I'll comment on this:
i) Prov 19:17, Phil 2:4, and Heb 13:16 are about generic charity. One problem with applying them to the "Syrian refugee" crisis is that we have humanitarian crises going on throughout the world. The media decides to hype one particular crisis to the neglect of others. But we lack the resources to bail out everybody.
ii) Aiding refugees doesn't entail resettlement in the US. We have Christian relief organizations that minister on site. That's far more cost-effective.
iii) In addition, short-term charity can be uncharitable in the long-term if you don't consider the consequences. For instance, the "Syrian refugees" include (mostly) Muslims as well as Christians fleeing from Muslim persecution. If, however, you import both groups into the US, then Christian refugees will face Christian persecution coming and going. The very people who persecute them follow them right across the border, like bounty hunters.
Likewise, young Muslim men are prone to violent crime. When you import them into the US, the innocent will suffer. But that's hardly loving and caring to the innocent.
In addition, because the political class promotes "multiculturalism" and frowns on assimilation, Muslim communities in the US become breeding grounds for domestic terrorism.
iv) In context, Mt 24:35-40, Jas 1:27; 2:14-17, & 1 Jn 3:17 are about charity to and for Christians–not charity in general.
v) As for the parable of the Good Samaritan, it all depends on who you plug into the parable, based on modern analogies. What if the man who went down to Jericho was a suicide bomber, but he was injured in a traffic accident before he could complete his mission. The Good Samaritan nurses him back to health, after which the suicide bomber resumes his original mission. Arriving in Jericho, he teams up with some fellow refugees to kill or main thousands of spectators at a sports stadium. BTW, that's not hypothetical.
Matters would have been even worse if the attackers had achieved what was apparently the main component of the attack, namely the planned multiple-suicide bombings at the international football game. One bomb inside the stadium to create a panic, then two more bombers to meet fleeing fans at the exits. It’s an obvious enough tactic, that different groups have been flirting with for years. I first encountered the idea as a hypothetical nightmare for security agencies some forty years ago, in the context of crowded department stores and Christmas shopping.
What do you do when you hear or see something terrifying? You run in the opposite direction, and (as you then discover) into the zone of greatest danger. If the tactic had succeeded in Paris on Friday, it could have added hundreds (at least) more fatalities. Trust me, ISIS/Daesh will try and repeat the plan until they finally get it right.
So what are the implications? Assume you know that groups are planning a two-pronged attack like that against a sporting event, whether in the US or Europe. What do you do? The days of full body searches at football stadiums might not be far removed. And also for Christmas shoppers?
Oh, and please note that two of the suicide attackers were outside the stadium, so would not have been picked up by even the most thorough and professional searches of fans entering. Their job was to remain there until the crowds flooded out.
Problem is, the "Syrian refugees" aren't any one thing. They're a diverse group. So it all depends on which kind of "refugee" you plug into the parable.