I am often described as a veteran of the anti-immigration movement, but that is not entirely accurate. I am a determined opponent of migration
a) when people arrive whose culture is difficult to reconcile with our own,
b) or when they arrive in numbers so large that we could not integrate them without negative consequences for the native population.
If I had the authority, after the events of recent months I would grant asylum to 50,000 Persian atheists or Christians (provided they passed security screening), with the prospect that, once they learned the language and absorbed the basics of the culture, they could obtain citizenship. Naturally, they would have to be settled in a way that dispersed them throughout the country, ensuring that no local community formed anywhere. Masaryk accepted tens of thousands of refugees fleeing the Bolshevik regime in much the same way. It would be an act of mercy that we can afford. It would also help us demographically.
The problem is that neither the president nor the prime minister has the power to decide on such a program in the Czech Republic. As soon as an initiative of this kind began, virtually anyone could file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the conditions were discriminatory, and the European court would compel us to include observant Muslims and other criminal elements as well. At that point, the only option would be to shut the program down immediately.
At present, this aspect of the matter is less significant for us, but it is worth understanding. Shifting decision-making on migration to the European level is not only dangerous; it also obstructs acts of mercy. The pro-immigration activists, unsurprisingly, do not seem troubled by that in the slightest.