> In the first available country of safe refuge because you're fleeing political persecution or war? Yeah, I'd say that's 100% legal and moral. That's how you get from Syria to Turkiye.
Is it moral to put the burden on a random country (Turkey in this case) just because it happens to border a country at war? Why shouldn't the huge economic costs be spread out more evenly?
Why should Turkey accept any immigrants that have no right to asylum? Why should the spreading of economic migrants all over europe be morally correct towards any european citizen? Why should anyones hard earned tax money go towards such people and not our own? In Germany, bridges are collapsing and the train network is massively underfunded and derelict which would need a massive investment. And yet, there is no money left. I wonder what is such a massive financial drain that this can't be done.
That’s quite a claim. Any evidence that Germany’s purported lack of money for fixing their infrastructural issues is due to immigration? Because it sounds a lot like the baseless red meat that the far right likes to throw at their base. (See “£350m a week for the NHS.”)
I did not say that this is the main reason, I said it is a drain on taxpayers money. And since every migrant costs lots of money, not just directly in the form of unearned social welfare but indirectly due to health insurance, etc., this is money that can not otherwise be used - for example, as investments into infrastructure. Paying welfare to millions of economic migrants is simply not possible without other areas suffering and, as can be seen from recent polls, is not wanted by many Germans.
But if the total “drain” is, for example, 1%, especially when other budget categories are much larger slices of the pie, then it is effectively a non-issue. And you also have to factor in the economic contributions of immigrants, many of whom presumably have jobs and pay taxes. So having the actual numbers on hand is very important. (Even if we’re assuming that Germany’s declining infrastructure is due to lack of money, which seems suspect to me. More likely to simply be a lack of political will.)
Germany is struggling to meet its 2% military budget requirement, as mandated by the EU. It's not a non-issue at all. And other budget categories - like healthcare - are already expensive, not only for the government spending but normal people because contributions are rising.
> And you also have to factor in the economic contributions of immigrants, many of whom presumably have jobs and pay taxes.
Yes, a whole third has some form of employment. And employment can also mean a mini job that pays practically no taxes and costs the taxpayer due to additional payments for rent, etc. The number of migrants who actually contribute is small. The rest receives welfare.
Is it moral to put the burden on a random country (Turkey in this case) just because it happens to border a country at war? Why shouldn't the huge economic costs be spread out more evenly?