And the only reason you are part of that family is luck. A Syrian refugee didn't choose to be born in Syria at a time when they would have to face civil war at some stage in their life. I think if the tables were turned are you had to flee to Syria your opinion would be vastly different.

Now, China is not in war, but, unluckily, as a Chinese, I have a lower living standard than a European, do I automatically get a chance to be let in Europe and enjoy whatever benefit the Europeans have? Since when has economics stopped working in Euroupe?

We don't choose where we are born, nor do our parents generally. We do choose how where we are born looks. Are you saying we need to move all the people on earth away from every civil war and feel responsible for that? Are we preventing civil war in our own country by bringing aggressors in? - And also not all these people being rescued are victims of civil war, many actually just have economic reasons. Many act as economic anchor for the rest of their family (they get in then later the whole family can come in).

Why explain his heritage through luck? It's not like there's a repository of souls that's randomly drawn upon everytime someone has a baby. Luck doesn't describe a causal world with a bit of noise.

It's because of the historical, and thus causal nature of the distribution of opportunity that we might have concern over the distribution.

But if we re-rolled the dice, it's not like the asian couple from around the world is suddenly going to have a caucasian baby. You being born where you were was a confluence of factors operating in a causal framework with some noise. A re-roll isn't going to make you a Hilton family baby.

Also, what a person is entitled to is a matter for society to determine. Society creates a construct that it feels is a wholesome lens or boundary, then it creates the structures to enforce it. There is no natural right to anything, including property, life, or even death (some states forbid you to choose your death). Society determines that property is useful, creates a structure to enforce it, and voila, you are now entitled to property.

Coffe is arabic, Potatoes from Peru, Tomatoes from South America, your canned tuna fish is from Ethiopia and other fishes from Chile. When you sip your Tea you take advantage of the work of Asian people and the glass that contains this tea is probably an Egyptian invention. Your books are made of paper developped by first time in China. Your weapons are useless without powder, developped by China. Oranges and Lemons are from Asia. Sweet corn and Chocolate is from Mexico. The first agriculture systems and production of bread was developped in Irak. Your eggs and fried chicken came from the asian rainforests.

And you claim that "My family history made it happen" and "I do not wish that everyone in this world can have what I have"?

Wow.

You must have a really interesting family tree.

The problem I see is that by invoking heritage/past, there's the thorny issue of Europe's sordid history of going to other cultures and exploiting them. Perhaps this gives 'us' even more responsibility to accept people into our culture.

I don't necessarily agree with that logic myself, but then I also don't feel that I'm entitled to what my 'heritage' brought me.

Personally my main concern with this whole issue is practicality. I'm concerned that a too-large influx of refugees (or economic migrants) might cause severe destabilization and further increase the growing right-wing sentiment.

You're stopping just short of claiming genetic superiority here.

I read it as a preference for one's own cultural heritage, rather than anything to do with genetics or race.

"Cultural heritage" is so often these days used as a dog whistle for, well, race, allowing people to make all kinds of exclusionary and divisive statements then do the ol' "What? Racism? Nothing I said had anything to do with race..."