"Jesus is a Syrian Refugee."
That was the headline of a blog post put out by the "Fig Tree Revolution," a group of "progressive Christians" who "dream of a world filled with peace, economic equality, and freedom from the yoke of oppression for ALL people." According to the post, "baby Jesus and his family were refugees to Egypt," and they surmise that Jesus would be a "refugee from Syria" today. Thus, any Christian who does not advocate for the West to import thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Syria and elsewhere are really turning their backs on "baby Jesus and his family." What sort of Christian would do that?
Well, as it turns out, any good Christian would turn away these "refugees" attempting to enter Christendom. First, there is the fact that the vast majority of "refugees" flooding into Europe are not actually refugees or even Syrian (Source). The fact that these "refugees" are actually just Muslim migrants has been confirmed with neighboring Muslim nations refusing to take them, but still the US and European nations are bullied over not taking in more (Source). Additionally, as of November of last year, nearly 98% of the "Syrian refugees" taken in by the US were Muslims rather than Christians (Source). This is an army of overwhelmingly young, Muslim males with absolutely no business being in the United States or Europe.
Now, let's compare this "refugee crisis" with Jesus. Matthew tells us the story of how King Herod planned to kill Jesus after hearing that he would rule the people of Israel (2:6), so an angel appeared to Joseph and told him to take his family to Egypt until Herod's death (2:13-15). Therein is the entirety of the progressive claim. Jesus was taken to Egypt to avoid Herod, and the "refugees" just want to avoid whoever is trying to kill them.
The problem with this analogy is that Judea came under indirect Roman rule in 63 BC, and Egypt had come under direct Roman rule in 30 BC. This means that Joseph was not fleeing with his family from one country to another to escape persecution, but he was rather going from what amounted to a Roman province to another Roman province. Additionally, Egypt was already home to Hellenized Judeans, and Joseph and his family would not have seemed out of place. There were no issues of cultural subversion, assimilation, &c.
Jesus was a Roman subject in Judea, and he was a Roman subject in Egypt. Hellenized Judeans existed in both Judea and Egypt, and they—unlike some Jewish sects—were not seen as subversive.
Muslim "refugees" are from a number of countries attempting to migrate to entirely different nations on entirely different continents with entirely different cultures. Muslims are actively engaged in jihad against the West, and, as we have seen, the majority of the "refugees" have no legitimate reason to be seeking asylum to begin with. They are foreign invaders moving en masse, subverting the peoples, cultures, and religion everywhere they end up in the West. In the United States, 51% of Muslims think Sharia law should trump the Constitution, and 25% believe it is acceptable to use violence against Americans in the name of jihad (Source).
Christians are under no obligation to welcome wolves into their homes, and turning away foreigners who would only do harm to Christendom is not somehow turning one's back on "baby Jesus and his family." These Muslims do not share our heritage, genes, culture, or religion. They would subvert everything about the West, and we have evidence that they are nothing more than migrants looking to take advantage of the situation for personal gain. Muslims once tried to invade Europe in the 8th century before being turned back. Now, in the 21st century, some "Christians" are seeking to help those same invaders walk in unopposed.
Remember, what would Jesus do? He would whip his enemies, flip over tables, and call them the children of Satan. That is what Jesus would do.