Double standards, hyperboles and a complete lack of historical knowledge

That's one thing that the NYT's facebook page was full of idiots comparing Hungary to the Nazis because they have decided to detain asylum seekers until their status can be verified. I mean this is quite expected from the virtue-signalling part of the "liberals" who love to show how pious and true to the cause they are by condemning anything and anyone.

This, obviously, was not the first time. A certain Austrian chancellor did the same in 2015, the Romanian Prime Minister did the same, and several newspapers alluded to the same issue: just because a country does not agree with Brussels and Germany (and upholds the law as it is bound to do), it's essentially a Nazi country. (Although Orban makes it hard to agree with him; he is kind of a douche.) It's a difficult concept apparently: just because a country has a different take on how it imagines its future, and decided it does not wish to share the problems with large-scale immigration of low skilled Muslim immigrants (and what comes with it: enclaves, increased crime rates, etc., etc.), it does not mean that they are Nazis.

And now a Saudi prince has stood in line of the Nazi-train. It seems like we have finally reached a breaking point where even the most socially sensitive countries, the well-known bastions of humanitarianism have had enough and are now forced to say it how it is: Hungarians are Nazis for obliging the law, and making sure that only people who are bona fide refugees can get into Europe. Amid the huge outcry I still have not heard any alternative solution how to deal with hundreds and even thousands of people who can just disappear at whim after submitting their paperwork (if they bother to submit it at all). Strangely silent are Merkel and Junker about this whole issue; what I suspect is that everyone are secretly relieved that this is being done, but submit to the whole charade so that they don't look like they approve. Let someone else take the blame for an unpopular decision.

What I would like to know is how the "progressive left" feels like being on the same side as the Saudis... (Although to be fair it never really bothered anyone in the West. Beheadings, slavery, women's rights, illegal wars in Yemen never really appeared on the radar of these newspapers and politicians. Not to mention those millions of people they took in on humanitarian grounds.)

Concentration camps and migrants

So the Hungarian government has decided to set up guarded camps for asylum seekers until their application is processed, housing them in containers. This, obviously, set off a hysterical outburst from a lot of western newspapers, and the comment section of the NYT's facebook page filled up with Americans drawing parallels to cattle wagons and containers, and also brought up extermination camps.

Well, putting aside the lack of historical knowledge, and the fact that these containers are the very same ones workers use as temporary housing at building sites (and nobody complains about exterminating them, or keeping them in inhumane conditions), and the fact that the present clusterfuck in the Middle East is principally the US' fault (Americans don't like to clean up their own mess, but are quite judgemental of people who are left with it), let's look at this issue, shall we?

First issue. A large portion of these migrants are not war refugees; this has been established over and over and over. Bangladesh, Morocco, Pakistan, and Tunis (among others) are NOT war-torn countries.

Second issue (which ties in with the whole "closing the borders" thing): Hungary is on the Schengen border. (Well, Greece is too, but nobody expects them to be able to close it.) Hence it is duty bound to protect the border. Even Merkel is talking about protecting the borders, and stopping the influx of undesirable elements, even though she also screamed murder when this protection actually was taking place. Just to recap: the borders are not closed. Anyone can go through the border control points, and apply for asylum. The illegal border crossing was stopped by erecting a fence. You come in, you apply for asylum, you wait. Whereas the 1.5 million people ending up in Germany came through the fields, and did not stop until Germany to apply for asylum. Which is not according to the rules. In fact, it's highly illegal.

Third issue: terrorism and other shenanigans. The Germans lost about 130 000 people. They don't know where they are. They can't be reached after they submitted their paperwork. A lot of rejected asylum seekers -no surprise- also disappeared. A sexual predator or two, a couple of terrorists also have known to disappear until they surfaced with their dicks in some poor kid, or behind the wheels of a high-jacked truck. So, with the knowledge that there is free movement within the Schengen zone I really, really would like to ask anyone who's complaining how they envision trying to keep the undesirables under control. Ahmed the terrorist can come in, claim asylum, and then disappear if you don't keep him in one place. During the process you might find out that he was sucking some ISIS boss' dick, or cutting heads off in his free time, it's too late; he is already in Germany or wherever, planning to do what terrorists do.

So I would genuinely be curious how you guys expect to screen hundreds of thousands of people and how you think you can deport them in case their application is rejected, if they are free to bum around the whole of EU.