I clearly did not suggest that people should be "forcibly confined in places they don't want to live". I have no idea how you could've even come up with such an

I clearly did not suggest that people should be "forcibly confined in places they don't want to live". I have no idea how you could've even come up with such an obviously-mistaken interpretation in the first place. The top 20 or so countries (of approximately 200 countries in total) not accepting any more immigrants or refugees would in no way prevent these migrants from moving to one of the other 180 or so countries. However, when the options are staying where they are, or moving to a country with only a marginally better standard of living, there may not be enough incentive for these people to move. This at least raises the possibility of enough of them helping to improve the situation in their homelands, rather than that not being possible at all if they've left for a western nation. And I'd like to think that having widespread access to at least a minimal level of modern health care, education, agricultural techniques, water and sewage treatment, and other technology is something that most people would desire. This doesn't happen spontaneously, though. It requires people with education, training and experience directly living and participating in the society desiring such things.