Stop with the Nazism analogies. You are really not helping yourself and in any case the point you were trying to make did not make any sense at all. For the last time - the Nazis and the Soviets operated oppressive regimes that controlled entire countries and persecuted against individuals either by virtue of their views (e.g. communists) or ethnicity (e.g. the Jews), i.e. protected characteristics. It made sense for those being persecuted to flee the Nazis or the Soviets because they were up against state-sponsored oppression.
The situation could not be more different in these African countries. First, there is no oppression by the state against protected characteristics (and where there is I agree that these people should in principle have the right to claim asylum. Homosexuals in Uganda, for example). Second, given that the unrest is not government-sponsored as such but is instead perpetrated by militias (and I appreciate that the situation is complex), it means that vast areas of the countries, where the militias do not operate, are safe. As such, the obvious recourse is to move to a part of the country that is safe, as opposed to breaking the law and entering a different country altogether illegally. To put it very concisely: handing a Jew over to Nazi Germany virtually guarantees that he will end up in a concentration camp. Putting a Congolese man - let's call him Tom - on a plane to Kinshasa means fuck all. He is free to live his life in the Congo however he pleases. He is an economic migrant.
Now, as a final point, if you disagree with this statement, you must also conclude that life is unsafe in the Congo not only for Tom but also for the other 78 million Congolese because Tom does not exhibit any characteristics which would lead the Congolese government to treat him any differently from other citizens (i.e. he does not possess protected characteristics that the government persecutes against). Ipso facto, Israel should also offer asylum to the remaining 78 million Congolese and 1 billion other Africans.
Do you now understand why we have laws and policy and why this matter?
You suggest that your "arguments" come from morality and humanitarianism, but they do not. They are purely emotional. The humanitarian approach would be to work together with those countries to ensure that the entire planet earth becomes a liveable place for all human beings, and step in where there are gross violations of human rights, but not to taxi people back and forth from areas of low economic development to areas of high economic development.