You seem to be a little naive.
Well, I could think the same about You
First off, they send us not their best folks.
Well, lets see ...
Villagers in Africa (and other places) will sent their best folk to earn money, these are the people who will never receive a welcome when they return without success.
Real Refugees are not sent, they are driven out. They flee from war, Islamists, dictatorship and the like. The only guys "sending" them are thee rascals from the "Libyan Coast Gard" and the like. The sent those who have money, maybe from their family, or who were slaves for some times, to earn, or women who got money as prostitutes (willingly or not). These are not "best folks", of course, but is this a reason to send them back to Libya?
They usually do not love the countries they go to.
I don't demand they should love our county, I am content when they think about it in a positive way. The Christians from Iran and Afghanistan in my local church certainly do, but also many others.
Usually they try to contribute to the welfare of our county. This is no trivial task if You got traumatized, or when You face xenophobia ...
I'm not so naive to think every refugees does, but I suspect you generalize some experience to all refugees, which is a sort of naivety. I don't know whether you think of people from former colonies who don't love the people who had subjected their country for decades or centuries, or whether you are more influenced by news (remember: only
bad news are "good news" for journalists) or what else ...
The problems of their poverty and the wars in their countries should be solved in stead of flooding an opposite civilisation with their people.
Do you live to what you say? Do you demand the EU will open their market to products of "poor" countries in fair conditions, which means that our farmers will sold less of theirs, or industry will face competition that will cost us some jobs?
We should of course stop to consider countries like Libya or Saudi-Arabia as allies. The issue is more than just war industry ...
They don't want to be Europeans, they want to be Islamic, which means they believe Allah ordered them to make the world Muslim.
Certainly not those who fled from ISIS, Taliban and the like.
Already Europeans have been convicted for criticizing Islam.
Saying that Islam is the same as Islamism is not criticizing Islam but rather hate speech. I do criticize Islam, the only "conviction" I got was in an Islamic forum, where I was turned out.
Already people have been murdered for "insulting the Prophet".
In Pakistan and some other countries, you may even get a death sentence because of that. The majority of victims are Muslim. It's like witch hunting: When You want the house of your neighbor, accuse him of blasphemy, dependent of his vs. Your social status the odds may be high that he will be convicted and sentenced to death or killed by a mob.
Don't be so naive to think there are no Muslim victims because the press doesn't tell you there are many of them.
Crime rates go up with the number of immigrants.
Poor people are more inclined to crime, so are Young people, are men, as opposed to rich, old or female ones. Since immigrants tend to be poor, and young, and often are mainly masculine, it is no surprise the crime rate among them is higher. If You consider theses factors, the rate is the same as among Germans.
Of course the hundreds of houses planned as refugee emergency accommodations that were burnt down by right-wing folks (rather unsuccessful trials included) raised the crime rate in Germany. Also the fact that thousands of criminals (among about 1,000,000 refugees) unknown to the police had for some time many opportunities to do their work ... both aspects are on the decline now, and accordingly the criminal rate also returns to normal figures by now.
Of course I know there are groups with a higher criminal rate, like Russians or North Africans, and there are groups with a lower criminal rate than the ordinary German (of same age, sex, social status), like Syrians and Afghans. It is easy to see that it is not Islam (but rather specific types of Islam, or other religions) that contributes to the criminal behavior of the people.
Do you think the people in power didn't know this would bring problems?
Which "people in power"? The governments on the Balkan who decided to sent every refugees on to Germany after Merkel decided to let in the refugees treated barbarously in Hungary probably knew what they were doing. Merkel certainly didn't expect what happened then. Shortly after her decision she ought to do two things: To assure the Germans that the problems can be mastered, and to tell potential immigrants they should not come. To give two contrary messages at the same time is difficult, Merkel didn't master it.
But about two years ago Merkel said that she would never do so a second time. She has learned a lesson (so did I).
Have you heard of the Kalergi plan?
There are a number of "plans" made known to the public for propagandist purposes. Some of them are sheer fakes, as the protocols of the sages of Zion, others do really exist as the plan suggested by Theodore N. Kaufmann to sterilize every German, some even got some influence to politics as the Morgenthau plan, though they are obsolete now (the Morgenthau plan was never set into action, not even started).
It is easy to see which category a plan from 1923 belongs to. It is sheer propaganda to mention him outside historical reflections on the 1920s.
Chem trails are no longer 'just a conspiracy theory', it's now called geo engineering.
The term geo-engineering is several decades old, and plans to influence weather on a large scale with chemicals dispersed by planes even existed when I was born, i.e. ca. 60 years ago.
But "chemtrail" is a myth which became popular because the doubling ob air traffic every decade has greatly increased the numbers of condensation tracks. People who are not told the real figures of how air plane traffic increased above Europe (and US) got the idea there might be another reason behind it.
Sun activity plays an important role.
It does play a role, as you can see from the fact that every cycle with high numbers of sun spots the global temperature rises, and when the number of sun spots decreases again, the overall temperature on earth stays rather constant. The fact that there is no decrease in times when sun activity decreases shows that there are other factors involved.
There is no decent evidence that CO2 levels are significantly rising.
So a measurement at a place far of industrial activity (most of the air be blown from the pacific ocean to that mountain) is no "decent" evidence?
Datei:Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide.svg – Wikipedia
There is no decent evidence that the earth's climate is changing because of CO2
There is no decent evidence that human carbon emissions are the cause.
Well, CO_2 is a gas with "glasshouse effect", which warms the earth, the CO_2 lever is rising (at least do "indecent" scientific measurements), and the temperature is rising. I believe the facts are enough to convince every informed jury, and I don't believe your "decent" propaganda.
There is no decent evidence to suggest that there are too many people.
Before discussing evidence we should try to define what "too many people" means. Depending on what definition we will agree to, there are too many people on earth or not.
There is no decent evidence that shows global warming.
Answer one question: Why did Peary go to the North pole from Northern Greenland? With good weather, you may even reach the North pole by ship when you start from Siberia, and you will come at least closer to it than Northern Greenland, so the track on ice will be shorter.
(BTW: It is now generally assumed that Peary didn't reach the pole, but returned before reaching it, but this is another debate).
There is decent evidence indicating that those in power think they own the earth and want to see our numbers reduced.
What kind of "decent evidence"? Logic tells us that they will get more money and more power when there are more people ion earth, so why do they want to reduce us?
It is a fact that the main stream media decides what people believe.
As long as people believe them.
"Mainstream" is different from country to country. Compare your home TV, euronews and al Jazeera, and you will see what I mean.
I do not rely on main stream media, but also read mission news, news about persecution of Christians (BTW: I could tell much about persecution by Muslims, so don't consider me naive in that point), and also some non-mainstream media e.g. from political movements, or websites like change.org.
And I have enough scientific education to see that part of what you say is nonsense, or propaganda.
PS: I'm too lazy to look after every typing error, I apologize "in advance" for those that escaped me.