The part that really sucks is how unprincipled and irrational it is. It's certainly admirable to scoop up refugees and give them a better life, and I don't for an instant begrudge the refugees for making the trip. I'd do the same in their shoes. Yet the public discourse is so thoroughly controlled that what would seem like relatively reasonable statements from the citizens of Germany and Italy -- 'hey, maybe we should limit the number of people we take in' -- or 'hey, maybe we should take in refugees from OTHER parts of the world instead of just pipelining large factions that will form intractable blocks -- are condemned. And because there's no real rational counter-argument to support that condemnation, it inevitably takes the form of prosecuting the objecter for racism, war crimes, and human rights violations, for a criminal cannot be allowed to speak.
This is why you are tagged as 'hateful' if you oppose unlimited immigration. You can then be deprived of any voice in the debate (we should not, after all, consider hateful and evil voices). The masses can be allowed the illusion of democracy ... as long as they don't make evil choices, that is. 3/4 of Germans and 3/4 of Italians oppose unlimited immigration from outside the EU ... but since that is evil, their will is irrelevant.