In that case shouldn't the U.S allow in the vast majority of Africa?

Where do you draw the line? There's only 300 million people in the U.S. A quick search reveals that 780 million people don't have access to clean water. What do you do?

I don't know exactly where to draw the line, but we can start with not sending actual refugees back home to die.

No. Immigration should be at the pleasure of and to the benefit of the host population. Every population should have the right to control who enters their land.

And we can't save them all, anyways. If everyone living in a totalitarian regime showed up in the US they would vastly outnumber the current Americans.

> Every population should have the right to control who enters their land.

Obviously nations have the right to do that. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Saying "your right to not be tortured and killed by a tyrannical government is less important than my right to prompt convenience at the grocery store" is still a dick move.

Should the US rescue all of them? You seem eager to give away other people’s country.

> Should the US rescue all of them?

I never said that. See my reply to ApolloFortyNine.

> You seem eager to give away other people’s country.

It's my country too, thanks.

Just want to point out, again, that right now you are specifically arguing that convenience at the butcher's is more important than human life. Are you really making your point effectively and convincingly?

We're being realistic, you can't save everyone. There's billions of people who have a quality of life magnitudes below yours and mine. It's naive to think we can simply allow them all into our country without consequence.