Well then what is he saying?
Why this unbearable confusion of humanitarian, moral and political arguments that obscure the gravity of the crisis we are faced with. This is not a language of dialogue but a language to obscure things and we cannot talk to each other in that language. It is preaching, it is not a dialogue.
Why do humanitarian arguments obscure anything? They are there to help us figure out what is right, in doing so shouldn't they reveal? The difference between a dialogue and preaching isn't the tool of argumentation, but the very essence of the exchange. I do not understand what this means.
Let me finish with the following plea. I urge you to be more responsive to realist.
Realistic about what though? There are more refugees on their way to Europe than there have been in living memory. As he said before:
Turning to the issue of migration and refugees, of course the EU did not create the problem but it failed to identify it soon enough and has still not entirely succeeded in identifying it.
But what is his solution instead of accepting as many as we can? All he brings up again and again is the need for a dialogue, but he doesn't explain to what end. He doesn't even make one hundred percent clear with whom this dialogue should be held. All he says is that it must apparently be one without morals, which makes little sense because helping other people involves morals. What else that dialogue should be based on isn't mentioned either.
Shouldn't realism in politics involve a few more actionable points than that?