In 29, you describe what is happening: liberalism directed at their own people all of a sudden is directed at the people not at all like their own. I agree that it is indeed happening. I further agree that the US having taken up the burden of military security in Europe has contributed to this diversion of funds away from their own people toward development goals in the Third World.
In 31 you further stress that on the part of the Third World refugees this is purely economic migration that seeks the best welfare. I agree that it is so for some, even though we can’t be sure if that is the motivation of all.
But the question is not what is happening, — on that we more or less agree, — but why the Western governments allow it to happen. Let me frame the question a bit better.
When German (for example) people elect a liberal government because they want a strong welfare state for themselves, that is not surprising. It may be unwise because socialism is unsustainable in the long run, but it is not surprising. It agrees with the human nature to want security in the old age, in the case of misfortune, etc. This is how Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, and to a lesser extent Britain built themselves economies when people work short hours and take two-month vacations, and have nationalized health care and pensions. US relieving them of military expenses of course helped.
The unanswered question is why liberalism turned its benevolence away from their own people toward other and unrelated nations. You would think that a logical approach would be to do the exact opposite: keep the liberal system to themselves so that not to squander the national treasure. So why is the illogical happening?
I don’t think attributing it to some generalized “do-goodism” answers it. It may be an aspect of the answer but it is not an in-depth answer. I think that the active desire to destroy our civilization rooted in the 19c. Marxism is a better and deeper answer. This is why I like this article, with all its obvious flaws.