You missed the largest point, it makes them dependent on the easy handouts and kills their instincts.

Are you genuinely arguing against helping people in need?

Depends on what the definition of "need" is. I don't think a million migrants need to come over here and suck the welfare system and people of Europe dry, but a lot of people do. It's all relative.

And you think human beings should be acting on instincts, or what?

Where are you going with this analogy, besides comparing people to animals in a zoo?

Humans do act on instincts, what do you think hormones are? Humans are not special, we're animals too.

I also never compared people to animals in a zoo. That would imply we have control over said people. Instead, we have people from a foreign land who are here for free stuff (Aka wild animal coming up to you in national park).

I'm suggesting that maybe if we don't give them free stuff, they will go home and stop trying to get free stuff from us. Every time you give these people free stuff, it encourages them more. Every time you feed the bear in the woods, it encourages bears to accost people on the trail. Did not know this needed such an explanation.

I mixed up "zoo" and "park", but you are still in a really bad place when you suggest that the same ethics apply to animals and people. The death of a wild animal is natural. The death of a person, when it's preventable, is a tragedy.

You said "it kills their instincts" as a reason not to feed animals. Regardless of the fact that humans also have instincts, why is "it kills their instincts" a reason not to feed people? That's what I was asking. Our society is not ruled by instinct, and should not be.

> I'm suggesting that maybe if we don't give them free stuff, they will go home

It's like you don't know what a refugee is. Their home is gone. A major city was just destroyed.