You're starting premise, whilst seemingly noble and humanitarian, is wholly flawed. Not only is it fundamentally flawed, but clinging to it, despite the weight of evidence (not from what is casually labelled as "far right extremists" by certain elements in a lame attempt to discredit the logic, but also by political, intellectual and (tellingly) EM / immigrant 'big hitters') is, ironically, facilitating and perpetuating the very conditions which place vulnerable populations into desperate situations.
There is no solution to be found in the uncontrolled re-locating of historically, culturally and religiously incompatible peoples from one region - with unique geography, climate, socio-economic, cultural, spiritual blah, blah, blah.... into another which is so far removed from the known norm as to be akin to dropping them on the moon.
That's an opinion rather than a fact. Only a blind man (or someone with unbelievable naivety from the comfort of their suburban idyll and who had never visited Bradford would disagree however.)
Importing asylum seekers into a country which is so far removed from their norm is frankly cruel to them and dangerous to the receiving country. Compare the rules / regs for adoption - the suitability and compatibility checks that need to be fulfilled. That's not to say the 'world' (which translates to the Western world) shouldn't 'feel' like there might be a moral imperative to try to act in the case of great human suffering.... But it's the HOW that matters.
Assistance should take the form of in-country (or adjacent country / regional) aid, always with the end-state aspiration to resettle into the original country, rather than relocating a pitiful number into a wholly unfamiliar environment and expect them to stabilise and integrate.
Now that, I found genuinely funny.... (ironically) in a cross between a Frankie Boylesque, harsh, cut-to-the-bone, satirical fashion merged with a Basil Fawlty / 'Allo 'Allo stylie.....