Most people look at refugees from a particular country who don't (or won't) assimilate and say “Let's try refugees from a different country instead.” The Modern Left looks at the same situation and says “No, let's get more refugees from the same country”. This scenario played out here in Australia recently, although fortunately some sort of common sense prevailed in the end. But the question lingers: Why was the counter-sensical approach the virtual reflexive response of the left?
I've seen a few people tackle this question. For example, the thesis of Evan Sayet (formerly of the left himself) is based on the idea that the left have made a fundamental axiom of the idea that "discrimination is evil". I'll go into that another time, but I came across another, more psychological, approach recently via the great Kathy Shaidle. This from Jamie Glazov who saw Soviet oppression first hand and through his family.
“The typical leftist,” Glazov explained, actually “wants to shed himself of his unwanted self and melt into a totalitarian blur. He wants to fit in. And he wants to create a disinfected earth where he doesn’t have to face the challenges that come with freedom. That disinfection demands destruction. It demands Ground Zero, so that the earthly paradise can be built on its ashes. Radical Muslims perpetrate the destruction against free societies that the leftist is dreaming of and supports. Both sides want to create paradise on earth and they cannot accept man for who and what he is. Because of that, every time they try to create heaven, they engender hell. And there is nothing baffling about this alliance. It makes total logical sense.”