The most obvious example is Merkel's flooding of the bordering european states with economic immigrants and "refugees" of disputed international validity. Not only EU states like Hungary, Italy, France or Slovenia, but also non-EU territories like Croatia, Bosnia etc. It's a difference that is showing if you like me live as a student in a Schengen-border state. Ignoring the major changes of public opinion and trying to arrange no compromises at all is (IMO) a common pattern with the EU law- and decisionmaking. Saying that a whole international union with will somehow deal with and accept an overwhelming influx of non-integrated, traumatized, not-fit-for-work population is peak bourgeoisie. At the end of the day, social state is (at least in my god-forsaken old-school commie eyes) there to provide the future productive members of society with an education, housing, stipends etc. for the betterment of the nation/state/collective/whatever. I see little sense in promotion of influx of cheap, abusable, low-skill labour or even worse, perpetual social system abusers.

So how is it different from a similar influx of migrants from Eastern Europe? (Disclaimer: I’m from Eastern Europe myself.)

Significantly lower unemployment statistically and a much lower cultural barrier anecdotally. But I might be ignorant or going off anecdotes. Economically, they are pretty comparable if it weren't for the fact that most of my compatriots in the diaspora and foreign workers where I live are usually employed. EU statictics reflect this: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Sure, as the immigrants from Eastern EU countries can legally work in the West without all the paperwork required for folks from outside the EU. But I still remember when it wasn’t the case, and Poland was widely known for stealing cars and prostitution.