Should European Countries embrace refugees?
Yes and no. I have mixed feelings about it, and I don't think it's as simple as just "let them in" or "don't let them in."
I think that Europe should, alongside the rest of the world, assist in helping refugees, and in addition, there should be safe-zones set up in Syria and Iraq. However, asking Europe to bear the burden of dramatically changing their demographics and culture to help people that the rest of the world should be helping too is ridiculous. I am 100% pro-refugee, and people from that region of the world need to be helped. However, Europe is not America; they are not a country of immigrants, they are a group of countries with peoples that have been there for thousands of years wherein cultures evolved, and while that doesn't mean that Arabs can't come there (far from it), it does mean that they do not need to have "multiculturalism", and they do not need to have a minority group that does not assimilate, and America and China and Russia and Australia should be helping too.
Then, I think a separate question becomes what to do with the refugees in Europe and elsewhere; as I said, they do not need a large underclass of people that live merely next to the bulk of their people and follow forms of Islam that, while are not necessarily terroristic, certainly premodern in their views of women and music and whatnot. No, Europe should let in people to help them, but then those people need to be integrated. That means preventing ghettos by making people live in the same place for five years (a solution a Bavarian politician proposed.) That means banning any face-covering veils, making first-generation refugees go to public school and banning religious symbolism (as France does) in school, as well as promoting secularism in school (for both Christians and Muslims.) That means showing in media campaigns relationships between Arabs without hijabs and ethnic Europeans.
I am not anti-hijab because I associate it with terrorism or hate Muslims, I am anti-hijab (although I don't think it should be banned outright) because I don't think our society needs more modesty; we have made a lot of progress in that regard and European culture has always been more free in this regard than America, and they don't need a shift away from it. Now, I don't necessarily think that they should be obliged to assimilate in other ways (they can still have falafel and maybe even learn in world history class a bit more about their part of the world, partially because it was actually the place in which civilization was first born), but they should leave the religious modesty back in the Middle East.
However, obliging refugees to assimilate is only part of what needs to happen. A bigger issue is the other side: xenophobia. The refugees may welcome European culture, but if Europeans do not welcome them in return, they will become insular for understandable reasons. There are many good aspects of Middle Eastern culture, and if all Europeans see the immigrants for is their Islam, it will become a self-fullfilling prophecy. Now, what liberals do here is just say pointless slogans that don't really convince anyone to "welcome" them, but that misses the point. Terrorism is real, the cultural divide is real, and if all people see when they think of refugees is parts of Paris that white women aren't practically allowed to go to and are full of people clad in Islamic garb, they are going to understandably be anti-refugee. The Europeans need to welcome the Arabs, and the Arabs need to welcome the Europeans, and both cultures can learn from each other and prosper.
The question must be predicated on the clear understanding of the difference between Immigrant and Refugee. The former is rightfully subject to a country's immigration policies, such as the kind of education, skills, age group, social alliances etc. etc. that are required from time to time. But the latter, regardless of race, colour or creed escaping the present and immediate danger to life and limb from countries of war or extreme intolerance and hatred are within their human rights, as recognised by the United Nations, to a welcome. The Governments of European countries, or any country for that matter, signatory to the UN resolutions of 1951 & 1996 and, probably further, is automatically obliged to provide refuge, protection and succour to a refugee or asylum seeker. And, refuge as commitment to the UN, and sheer human decency should never be allowed to become the subject of political convenience, which seems to be the case recently. How best the refugees are assimilated in host countries and integrated with the local population depends on the country's own true, repeat true, morally human assessments and evolution of thought. Among the European countries of late, Italy and Greece have taken the exemplary full brunt of refugees from Syria and Africa, without question, on humanitarian grounds and later, the bold stance of Germany and France, in the face of political nationalism and fear mongering on the rise. Its spread among the unthinking, fear ridden, and, at times, even the inhuman polity may be dangerous and how well it is contained will reflect the quality of statesmanship of any country in question.
Yes. They are refugees. They are fleeing from war. They need our help.
But of course, especially considering that Europeans have traveled around the world for centuries committing genocide against indigenous peoples, colonizing their lands, raping and robbing, accepting refugees is the least they can do. Europeans came to America as refugees and look what they did to the Natives! Europeans are allowed to be in every country on earth so when the shoe is on the other foot, deal with it! Europe got rich by looting other countries and through deceit, not through hard work or any kind of virtue.
No - because it goes against what a Refugee actually is.
Ie: Ukrainians fleeing Russian aggression, who end up in Poland - are indeed Refugees. Why? Because they are going to their next nearest safe-zone. And yes, that would be Poland for them.
A man who claims to be fleeing danger, but leaves his family behind, and then travels over many safe-zones (which are more suited to his cultural background and needs) is anything BUT a Refugee. Somewhere between a Migrant and a Coward.
Difficult question due to the recent events. However, yes they should! Europe is an aging continent and they need new blood to maintain their economies. There are risks involved, but always economic growth and development depend in proper human resource. How to embrace these people without conflicts is the key issue.