I would like you to reread your comments, think about it the logic and costs behind it, and realize that I may be more compassionate than you think.
Integrating refugees is a expensive proposition. While I would like to increase the number of refugees coming to America (let's say between x2 and x5) we just can't turn on the tap and let everybody in. Given a choice between Syrian refugees and Mexican refugees I would pick Syrian. The Mexicans, while in a unhappy situation, have a functioning government to appeal too and other places in Mexico to go. The Syrians don't have that option.
I will admit it is a subject, sliding measure. I have been friends, work with, and known immigrants and refuges from around the world. Upper crust doctors leaving cocaine torn Columbia and Communist Nicaragua. Late 80s, bad situation, but neither in immediate threat? Do these people take a higher level of precedence over the Somalia immigrants I volunteer with? I would say no – Somalia's get first crack at our limited resources. (I would still take the doctors, but those would be on economic grounds, not asylum grounds.).
I would argue this is the more compassionate stance. While subjective, take the refugees who are in the worst shape.