Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.
Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?
Well, most people can't correctly name the deadliest war since WW2.
Well, most people don't care about black people. It's a sad reality but institutionalized racism in western culture isn't just a SJW talking point (though it is often used as one to blunt free speech). I'd be happy to take in Congolese refugees for the very reason that we have nothing to do with that conflict overtly (we did kill Lumumba or whatever his name was, backed Mobuto, etc) and thus the grudge isn't as strong as it is in Syria.
Look at that six year old on Twitter, the media's darling, six year old Bana. Cute kid. My heart bleeds for her. All of the tweets from her mom are angry tirades about how it's our fault that Syrians are dying for not doing anything. If she hates this country (the mom-the girl doesn't know what the hell is being done with her obviously) so much, why should we resettle her? We didn't start it and we have no reason or right to end it.
I'm not particularly familiar with this girl or her mother, but much of (not all, but
much of) the criticism made against the United States for inaction is rooted in the West's responsibility in destabilizing these countries in the first place. That's why it is absurd for Trump to deny people refugee status while perpetuating the conditions which started the migrant crisis. The West, and the United States in particular, have ceded any credibility they might have had over matters pertaining to war and peace, and that's why any 'good-intentioned' attempt by the United States to make nice overseas deserves to be challenged and questioned.