He sounds like he is conflating immigrants and refugees. It makes me wonder if he actually believes they are the same thing or it’s a rhetorical trick. Within the norms of international law, we absolutely should welcome refugees. But “refugee” does not include:
Those fleeing economic hardship or crime.
Thoe who should be welcomed by other nations first (Refugees are generally understood to flee to the nearest safe country, not flee to the most desirable, most prosperous country.) So basically everyone besides Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas and Cuba.
Those who are causing the problem (Warriors, terrorists, those ideologically or economically attached to the government other people are fleeing, random young males from crime-torn countries, ...)
Further, it should be understood that refugee status is temporary, that refugees are expected to return home, and that “family reunification” means going home.
> we absolutely should welcome refugees <
I won’t disagree, if the refugees are truly fleeing from persecution. And I would add one more condition. The refugee must accept the cultural norms of their host country. None of this “Islam will conquer” stuff.
Anyway, how many true refugees has Vatican City accepted? Based on its size, there is room there for at least 2500 (I actually did a calculation). Yet I’ll bet you a euro that they have accepted none. As in zero.