Being a humanitarian is admirable but at the end of the day it's a luxury that may or may not pay off in the long run.

Just the same way you don't give your money to a beggar on the street when you can barely afford to survives yourself the employment of personal boundaries is important for humans and countries.

So given that Italy is not doing so well at the moment I kind of have to question their thinking reducing their revenue stream in favour if immigrants.

The assumption that all immigration is good immigration is not true.

On the other hand, you also have to understand that humanitarianism must have limits. The resources of nations are not infinite and individuals that are unable to provide for themselves are a tremendous burden on society. And when you accept people that fail to integrate you risk imperiling the very policies that you hold to be worthwhile. For instance, Sweden will be a phenomenal test case. The Globe and Mail ran an interesting piece on their situation here [1]. 16% of Sweden is now made up of individuals that come from quite different ideological backgrounds in Africa and the Mideast. And those numbers continue to rapidly increase.

The ideal was that as these people are treated with decency and respect and given a life not unlike any other Swede might receive, they would be able to integrate and ultimately just becomes Swedes. But this ideal did not really turn out to be justified. So what will happen to Sweden as these individuals begin to be one of the most relevant voting blocs? It's not a rhetorical question, since I don't think anybody really knows the answer. This scale of migration with people of such sharply contrasting worldviews is something relatively novel in the modern developed world. However, in my opinion Sweden's experiment is more likely to end up being seen as a cautionary tale than a model of humanitarianism.

[1] - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/swedens-ugly-immigra...