What do you mean with "these people aren't Ukrainians". Do you believe this additional million does not need to be registered? That they don't cost money and that they bring their own housing and so somehow don't add to asylum seekers also needing a roof over their head?

But good that you at least mention them as it fits my point: Nobody actually ever mentions Ukrainians in the context of a million taking refuge here from the war. They are loudly talking about how the government is supposed to stop illegal immigration. As if it's illegal immigration that is driving this. And they pretend that -to paraphrase the popular narrative- the government needs to stop happily inviting every illegal immigrant. Fss... nobody does. It's in the word. They are illegally here. But those people know very well that they are not actually talking about illegal immigrants when they use these words (or some euphemism like "irregular migrants"). They try to conflate asylum seekers and refugees legally here, with some (basically, if you look at the scope they are pretending, imaginary numbers of) illegal immigrants with all immigrants and foreigners to fuel their xenophobic narratives.

I don't say that there aren't actual issues. Not giving some a way to integrate for example and having "eternal refugees" that will never see their country of origin suddenly becoming safe yet are kept on temporary permissions to stay again and again and again forever is one. You either give them a chance to integrate even when you only kept them originally because they could not be returned without risking their lifes (it's been a decade and more for some...) or you just forcefully deport them to their original homes anyway and see them killed. And no, I don't consider the latter option valid. Neither does the German constitution and everything we know about human rights.

What I'm saying is that the narratives that are pushed instead are made up and intentionally twisted to never talk about one group of people with actually fixable issues, but just a wild hodge podge of xenophobia disguised as a valid concern. And they are clearly build with a different goal in mind than "stopping illegal immigration" (as if there is anyone not agreeing) or "fix the amount of refugees". They could handle these with better integration instead of just hoarding them and pretending the problem will solver itself over time, they can fix the issue with clearer and enforced guidelines who can stay and who will be send back. But those people don't actually want that. They are the same guys trying to remove any existing integration flawed as it may be already. They are the ones not actually arguing for more efficient asylum system where people get processed faster, the ones accepted get more help to integrate and the others are returned more quickly. Nope, they are trying to cut asylum laws and prevent anyone from legally applyiing in the first place. (Or to quote one of our right-wing morons: "Who cares on which border refugess get shot?") And that's the reason they also try to conflate every form of migration and legitimate refugees with illegal immigration (usually of course adding that they are just social leeches wanting to live care free off of Germany welfare anyway - Fun fact: that populist morons now leading the biggest conservative party has also tried if he can talk about Ukrainian welfare tourists or if the backslash is too heavy... and then quickly walked back with some non-apology).

Just today the biggest public broadcaster published a story about how chancellor Scholz "talked out against 'irregular immigration'". But that's bullshit. There are basically only two defintions of the word: the official one (=illegal immigrants) and the right-wing dog whistle. When they tell us this in response to a sensible comment of basically "Yes, the asylum laws and rights of legitimate refugees should not be weakened. There's no discussion here. But obviously illegal immigrants should be send back." what do they want to tell us exactly? Are they trying to present the fact that our chancellor is -like everyone else- against illegal immigration as some kind of news? Or are they intentionally using the dog-whistle version instead so it becomes a story? A false one obviously, too. But a story they want to tell us. I think you can answer that one yourself...

The moment you show me the media/political discussion actually talking about sensible measures to fix some immigration issue (so... better integration for some, being send back quicker for others, coupled with ideas that are not clearly in violation of human rights -and the constitution obviously-) I will bite. As long as this is not the discussion I will also not acknowledge it as talking about "problems with refugees" as that's just a pretense, not the actual thing they talk about.