Mark, whether people agree or not there are two points about what you are saying. Firstly, much of what you say is in fact fairly correct in most ways. However, that does not work for a number of reasons. Of the refugees on the move worldwide roughly half, a bit over perhaps, are Moslems. It is not only Syrians after all, but even then many of the people there are Christians, Zidawi, Dom Romani, Kurdish non-Islamic people and then repeat that for people leaving Syria who are Iraqi and from the same religious minorities, then Eritrea where they are both with more Christians than Moslems on the move. Even some of the Afghanis are from the Christian minority. So, looking at it in terms of beliefs it is more complicated than simply saying nationalities then assuming that they must be religiously homogeneous. Logistically, you are very close to the reality. Between the two it is dangerous ground to tread. Some politicians across Europe have already said we should either only take Christian refugees or give them priority over others. That is morally thin ice and anyway, there is no certainty that by only accepting them that the outcome would be any better.
The second point is that as you have your view, here in the minority, throughout society many people are actively demonstrating willingness to take in people, not necessarily personally but saying their countries should. The flip side of that coin in that much of the voice against is being led by sometime rather extreme nationalist groups who want nobody and are even advocating mass deportation of Moslems. That is ignoring the fact that there are up to fourth generation people, three of those generations having the nationality of that country, who they include. Several of the same groups are amplifying increasing anti-Semitism, which is why it is making the news often here in France although in the UK it is as bad but largely unreported. In Norway and Finland, the two respective main 'nationalist' groups are also anti-Sami, that is to say Lapps or Laplanders if that is how you know them. The Sami are an indigenous Finno-Ugric people who inhabit the Arctic area of Sápmi, which is to say the far north of Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Kola Peninsula of Russia, and parts of the border area between south and middle Sweden and Norway. My point is not to introduce another issue entirely but to raise a point about that which has some ugly implications. Those people are not Nordic, not what we consider 'European', but are closer to Siberian groups, the Innuits, Inupiats and even the North American indigenous groups. They are mainly Christians but a good number still practice their own religion which is animistic. They are simply not of Nordic- Germanic origin. It is one of the indicators being used with the other openly expressed prejudices to show how the kind of ethno-nationalism that built up in the wake of WW1 is being revived. I am certain you are not part of that, but those people are preying on opinions such as yours and somehow it is without doubt feeding back into mass culture. That is dangerous, we have been there before in the 1920s and 30s with the 40s being the stuff of nightmares.
Look back to the last page and what I answered to Doreen. We have about 35 conflicts in the world at present, nasty regimes and to a point things getting worst. Just this week the idea of civil war in eastern Turkey has been news. The Turks have had it in for Kurds way back during the Ottoman Empire. Because one particular Kurdish political movement in the east of Turkey has been in conflict with modern Turkey since its foundation it is not about people moving into the country but with those whose ancestors have always been there. The Turks have not only been bombing IS in Syria, but also Kurds, the situation is getting far more tense. That could explode. Add to the number of conflicts and people on the move. Then there is history to take into account. Because the Ottomans went on the side of the Germans and Austro-Hungarians in WW1, their decline was completed at the end of it. Some of their provinces went to their old 'enemy' Csarist Russia just in time for the Revolution, other parts to a British and French mandate. The former ultimately created Israel and should have included an assured Palestine, having been the province of that name, and ensured the existence of Jordan. The latter had what is now Lebanon and Syria which were a province that should never really have been separated but were to give the Christians, who were the Lebanese majority, their own state. Something like 97% of all Lebanese Christians or people of that descent now live in other countries because of wars in that area for much of the country's life. The UK also had most of Iraq and France has had some under mandatory control for long periods. On the basis of 'colonial' history, both countries have a moral obligation as well. Difficult one that.
So, history and what is happening in the world are making it more and more complicated, many more people are becoming displaced and thus the present crisis is drawing attention to the 'problems'. The bigger question arises. What is the rest of the world to do? Do we sit back and let people die en masse or do we try to do something about it? Climate change deniers are good example of refusing to accept that polar melting will do for entire small nations and are actually refusing to acknowledge any such possibility. It is not eccentrics and nutters calling out for something to be done but a large majority of scientists. It is all part of the same phenomenon of long term numbers of displaced people increasing fairly quickly and probably permanently. So what do we do? What it is creating is the pre-conditions for something similar to the early 1930s and extremism to gain a strong foothold. The ultimate outcome would make WW2 look like the teddy bears' picnic. It is frightening. Personally I prefer to retain the benefit of the doubt on that last point but too many people who understand those things far better are making rather gloomy prognoses. I am am not worried for myself but for my children and their generation.
If there is any solution at all, then perhaps working on the present state of the world is the priority. The UN is as good as useless at present, broke with bad leadership throughout and little support from many countries. That might be a starting point. It will not resolve the present situation but might hold what is a not very promising future in which we have not seen anything yet in check.