Really you just brought in a million of them and most of them dont know English or have any skills for the modern economy. 

I think I will take canadian immigration system over your guys any day... 

How many immigrants who didn't know English did your nation let in in its existence?! Your clearly xenophobic and full of prejudices.

Most immigrants that come into Canada these days come through the points-based system that values learning either English or French beforehand.

Also, many of the refugees brought into the nation were pre-selected by the government as well. 

Furthermore, I  have read a lot of German politicians have looked to the Canadian system in how to shape the German system...

Reality is the Germany refugee experiment in 2015 was a disaster that was only corrected afterward shifting the focusing on reducing the numbers to a manageable levels and to focus on national security issues. 

The success of a refugee policy system is based on in this order.

1: Security

2: Ability to provide assistance 

3. Compassion 

It would be ignorant to ignore the real reasons. Most AfD voters come from areas with close to no immigrants, low education and a bad economic situation. Another bigger part are former CDU voters who think the CDU went to much to the left recently. Both those groups have reasons for their fears and it indeed would be wrong to ignore it. That's exactly why it's good we have such a system, not only a two party system like in the U.S. 

Just because Merkel's party only had 33 % doesn't mean she can decide everything...that's why they need coalitions and that's what the parliament is for. It's very democratic tbh.

Not sure what the system is like in Canada but if I remember right your parliament is one of the most diverse on this planet. You really should know what I'm talking about.

Most likely he believed you to be an American.

But your post is why I always laugh when a bunch of Americans get upset over Immigration reform in America and then go to say they want to move to Canada, which as you point out has very thorough imigration policy.

You know what a real disaster is...that those countries mainly responsible for the wars causing the refugees are so hesitant taking them in. It's a shame the U.S., U.K. and Canada above all first mess everything up and don't want to be held responsible afterwards.

I'm proud that my country reacted as it did. Me and my family even help refugees almost every day. The message it sent to the wrong people is surely questionable and has been corrected since, I still think showing a heart is the better solution that spreading hate most of the times.

Canada, Australia, and New Zeland have very controlled immigration system due to geography and have done so with great success.

Not wanting uncontrolled immigration into our nation is not hate, it is a logical expectation of a country with national sovereignty. 

Imo most people do think you guys did a good thing in principle, but the manner it as done did a lot more harm than good in shaping refugee policy in the Western World...Frankly, I think in the next wave, I doubt the German government or EU nations will open their arms at all or much and the 2015 experience is a direct cause of that.

Scenes of mass floods of people, New Years Sex assaults and all that imo sort of soured public Opinion in many other nations towards refugees. 

I be honest in Sept 2015, I was like wow so much compassion but seeing what happened afterward hardened my opinions.

Here in Canada due to what Happened in Germany, the government had to pretty much assure the public that:

-Refugees were being pre-screened and that security was number one concern

- Focus on real refugees from Syria and not economic migrants...

- Focus on people in families, as lone males were banned as refugees into the nation. 

- Bringing in a manageable number over a period of time.

I think imo a sensible policy serves the nation and helps refugees most.. 

What are you talking about??? The parliament has the last word on such issues and for something like Brexit, you'd need at least 50% of the votes here. For changing the constitution 66.67%.

Also yes I think the average voter is not fit for direct democracy. Even the above average wouldn't be. You CAN'T be informed about everything going out there. To make a qualified decision, you'd need HOURS of personal research, looking for pros and contras, short terms and long terms effects. You can't tell me there are enough people willing to do that. And while the average voter might not be dumb, they are emotional, which is probably even worse.

Little Switzerland has about 10 referendums a year! The average turnout is at a pathetic low 45%. That means you only need 22.51% of the electorate to change laws! How very democratic.

Agree on all fronts. Just imagine a country with a general low education level like the U.S. having a direct democracy. Idiocracy would be inevitable. That said it definitely should make one think that people rightfully want to feel more involved in decision processes, which should make elitist politicians think in how they can counter steer and avoid similar results as Trump, Brexit, Front Nationale or AfD elections in the future. If they don't it's only gonna get worse.