>>I read/hear this argument a lot in Europe to justify mass immigration

I don't really see it as a justification of mass migration, but I do see it as an argument for treating migrants as human beings not cattle(or worse). There are enough politicians and people in general who think that the boats and people at the borders should be just shot at, that will stop them from coming surely /s. You see this sentiment everywhere, and the "Remember that these are people just like you and I" thought process is missing.

Yeah, the whole "they're 'savages'" argument feels like a justification of why "we" (westerners living in relative luxury) are allowed to deny them the basic neccessities for life (food, housing, freedom from falling bombs).

To throw more fuel to the flamewar, just look at the Israeli treatment of Gazans...

For a longer essay of the idea of "refugees welcome", from an Iranian refugee who with her parents got asylum in the US after asking many embassies: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/dina-nayeri-un...

> But what America did was a basic human obligation. It is the obligation of every person born in a safer room to open the door when someone in danger knocks. It is your duty to answer us, even if we don’t give you sugary success stories. Even if we remain a bunch of ordinary Iranians, sometimes bitter or confused. Even if the country gets overcrowded and you have to give up your luxuries, and we set up ugly little lives around the corner, marring your view. If we need a lot of help and local services, if your taxes rise and your street begins to look and feel strange and everything smells like turmeric and tamarind paste, and your favourite shop is replaced by a halal butcher, your schoolyard chatter becoming ching-chongese and phlegmy “kh”s and “gh”s, and even if, after all that, we don’t spend the rest of our days in grateful ecstasy, atoning for our need.

That was an incredible read. Even though I don't think I entirely agree with the author(I am an immigrant myself and do feel grateful for my new home), it was still a worthwhile read.

There's a bit where she said she could sense the Americans wanting to hear her mother repeat her story of their journey from "oppresive Iran" to "free America", but seemingly wanting to hear it (again and again) to feel good about "their" generosity. And she is grateful, but she doesn't like this expectation of the "rescuing" community that refugees are only allowed to feel joy and gratefulness.

> Yes, technically they are people, from the same species. Then about anything else is different.

They are people, without technicalities. And we have a lot in common. There are a lot of differences inside a country too. In my country far-right doesn't value women right, personal freedom and non-violence while most migrants I've met do.

Do far-left value freedom rights in your country?

Always worth reminding that the political axes tend to be horseshoe shaped rather than linear. Extremists on both sides are more similar to each other in many ways than they are to more average people. But of course each side projects their own vices onto the other and usually are incapable of seeing it in themselves.

Always worth reminding that far-right is just a name left gives to center.

Well that's not an easy one to answer, we have so many different far-lefts, some do, some don't. I would say most do.

Also the very definition of "valuing freedom" can be debated with widely different answers depending on the country or the political group.

Hi OP here - this is not an argument for or against anything. Rather just a reminder that whichever side you are on, or whatever you are advocating for, just to remember we are talking about humans. That’s the only point I was making.

You may be fighting an uphill battle to advocate humanism here. Comments like "Yes, technically they are people" send a shudder down my spine.

I am not sure if there are any confirming studies but dehumanisation [0] seems characteristically enhanced in people whose focus is primarily on technology - on things rather than people. Moral disengagement [1] also seems to be a prevalent reaction to existential threat, which I think we all feel to some degree.

[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-web-violence/201...

[1] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/7/14456154/deh...

If you look for differences, you’ll find them. If you look for common ground, you’ll find that too.

> or which violence is normal behaviour

I hope the irony is not lost on you that dehumanisation correlates very strongly with a propensity to violence.