Maybe, but only if we then send them back after the war is over. I doubt the goverment is never going to accept those 7K anyway. They will just be as difficult and obstructive as possible, to ensure those 7K is all we we'll ever need to take. Even if our previous PM (Donald Tusk) is actually doing more to secure that outcome than anyone from current goverment.
That said, taking in any large numbers migrants isn't sensible. In fact, it's just plain dumb. Because most of people who come to EU do not need help. But Europe will burn cash on them, while cutting the aid to people outside EU who actually need that help.
For every migrant you take into EU you could help 20-30 outside EU. So people who support taking in big numbers of migrants into EU bassicaly care more about making themselves feel good than about actually doing good.
You can't just keep everyone in camps outside the EU. Turkey is hosting millions on its own and poor Lebanon currently hosts more refugees than Lebanese - now that's unsustainable rates of immigration. For all we know, it won't be possible to send people back to Syria for decades. No amount of money in the world is going to give the refugees anything approaching humane conditions under those circumnstances, they need to be relocated to countries that aren't as badly hit.
You live in Sweden right? You country is already considering cutting foreign aid by 60% and moving that money for helping migrants. Do you have any idea what kind of disasters will happen if the whole EU cut most of it's foreign aid?
There's absolutely no reason to cut foreign aid to care for refugees. It's a completely populist move, not even Sweden spends more than 1 % of GDP. We could easily cover that 0.6 % of GDP by slightly raising taxes, borrowing some, or redistributing it from less vital budget posts. It's a despicable move that's not worthy of a Social Democrat/Green coalition government and a reason I probably won't vote for them again next election.
I should probably also point out that Poland just spends 0.1 % of GDP on foreign aid which is the second lowest of all OECD nations. Forgive me if I have doubts that the Polish government is going to turn around and spend the billions necessary to make a difference in the refugee camps.
I don't mind if Poland takes those 7K (not anymore though and definitely not any quotas systems, Merkel can go and choke on that idea, plus we need to protect local muslim population from them), but it's just empty gesture. I would rather we not take even one and instead take the money those 7K would use and invest them in camps in Turkey or Lebanon.
Again, we can't just keep half the Syrian population in camps in Turkey and Lebanon for decades. If for no other reason because of the fact that the squalor and despair would create a more fertile breeding ground for terrorist recruiters than anywhere that we could see in Europe.
And I think you'll find that quotas are necessary if you want to keep freedom of movement. We can't have open interior borders without common exterior borders. I know you'd prefer that we simply close our external borders entirely but that's completely unreasonable and unconscionable.
1% per year means in couple generations some countries' (the ones most desirable for migrants) citizens will become minorities in their own countries.
There are currently 60 million people displaced by war globally in total, your 3.5 million a year would absorb them all in less than 20 years. You would never see that rate sustained for generations because there simply aren't even that many refugees to go around. I was just commenting that even your worst case scenario is manageable.
EDIT: Missed a decimal point, it's obviously 3.5 million a year for 20 years no 35 million for 2 years. My point still stands, that level is undesirable but not civilisation-ending.
http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html
