>
Not sure what EU defines as ‘No Right’ to asylum but the article seems to be saying they want to crack down on people who feign a genuine hardship/life threatening reason for asylum. Reasonable. >

I’m pro immigration but this is totally fair. If you don’t qualify to be a refugee or legally immigrate, gtfo. Just because you risked everything to cross illegally and made it doesn’t give you right to be here. It’s spit in face to legal immigrants who followed the rules and patiently waited their turn in line. >

While I generally agree, this part is a bit misleading:

followed the rules and patiently waited their turn in line.

There is no line. You either qualify or you don't. If you don't qualify, there is no amount of waiting in line that will allow you to immigrate legally. >

The hope for many is to achieve an education to get out of the places they came from. Many countries don’t have the educational institutions or bar them behind such impossible wealth gaps, that this may be their only way to attain the education to be able to apply legally. >

The EU is full. People have to understand that the rapid accumulation of so many new people with a different culture just isn't feasable. The established cultural groups feel like they're being pushed away from their own homeland. Refugees get priority on homes and care while there are housing shortages. We should stop helping random people and fix our own problems first. Quality of life is RAPIDLY deteriorating in the EU. >

This ^^^^.     Sometimes people should fix their own countries instead of running and asking for handouts >


Sometimes people should fix their own countries instead of running and asking for handouts

Sometimes people should stay in their own countries instead of bombing, displacing, sanctioning, looting artifacts, testing their weapons in other countries and then complaining about asylum seekers. >

When did the EU bomb Gambia, Bangladesh, Iraq or Senegal? (I.e. the countries highlighted in the report that you read) >

So you got no problem with migrants from Syria, afghanistan, Libya, Iraq? Because NATO bombed them to death. You have problems only with Gambia and Bangladesh and Senegal? 
Please specify that you got no problem with migrants from countries NATO has bombed or EU has sanctioned or got artifacts from. Thank you. >

There is going to be a lot of re-population, in between countries, immigration, whatever, you can't blame anyone looking for a better life.
I have no problem with it unless they have exhibited violence.
They have to have documentation and submit to fingerprinting so at the least they can be run thru INTERPOL.
A DNA test wouldn't hurt either, I know this sounds like going to far but every country wants to keep there citizens safe.
Let's go further, what skills or knowledge do they possess? Can they be a productive member of society ? >

What I don’t agree with is when people decide to pass by or through several poorer countries so they can get to a rich country.  
It would be like if your home burned down and the government said, “We have an emergency shelter you can stay for awhile” and you say, “No, that’s unacceptable, you need to put me up at the Four Seasons”. >

I don’t agree with how those countries got rich in the first place. >

Considering turkey's recent behaviour, I guess a bunch of European countries are extremely worried about him unleashing the refugees he extorts the EU with.
That and the expected billion climate refugees - as even with a stop of the AMOC and subsequent moving of the gulf stream, it would very likely still be a paradise compared to the horror closer to the equator. >

...
For the last few thousand years. >

Gonna save this for when Europeans feel the need to comment on America's Immigration & Border Security.