I expect this to change with any future waves. It's hard to be a trendsetter, but easy to be a follower.
You left out the part about turning to fascism. Anyway, none of what you mentioned helped immigrants nor resolved the reason for their immigration, so it seems more like the least sensible being that it was a complete failure.
> The rest of the governments mostly pretended the problem doesn't exist.
Excuse me? This isn't remotely true. It was the main topic for half a decade. We housed, clothed, fed and educated millions of people in need of our help and it was an amazing success!
Why do you think people "turn to fascism" in the first place??
Seems to me it is often a combination of dissatisfaction with some problems and a charismatic leader that promises an easy fix (if you only give him a lot of power and allow him to silence the opponents).
Sometimes the original problem isn't fixed at all and may even increase, sometimes it is replaced by more serious problems. But at the beginning it seems like things have improved, because the criticism has been silenced. Later, people who perceive the problems are afraid to speak up.
This may seem like an advice for democracies to avoid letting problems grow too large, otherwise you risk fascism. While solving problems is generally a good advice, it is not necessarily a question of letting a problem grow too large. Sometimes the problem can be relatively small, but the timing is unfortunate and it happens right before the election. It is also a question of whether you have a charismatic wannabe fascist leader who is well prepared at the right moment. Two or three smaller problems appearing at the right moment can bring a disaster that wouldn't happen if those problems appeared a few months apart.
Ummm, can you provide one or more example of this? The "Two or three smaller problems appearing at the right moment can bring a disaster" sounds plausible but just one small one?
Sounds like what is happening now in most of the Western world.
"Everyone I disagree with is a Nazi." [1] In the real world, Orban was just reelected with overwhelming majority (increasing his vote share). He didn't contribute to the causes of said migration and didn't set out to solve the problem either, he just made sure his country and the people that elected him were minimally impacted.
> We housed, clothed, fed and educated millions of people in need of our help and it was an amazing success!
This is precisely the problem. In Europe, we maintain a high standard of living, and a social safety net. That simply isn't logically compatible with unrestricted illegal immigration (because the resources with which we run the social safety net aren't infinite). We need different solutions, preferably solving these problems (food, housing, ...) where they happen (would also be much cheaper!)
[1] https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/818/hit...
> In the real world, Orban was just reelected with overwhelming majority (increasing his vote share)
You do realize Hitler was elected with an overwhelming majority too, right?
> and the people that elected him were minimally impacted.
Right, by letting people at their doorstep die. That's the problem.
> This is precisely the problem.
No, it was the solution to the actual existing problem.
> unrestricted illegal immigration
First, we weren't talking about "illegal immigration", we were talking about millions of refugees. Second, nothing about it was unrestricted.
Hitler or rather the Nazi party infamously didn't win "with an overwhelming majority" in November 1932. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1932_German_federal_e... reminds me they "lost 34 seats and again failed to form a coalition government in the Reichstag" (emphasis added). They gained power by non-electoral means after this, starting with a deal where President Hindenburg made Hitler chancellor and they had "a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and the German National People's Party (DNVP)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power...)
You assert that it's much cheaper to solve these problems without moving the people. It is not nearly so cut-and-dry.
When someone seeks to flee their homeland for Europe or America, it's generally because something is very wrong where they are coming from. Often, the problem includes some sort of kleptocratic, warmongering, authoritarian, or incompetent government. (Sometimes it is not strictly government — e.g. terrorism, cartels.)
It's often much easier to move people than reform institutions, and open migration worldwide would be a reform worth about $78 trilllllllllllllion. https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of...
The only realistic solution is reforming institutions where the people are.
The only interests this wannabe dictator will secure are his own.
Go move to Hungary if you find autocracy so appealing.
His election results were so good, they were downright Putinesque. Not a lot of comments on hackernews made me laugh as intensively as yours.