america had a complete halt on immigration a few times, does it make them nazis? as for refugees there are two points that have to be considered:
1. receiving refugees should be considered an act of goodwill and not an obligation. this is a simple result of what countries are. the only case where it wouldn't be so is if you preached for a borderless world but i believe that's another argument entirely.
one could argue that not receiving refugees is immoral, however would it be moral to endanger the citizens of your country to save non citizens? in #58 you stated you never had a problem with an immigrant (notice you didn't say refugee, those two are different), but what about those who had? what about the fathers of daughters who got raped by refugees? obviously their anger should be directed at the people responsible, however some of it should be reserved for the enablers - the government which chose the safety of those non citizens over the safety of those daughters.
2. reminding ourselves the definition of refugees is of utmost importance, since people often get lost in their "moral" arguments and tend to forget the basis for their arguments has nothing to do with morality. refugees are people who flee their country to the first closest safe country. in most cases that means crossing one border. being safe means they will not be persecuted for fleeing, it doesn't mean getting medical care / average salary / education / welfare etc which they deem acceptable. if a person crosses multiple borders to achieve those things, refugee or not, he's simply an economic migrant. if for some reason you believe europe has an obligation to receive every economic migrant out there who wants to flee his country, you should prepare to live in a new africa (btw, most africans "deserve" immigrating to europe much more than syrians or iraqis because even without a war their lives are much worse and they die by the thousands from starvation and diseases).