1. The first argument is Merkel’s claim that Germany and Europe are morally obliged to settle genuine refugees. There is obviously a moral duty to help but the argument that refugees must be settled in Europe fails for two simple reasons. Firstly, many of the incomers are not refugees but economic immigrants. Secondly, the heavy costs imposed by the influx on native Germans means that a moral policy must optimise the two sides’ interests, not maximize immigrant welfare at the expense of the host society. After all, the first duty of governments, especially in democracies, is to protect their constituents. Germany and the EU could be helping refugees in or near their own countries.
He distinguishes moral duty and legal duty, and he speaks of moral duty to help genuine refugees rather than to settle the refugees, especially without regard to the plausibility of the claim to be a refugee.
The moral duty to help refugees is bracketed by the hardship that may impose on Germany nd other players. That he also mentions.
The moral duty to help someone in distress when help is possible is, I think, a basic principle of Christian ethics.
But the problem is that the "liberation" of 2+ billion people from responsible government (Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Turkey, Afrikaners and, to a degree,the USA) has created a condition of permanent and worsening distress among the 75% of the world population which is incapable of self-government.
This "moral duty" can only be carried out by permitting massive resettlements (i.e., national suicide) or colonialism.