You have no idea what you are talking about.
Germany has floods, snow storms, etc. The government has to think about disaster protection and what it means in a modern society, which depends on concepts like 'always on'. Plans are twenty years old and need to be updated.
A few years ago there were some parts of Germany without electricity for a few days and some were not reachable, because of a winter storm, which damaged large power lines.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrill_(storm)
Example for a flood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_European_floods
There are terrorists attacks monthly in Europe (you don't get the headlines here in the US, and often, the 'attacks' are individuals with knives on trains, or who attack a single family so they don't get attention) - and European governments are really in a difficult situation - they don't know what to do. So this mandate kind of a 'knee jerk reaction' to some extent, possibly even 'political cover' so that they seem as though they are doing something, if you want a cynical take.
The North Sea coast, where I live here in Germany 100km away, has always seen floods and violent storms. Additionally there are floods from heavy rains in the Elbe region. I live in such a region, where such a flood is possible.
Germany has disaster protection plans. It has organizations to provide help, like the THW. Etc. etc. The plan mentioned here has been in preparation for several years now.
The plans have nothing to do with knife attacks in trains. You are clearly clueless about this government paper.
And do you have a source for your claim that only 1/4 of recent asylum seekers were refugees?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240010/Number-refug...
+ Germany has 100K Syrian asylum requests in Sept 2015. This would be 10% of the official number of migrants, and less than that including many who are off the books:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/welcome-syrian-refugees-...
+ Germany can have flooding, but it's in very specific areas. Germany does not face the kinds of catastrophic environmental issues that happen in the US - like right now in Louisiana. There is no chance that floods in Germany will affect mass populations. It's in isolated areas, usually by rivers. To get 'food and water' they can 'walk up the hill'. 'Flooding' has never been a concern on this scale, it's not why they are issuing the order.
+ About 1/2 of those receiving direct asylum in 2015 were Syrians - they get an 'acceptance rate' of almost 100%. But only about 1/2 of those entering - by official figures - are making the applications. Which means 'officially' - only about 1/4 are Syrian. Syrians are not going to be represented in those that have not applied, because they are almost guaranteed to be accepted.
In 2015 DE had 441K applicants, but had over 900K 'migrants' - again - the 'official' numbers, with many estimates much larger.
Wikipedia has some decent numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
'Open Borders' was a sever act of utter irresponsibility on the part of Angela Merkel - who caused the flood crises by inviting anyone with the ability to do this.
I was in Tunisia recently and it was common for people to talk openly about 'going to Germany'. Tunisians are definitely listed as 'safe country of origin' and are not going to have their refugee claims accepted.
The 'responsible' thing to do would be to fly in refugees directly from camps. It would be cheaper as well.
Angela Merkels actions resulted in 100's of thousands of people, flooding across tiny nations such as Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Hungary and creative massive calamity and disruption, and creating political chaos in those countries.
You do realise that populations are concentrated around rivers right? Therefore rivers tend not to be isolated areas.
Even scarier, is the fact that this is even being done.
Since there are no external threats and 0 chance of environmental disaster (Germany doesn't get floods and hurricanes etc.) - it speaks to a terrorist threat.
Over 1.5 million people flooded into Germany. 1 million official. Of those, only 1/4 were 'refugees' - i.e. displaced people from Syria and Iraq. The remainder were young men from Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt seeking a better life.
Of course, I don't blame anyone for seeking a better life, but arbitrary infusion of 100's of thousands of people into farily ethnically homogenous state that already has problems with integration re: Turks, who stand out strongly among other immigrants in terms of their non-integration - is crazy.
'Bleeding hearts' need to be met with 'responsible, pragmatic minds'.
Yes - we need to help refugees. Of course. But we have to be responsible about it.
Angela Merkels unilateral and now unpopular policy of just opening the doors is absurd. She later said she was 'surprised' that so many 'non refugees' would decide to come - which illustrates how astonishingly politicos are out of touch with human nature.
The moment she opened the gates, I assumed the outcome - millions would try to come, by hook or by crook.
Canada and USA are shielded by oceans - but they and the UK have the right approach - they take a specific number from UN camps - such refugees are well vetted, they are credibly refugees and not terrorists, families instead of just young men, and it happens at a controlled pace.