well, no, the police is understaffed and overworked

Yet you might have to spend great sums only to see small reductions in deaths and injuries. It's comparing the return on investment from the different alternatives that is relevant here.

The problem is that not everywhere in Western Europe can you prove that foreigners are statistically more antisocial than the natives.

That's not the point, but that law and order is unravelling different places (cities and neighbourhoods) in Europe because of mass-immigration, while mass-immigration continues. Whatever the percentages are for natives and immigrants when it comes to antisocial behaviour, that doesn't particularly matter unless you can use it to both actually restore law and order in these places and prevent lawlessness from spreading (and without gutting other parts of the state budget, which could of course lead us to more traffic deaths, increased MRSA incidence, less aid to poor countries etc..).

You know, I'd consider tax evasion and bullying antisocial behavior as well, how many natives do you think engage in that or does that not count and why?

http://investorplace.com/investorpol.../#.WGz3Cy-GNGE
http://www.workplacebullying.org/wbi...014-us-survey/
http://freakonomics.com/2013/07/19/t...on-bar-fights/
http://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics

What are you trying to say?

It's funny how we want to protect our Christian heartland full of good people who'd rather watch outsiders die in droves than let them into their lovely christian paradise of brotherly love.

[...]

Are those the noble Christian social values we defend?
Is that the social peace they are disturbing so violently?

I care little for Christianity and 'Christian values', so I'll leave it to you to defend them.