Would you rather take in 50,000 male Syrian refugees, or 200,000 female Syrian refugees?

Would you rather take in 50,000 male Syrian refugees, or 200,000 female Syrian refugees?

>is that even a question the 200k females of course
>neither
The only answers you will get desu

50 000 but we chemical castrate them

>female Syrian refugees

I'd rather not taking refugees.

200,000 female Syrian refugees

Males.

Here's why:
>1. it's far easier to accomodate for 50k than 200k
>2. it's the """""men""""" that are useless in sweden. we need more real men, even if they come from a shithole

200k females, if they can be from the christian population even better

All refugee is male, therefore I choose neither.

200,000 female Syrian refugees. Then we would have a massive surplus of young women, and I could get a gf.

This.

50k is a smaller hit on the genepool
But 200k women is more managable and means tons of pussy even for ugly guys.
Hard question tbqh.

200 000
each men can buy up to 3 bitches

wtf i love polygamy now

ah yes, the real men who sit on welfare and beat their women

Female refugees.

The young, fit males should stay in their country and fight against jihadists.

>>is that even a question the 200k females of course

this

>muslims
>real men

you need to go back Ahmed.

Females, as long as they dont come with bonus package of 10 shitskin kids

200,000 female Syrian refugees you fucking stupid retard. sage.

>50,000 less
Much housing required, 90% will die alone without ever having put dick in vagoo
>200,000 women
Much larger burden on housing market
Most will find husbands and provide offspring further ruining national gene pool
More islamification

Females

You can't survive in romania on welfare so that they'll all have to work somehow, which is good for the economy.

t. Ahmed or Marzcech

the men are problematic and the cause of every hopeless shit going on now

femishit was right

this
It would devalue women on the sexual marketplace