Each and every individual who wants to get away from some war torn sh*thole or just some backward part of the world could tell you a heart breaking story if you'd care to listen.
So do you think that we should let all of the ones who want to come here come?
Or perhaps just some of them? Where do we draw the line of who can and who can't? When do we say sorry this country has too many inhabitants now and if we take too many more we'll probably end up like the country you left.
Because there's got to be a limit somewhere, we don't have limitless space or resources, we can't take on half the worlds population.
If you agree with the above statement that there has to be a limit somewhere, the only thing left for you to argue over is where that limit is.
A lot of people think that we've got to that point now, and that if we go further it will be at the disadvantage of the indigenous population.
If you disagree fair enough, but don't imply that we're heartless for saying no more.
Because unless you genuinely think that there should be no limit you are exactly the same as everyone else, just a lot slower calling time.
In the context of this thread, though, regretting loss of life does not automatically equate to advocating an open door policy.
The shame is that some people (not yourself) can only see a lot of issues as having polar opposites for 'solutions'.
There's a whole middle ground to be explored, including identifying genuine refugees to take in, where the blockade should be set, what deportation/return system to use , intelligence to stop the traffickers, also publicising in the country of origin to counteract the myth of easy access etc
