If you're not 14 or completely driven by greed you can understand the reasoning behind this.
Just the same way you don't give your money to a beggar on the street when you can barely afford to survives yourself the employment of personal boundaries is important for humans and countries.
So given that Italy is not doing so well at the moment I kind of have to question their thinking reducing their revenue stream in favour if immigrants.
The assumption that all immigration is good immigration is not true.
The US did immigration right before only allowing in people when there was a need for workers and only allow predominantly cultures that would attempt to integrate and get along with the existing population.
The current policy allows unregulated areas (no go zones) to exist where the refugees make the laws; police are afraid to go in and they are not required to integrate into society plus their cultural and religious beliefs create a propensity for hostility against the locals/infidels.
Honestly it's a powder keg waiting to explode and given the rise of terrorist attacks in Europe it's getting there at a short and steady pace. It will take generations before their views will be moderate enough for them to be able to get along with the local population and the higher the amount of people and the longer they are kept in their echo chamber the longer it will take.
In the mean time we will see a rise in draconian Sharia law type laws since they will represent a considerable amount of the voting population just like in the UK. See Lauren Southern held under terrorism act for social experiment [1]
Mind you the UK allowed the change to be gradual and their local Muslim population is quite moderate over all yet this is still happening.
[1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJt7oZSONiU)
Anybody see the irony of a weak white canadian girl held under a terrorism act for distributing a bunch of fliers with some text on it?
On the other hand, why do you falsely assume that acceptance of refugees has to have no limits or conditions? I'm saying that you can achieve a level of practical balance for two different areas on unrelated motives.
Because it doesn't have a limit or conditions the overwhelming majority of assumed refugees are illegal immigrants brought over on the boats of NGO's. They haven't used the proper channels and haven't been checked what so ever in many cases it's not even possible to know their country of origin forget about anything else.
If they have completed the proper procedures and done all the paperwork for seeking asylum fair enough but that's not what's happening now they just show up.
Italy is a modern, advanced, wealthy economy - I would guess they are more wealthy than any country in the history of the world before 1970. They can do far more than afford to survive, and they can help those in need. Current people in Italy benefit from a long history of 'humanitarianism' by their predecessors; it's not an exceptional behavior, it's the norm.
Human beings are more important than money. Also, those human beings will grow the economy in the future - in the near future. In the long run they also keep the demographics from getting exceptionally old.
> The assumption that all immigration is good immigration is not true.
I'm not sure what that means, nor did I hear anyone say it.
The ideal was that as these people are treated with decency and respect and given a life not unlike any other Swede might receive, they would be able to integrate and ultimately just becomes Swedes. But this ideal did not really turn out to be justified. So what will happen to Sweden as these individuals begin to be one of the most relevant voting blocs? It's not a rhetorical question, since I don't think anybody really knows the answer. This scale of migration with people of such sharply contrasting worldviews is something relatively novel in the modern developed world. However, in my opinion Sweden's experiment is more likely to end up being seen as a cautionary tale than a model of humanitarianism.
[1] - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/swedens-ugly-immigra...
The US has had multiple waves of immigration from most of the world, over the last few centuries. And there has been similar pushback from nativists over and over again. If that long history is any indication, Sweden will be fine.
1) The first is of course just sheer volume. Sweden has gone, in less than a single generation, from a mostly ethnically homogeneous nation to one where about 20% of the population is foreign born and that's only going to keep rising. The US is at record setting levels recently, with a foreign born population of less than 14%. And it's always been a rather diverse nation.
2) Relatively incompatible cultures. Large chunks of the migrants to Sweden are coming from backgrounds that hold very different cultural values on a wide range of fundamental issues. By contrast the vast majority of migrants to the US tend to hold quite similar cultural values.
3) Distorted migratory motivations. Throughout the US's history, migration has been about work -- in the past and present. People's motivation for coming here is to work. When the economy tanked in 2009, so did immigration. As it picks back up, so does immigration. Sweden, by contrast, is attracting people exclusively because they offer extremely generous benefits, particularly for refugees. They are attracting individuals that are only moving there because they can get more stuff from their government than they can from other nations. Ideally this could just be a liminal phase, but the current outcomes are far from promising. If people end up beginning to take the government handouts for granted, I think this would be a serious problem.
It'll merely no longer be recognizable as "Sweden" for people whose ancestors considered themselves "Swedes".