Countries rethink commitments to accept refugees

The fragile consensus on dealing with the flood of migrants seeking refuge in Europe fractured Saturday following the Paris terrorist attacks, further threatening the bloc’s passport-free Schengen zone.

Poland was the first EU member to break ranks on the unpopular migration policy. The country’s previous government had been reluctant to take part in the EU’s relocation program for 160,000 refugees, but was coaxed into taking 7,500. The new right-wing Law and Justice party administration is even more adamantly opposed.

Poland’s nominee to be European affairs minister, Konrad Szymański, said the country would not take part in the relocation scheme.

politico.eu/article/countries-rethink-commitments-to-accept-refugees-paris-attacks/

Good. The last thing we need to be doing is rolling out the welcome mat for these terrorists.

It’s unfortunate that this is the result, but it’s not unsurprising. The extremists can too easily slip in with the legitimate refugees. Ultimately the best way to help them might be to support a full scale coalition operation including the EU, US, Iran and Russia to wipe ISIL out. Stem the cause of the refugee exodus in the first place.

The refugee crisis is not only because of ISIL.

Many of the Syrians are trying to escape Assad’s regime in Syria and Assad is backed by Russia.

This result is most unfortunate. When the Christ returns (which will be soon), he will divide the people according to Matthew 25:31-46 and one of the important criteria is the welcoming of strangers. It is not a good thing to end up amongst the ‘goats’

At the same time, the whole point of a national state is to protect its citizens from foreign attack, which cannot be done, full stop, in a situation where the attackers are welcomed in.

Sadly, this is probably the end of Schengen, if not the Eurozone; but freedom of movement and general danger normally don’t go together.

ICXC NIKA

As most Syrians, particularly Syrian Christians, back Assad that does not seem to be the case. A continuous war on their doorsteps, being tortured and slaughtered and their towns demolished by rebels, is the reason for them fleeing.

We could roll out the carpet…bombs.

No need for that kind of talk mate. Fighting ISIL is justifiable but declaring war on Muslims in general would not be in any way.

The Majority are not terrorists, but refugees fleeing for their lives . Don’t blame them for the actions of terrorism

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

.

Sure. The problem is identifying the terrorists who are coming in with the refugees. It’s not like they are going to declare it when they get here.

If you were having a dinner party, and ten people were invited, and you knew one out of the ten was coming with the intention of rape, torture and general mayhem to be perpetrated on your family, but you didn’t know who the person was, would you still roll out enwelcome wagon for all ten people and have the party anyway?

The original article was about closing borders to all MIGRANTS.

You participated in quoting the article by labelling the migrants “these terrorists”

They are not all terrorists, and neither should we even think about not inviting those who are being raped and tortured to our “dinner party”

Please reflect on this dear friend…

.

The terrorists are coming in with the migrants and there’s no way to tell the difference until the streets run red with blood.

I say keep them all out until ISIS is thoroughly destroyed and then slowly let them go back to where they came from so they can rebuild their own country.

I think this should be a “world news” thread.

Maybe, but it is a news story about a non-catholic religion.

Many of the terrorists these days are actually citizens of Western countries.

Shall we throw everyone out but me? I know I’m not a terrorist…

.

We cannot even find the terrorists that are here, it doesn’t make any sense to invite more terrorists in.

Well certainly a reexamination of immigration and refugee policies would be legitimate.
After all, why succumb to the risk of allowing more terrorists in when we have our own citizens susceptible to a radicalizing influence?

If anything, it’s a stronger argument for border control. Japan, amazingly, has almost zero issues with radical Islamic terrorism. Part of the reason, no doubt, is their strict immigration policy.

The fact that a “Syrian refugee” is one of the terrorists is a damning indictment of the “open arms” policy indicated by Angela Merkel in Germany, and paradoxically, this “open arms” policy has only contributed to increasing tensions. I think we all sympathize with people displaced by war (and it should be noted that not all the so-called refugees are true refugees), but the key should be finding diplomatic and agreeable solutions to end the conflict in their homelands so they can peacefully go home. Just inviting people to migrate isn’t going to resolve the Syrian crisis, it’s a short-term, short-sighted, band aid solution.

Of course, this is my personal opinion only, and I speak for no one but myself.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.