But all things being equal, wouldn't you rather have an immigrant who

* speaks the local language

* is highly educated (eg. post-secondary degree)

* is young

* has expertise in an in-demand industry

than one who is missing one or more of the above? For non-refugees, you can screen for the above factors and only admit the ones who are qualified, but for refugees you can't.

No, because then you have no one to do manual jobs because the native well educated youth won't take those.

>then you have no one to do manual jobs

And that's fine, because those jobs can either be automated, outsourced, done domestically (ie. driving yourself rather than getting delivery), or at worst case paying more. All things being equal I'd rather have a chemical engineer who can do chemical engineering and deliver pizza, than someone who can only deliver pizza.

It's not that easy, because:

- not all jobs can be automated

- manual laborers make less money

If you see immigrants all around you doing great, while you clean toilets and struggle to feed yourself, that breeds resentment of your government.

And sure, it's easy to say the jobs should just pay more, but that's not the reality today, and if your choice is working a shitty job or starving then that's not really a choice at all.

I would also rather have the chemical engineer, but I think it would be even better to live in a society where both the delivery driver and the chemical engineer are net positives to society.

Refugees have a selection mechanism as well because you have to be enterprising and resourceful to travel all the way to the EU. The US became big by taking in the unwashed masses fleeing Europe, and I think much of its entrepreneurial spirit goes back to that origin story.

>Refugees have a selection mechanism as well because you have to be enterprising and resourceful to travel all the way to the EU.

I never claimed that refugees have no selection effects, but is that selection effect comparable to proper immigration screening?