Whilst I agree with your general sentiment, one has to ask how you know the extent of this kind of behaviour among migrants. I would say that this is just the shape of things to come when we allow people of aggressive backward ideologies to come to Europe.
The price of charity could be big for the rest of us and more importatntly our children.

Arguably many of those actually displaced in Syria, for example, are those fleeing from aggressive backward ideologies such as a totalitarian state and Islamic fundamentalists such as IS.

It would seem a bit odd, if you were say an believer in the Sunni Islamic Caliphate to flee Syria, rather than maybe travel internally to join up with IS.

Of course there is a case to be made that some of those who claim asylum are in fact 'sleeper' terrorists from IS et al seeking to further their cause abroad, but for the most part, I'd imagine that refugees from Syria, making their way to camps and then smuggling themselves to countries like Greece, probably are displaced by the Assad Regime or IS.

You can be liberal and left wing.

There is no argument, unless one set of "rights" impinges on another. Then we have a problem.

Well not really, because the left wing would discriminate against the owners of the means of production, for want of an example, irrespective of their contribution, where as the liberal might only wish to increase taxation on the higher earner to fund state programs.

The left wing have embraced liberal identity politics, but they are not liberal.

The socialist would heavily focus taxation the rich on ideological grounds, the liberal might raise additional percentage of taxation on the wealthy to pay for social services necessary. Liberals are pro-capitalist, the left ultimately gravitate towards anti-capitalism.

That's always been Labours problem, when its pro-capitalist, its doomed to fail, because it isn't liberal either. New Labour only really succeeded as well as it did, because it was essentially 'to the right of Ted Heaths Conservative party'.

Again all very reasonable but.....

The basis on which you make personal decisions are very much determined by your belief system. When beliefs are so different then it is hard, as history has shown, to find compromise. I believe it is the duty of the state to encourage rejection of belief that is divisive and not in the interest of society. This might seem sinister to some but the alternative is even less attractive. We cannot allow the influence of religion to impinge on our society as it did in the past. Individual rights are as much restricted by religious doctrine as it is by anything else. Therefore we must decide whether the right to religious freedom is really just license to indoctrinate future generations and perpetuate division for ever more.

Again all very reasonable but.....

The basis on which you make personal decisions are very much determined by your belief system. When beliefs are so different then it is hard, as history has shown, to find compromise. I believe it is the duty of the state to encourage rejection of belief that is divisive and not in the interest of society. This might seem sinister to some but the alternative is even less attractive. We cannot allow the influence of religion to impinge on our society as it did in the past. Individual rights are as much restricted by religious doctrine as it is by anything else. Therefore we must decide whether the right to religious freedom is really just license to indoctrinate future generations and perpetuate division for ever more.