This type of reaction is why the discussion has been polarised so much, in Europe and elsewhere. Instead of sticking on simple labels and well-worn claims of 'hate speech' you'd do better to try to refute those statements with data. Let's try, shall we?

The first statement was that 'European leaders have been importing millions'. Your simply deny this without any evidence to the contrary. The facts seem to point to the validity of the original claim, with Germany taking in more than a million migrants and refugees (these are two different categories) all by itself. Maybe it would have been closer to the truth to state 'around 1.5 million in a single year' instead of 'millions', but the original poster did not state that the claim was for a single year. All in all, the original claim has more validity than your flat-out denial.

The second claim was that these migrants and refugees come from 'incredibly violent, theocratic, illiterate, and regressive regions'. You claim this to be 'aggressive against millions of people'. Let's dissect the original claim, starting with 'violent'. This needs no discussion, those regions are violent, this being one of the stated reasons for people to leave them in the first place. The middle-east is riddled with conflict, it is a volatile region. Syria and Iraq in particular stand out but it would be foolhardy to the extreme to try to claim the rest of the region is stable and peaceful. The next part of the statement is 'theocratic'. Taken literally this is only true for part of the region from which the migrants and refugees come. Iran is a theocracy, and Iran is where a large part of those claiming to be Afghans come from. Syria and Iraq are in themselves not theocracies but the regions claimed by IS/Daesh are. The African countries from which a large part of the migrants come are not theocracies, although most of them have an islamic majority.

The claim of illiteracy applies to part of the countries from which migrants arrived to Europe. Literacy in Afghanistan is 28% - that is literacy, so the illiteracy rate is 72% [1]. Other regions fare better but compared to the near 100% literacy rate in western and northern Europe they fall short. Literacy in Africa varies wildly but none of the African countries from which migrants arrive nears 100% [2].

The third part of the original claim was that these countries are 'regressive'. This is a very subjective term and as such can not be dealt with like the other claims. It could be applied to some of the countries from which refugees (Syria, Iraq) and migrants (Somalia, Afghanistan) arrived as those countries did regress from stability into chaos due to the collapse of governmental and societal institutions.

Now to the last part of the original statement, the one which states that 'European politicians don't seem to give much of a shit about Europeans'. You call this 'hate speech', but that is simply wrong and one of the more damaging parts of your claims. Hate speech is one of those labels often used by those who wish to quell discussion (others are 'racism', 'islamophobia', 'xenophobia', 'fascism', etc.). The term 'hate speech' is relatively well-defined as being "speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation" [3]. You apply this term to a claim of politicians not looking out for their constituency. This is a total misapplication of the term, using it in such a way actually devalues it by implying that politicians who follow their own agenda (which many of them do) are no worse than, say, Westboro baptist church supporters toting claims of whatever horror being some gods punishment for homosexuality.

Do you stand by your reaction?

[1] http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=39&r=me&l=en
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech