An alternative#by Hermann Maurer
The solution described by W. Herz in contribution 1 is interesting but complicated. How about this: The EU is paying some 5 billion Euros per year to Turkey, amounting to about 1.000 Euros per refugee.
Why is the EU not asking other countries (Algeria, Morocco, Usbekistan, Kirgisistan,...) to provide accommodation/food/education/medical/spiritual support at a defined level, and offering for 1.000 refugees 1 million Euros per year. I would be surprised if countries where a Euro buys much more than it does in e.g. Austria would not be happy to accept refugees given such conditions.
Let me add two remarks:
(1) Arrangements can be for a certain small nummber of years only. Note e.g Syria had some 17 million inhabitants before the war. Now it is close to 7 million, i.e is severely underpopulated. No reason not to help Syrians to return to their home country, once the situation is under control there again. (2) To take some women and chilren refugess into European countries for humanitarian reasons is a seriosu mistake. Of course their men (families) will have to be allowd to also come a bit later, so we are continuing immigration to Europe. But such immigraiton must not be based on the fact that life is easier here, but based on what Euope may need in some sectors to up keep the ecconomy (as is done in immigrant countries like Kanada or New Zealand). By the way, automation will take over so many jobs that it is doubtful that Europe needs immigration in some fields, as id did in the past. Does this imply that population density in Europe will drop? I hope so!: Compered to a few exceptions Europe is much more densely populated than most countrie. Have a look at Geography/Lab and population density.
Here are 6 examples:
United States 32.45
South Sudan 17.95
Did you e.g. realize that Germany is 7 times more densely populated than the USA, or 3.5 times more densely populated then Mexico, or 8 times more densely populated than Kirgisistan?