I notice, for example, that the largest "Christian" nation on earth (the United States) has a significant portion of its "Christian" population opposed to the welcome of immigrants. In comparison, some of the most "secular" nations of Europe (like Finland) are eager to welcome those seeking refuge.
This is where the social imaginary or whatever comes into play. How is it that secular communities can act out of Christian plausibility structures while Christians are acting out of secular ones? Or is it fair to say that it is part of the secular plausibility structure to resist immigrants? Or fair to label aspects of secularity "Christian" just because their policies and communal action resembles the kind of Christian faith commitments I also espouse.
That is, are the "new seculars" actually "anonymous Christians"?
Of course many other factors are at play. A nation's openness to immigrants/refugees is often a co-efficient of their economic and workforce situation. Germany needs new workers. the UK, less so. But the current "crisis" isn't fully explainable in these terms, so I'm pondering the religious and tacit dimensions.
Finally, I do think the current crisis is going to transform refugee resettlement globally, and is going to force us to revisit how we define refugees and migrants, how we treat them. And most importantly, it is going to be essential that we show compassion for ALL refugees, not just the current wave. More bluntly, why are we more responsive to this wave of Syrian refugees than we were to the continuing waves of refugees from Sub-Saharan Africa?