Europe's Liberal Elite Outraged After Renzi Says Italy Has "No Moral Duty To Take In Migrants"

What is this? Maybe it isn't such a good idea to allow hundreds of thousands of unknown people (mostly young males) to flood into your country?

Really? Why wouldn't it be a good idea?


www.zerohedge.com...

The liberal facade behind Europe's grand refugee acceptance experiment took a big hit on Friday, when Italy's Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, and head of the ruling Democratic Party, said his country does not have "any moral duty to take in migrants", sharply toughening his stance over surging numbers of asylum seekers. His U-Turn follows that of Angela Merkel, who infamously accepted nearly 1 million mostly Syrian refugees in 2015, only to see a surge in terrorist attacks across Germany and Europe, and a plunge in her popularity as a result of an angry social backlash, prompting her to quietly but forcefully end Germany's "open door" policy.

That makes me want to migrate to Italy. How's that for irony?

It is all orchestrated. Nothing is delayed. The UN=EU is replacing the original population of Europe to have the continent destroyed. Literally.

Just a few more years and no country in Europe will be able to offer even the simplest forms of social securities or Medicare thanks to floods of people pouring in that will never work and only want to install Islam. But. Who is gaining from all of this?
Already special immigrant parties are taking over governments all over Europe.

a reply to: infolurker

Maybe Italy wants to preserve their culture and way of life.

How dare they!

I wonder if Italy is starting to get worried? They are one of the biggest entry points into europe for these invaders. Now that Austria has stated they will enforce their borders and not allow this invasion to ruin their country, a major release valve to get these people farther into Europe has been shut off. Now they are Italy's problem. I wonder who will win in the end? The people with the common sense not to let their country be destroyed or the global politicians that are bringing them in.

originally posted by: Sheesh
It is all orchestrated. Nothing is delayed. The UN=former US is replacing the original population of Europe to have the continent destroyed. Literally.

Just a few more years and no country in Europe will be able to offer even the simplest forms of social securities or Medicare thanks to floods of people pouring in that will never work and only want to install Islam. But. Who is gaining from all of this?

I changed UN=EU to UN=former US.
Because the world knows that the UN is nothing else than another tool of the former US.

Who is gaining from all of this?

Certain circles in the former US, maybe?

thumbs up for italy... they need to put the military on the borders with shoot on sight orders for any migrants that try and cross

a reply to: infolurker

He's right. Morally speaking, its fine to help refugees but migrants are a different kettle of fish altogether.
Nice to see, from the article, that they've finally noticed Soros is behind all these "charitable" groups helping to ship them in.

originally posted by: DerBeobachter

originally posted by: Sheesh
It is all orchestrated. Nothing is delayed. The UN=former US is replacing the original population of Europe to have the continent destroyed. Literally.

Just a few more years and no country in Europe will be able to offer even the simplest forms of social securities or Medicare thanks to floods of people pouring in that will never work and only want to install Islam. But. Who is gaining from all of this?

I changed UN=EU to UN=former US.
Because the world knows that the UN is nothing else than another tool of the former US.

Who is gaining from all of this?

Certain circles in the former US, maybe?

1) If anything history has proven the US is a "tool" of the UN
2) This is just another failing Progressive Liberal tactic in their Globalist agenda
3) Backed by George Soros (see above)

a reply to: infolurker

Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, and head of the ruling Democratic Party

Democratic Party? ....must be a typo.

originally posted by: DerBeobachter

... thanks to floods of people pouring in that will never work and only want to install Islam.
But. Who is gaining from all of this?

the militants/ neocons in western governments... were the ones to first mobilize an Army of fighters who were first-&-foremost Muslims...

the globalists in the political sphere of the same western governments have used the roadmap of the neocons in gathering a voter base of dedicated-forever Muslims to enjoy the benefits of democracy without the effort required to keep democracy the foundational cornerstone of the political system,,,

Instead the economic migrants, some 51% who are fighting aged males from war torn Islamic States...claiming to be refugees... are here for both the sanctuary not available to them in the Terrorist-States they fled but to carve out Islamic, Sharia Law No-Go Zones/Communities in their host EU country...

Who is gaining? = Islam, Jihadists and the elite globalists providing cover for the Islamic takeover of former Democracies in the EU
the strict almost Nazi-like rule by the Ideological Leaders sometimes called Imams or *Ayatollah' is a high-ranking title given to Usuli Twelver Shī‘ah clerics. Those who carry the title are experts in Islamic studies such as jurisprudence, ethics, and philosophy and usually teach in Islamic seminaries. The next lower clerical rank is Hojatoleslam wal-muslemin.

but with the recent leanings & advancements by the Turk Erdogan, the title Caliph will be bestowed upon him soon...

so civilian populations of the host countries of the EU will be 'policed' by radical Jihadists to keep the likelihood of rebellion by the former citizens at near zero... the Elite-Globalists are nurturing a Stazi-Police Force of Muslims that are always itching to behead Kafirs in the first place

re: kaf·ir
[ˈkafər]
NOUN
a person who is not a Muslim (used chiefly by Muslims).

No one has a moral duty to take in anyone, its all dependent of their own conscience.

The Arab Gulf states, and the NATO alliance countries, the swine who instigated the war in Syria need to take in the refugees.

Any other country that does, great, but its a free choice, it shouldn't be obligatory.

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: infolurker

Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, and head of the ruling Democratic Party

Democratic Party? ....must be a typo.

Obviously Democrats in Italy are a whole lot smarter than the Democrats here in the USA.

If you don't help your neighbour to put out a house fire ; don't get surprised when your house is on fire.

European Morality of Renzi sucks .

Meanwhile the Turks took 4 million refugees and paid 30 billion dollars so far to care for them .

The World has given the refugees only 700 million dollars .

80 million Turks can take 4 million refugees but 400 million Europeans won't even take 1 million refugees !!!

Whichever planet some people are living on ; better wake up !!!

Realities are due .

originally posted by: 23432
If you don't help your neighbour to put out a house fire ; don't get surprised when your house is on fire.

European Morality of Renzi sucks .

Meanwhile the Turks took 4 million refugees and paid 30 billion dollars so far to care for them .

The World has given the refugees only 700 million dollars .

80 million Turks can take 4 million refugees but 400 million Europeans won't even take 1 million refugees !!!

Whichever planet some people are living on ; better wake up !!!

Realities are due .

How about all them refugees go back home where they came from, people would pay for that.

originally posted by: Jiggly
thumbs up for italy... they need to put the military on the borders with shoot on sight orders for any migrants that try and cross

And people gave you stars for your comment!! Just great.

There is no easy solution for sure, it's difficult times for all that are concerned.
But to shoot on sight any migrants?! I am speechless.
So you're talking about women and children as well right ?

a reply to: infolurker

From what I've seen in the news, there's been boat after boatload of Migrants coming from Libya. i realy didn't know Italy were such a huge Country that they could bring all these in... there were absolute loads bring bought over last couple of years! How were they able to sustain the flow?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: 23432
If you don't help your neighbour to put out a house fire ; don't get surprised when your house is on fire.

European Morality of Renzi sucks .

Meanwhile the Turks took 4 million refugees and paid 30 billion dollars so far to care for them .

The World has given the refugees only 700 million dollars .

80 million Turks can take 4 million refugees but 400 million Europeans won't even take 1 million refugees !!!

Whichever planet some people are living on ; better wake up !!!

Realities are due .

How about all them refugees go back home where they came from, people would pay for that.

Back to where ?

Their homes are under occupation and these civilians have no army to defend themselves .

Let's hope you don't find yourself as a refugee one day.

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: infolurker

From what I've seen in the news, there's been boat after boatload of Migrants coming from Libya. i realy didn't know Italy were such a huge Country that they could bring all these in... there were absolute loads bring bought over last couple of years! How were they able to sustain the flow?

Most of them were trying to make their way to Germany (or should I say the former-Germany). To get there, one of the routes is through Austria which is why Austria closed their border with Italy. I guess too many of them thought Austria was German enough that they stayed.

a reply to: 23432

1.) Culturally speaking, the Turks are a much better fit for the migrants being also Islamic.

2.) Wouldn't the other Gulf States be ideally suited to take in their Muslim brethren in this time of need? Why haven't any of them stepped up especially considering this war in Syria is also an inter-Islamic conflict between Alawites (Shi'a Muslims) and Sunni Muslims who have traditionally been at each other's throats for almost as long as there has been Islam.

3.) Why are the European countries expected to take in what amounts to veritable armies? Young, military aged men in their 20s? Shouldn't those men be the ones fighting to take back their countries of origin and set things to rights, and wouldn't you think the migrants would be composed of their women and children fleeing the resulting war? At least, that's generally what Western cultures would expect from their men.