I am not saying the thinkings wrong but where does it end.
How does it transpire to the rest of the worlds population that want to come here. Do we shut the borders to everyone to "keep us safe".
How many murderers have we "let in" or pedos or organized criminals.
How many peoplethat have money and may be welcomed to this country with open arms are actually in the background harming us.
Do we send all the people back that came to the UK in the last 20 years so as not to have any murders commited by them.
Do we not let any immagrants who are currently with us have children so they cannot become radicalised.
Its a very slippery slope.
No, I'd prefer to have a mature, civilised intellectual debate on a potentially sensitive issue, without some people resorting to the usual knee jerk insults. And then getting all defensive when they get called out on them.
Imagine you are a Daesh general. You have soldjas in front of you willing to die for you. Do you send them with an AK to fight and die in Syria/Iraq and probably achieve little, or send them to the west and tell them to get a knife from Argos, a truck from a rental firm and kill as many of the infidels as possible?
Which gets the most publicity?
If you include Europe there's been a much greater incidence of killings done by "refugees."
You have to be logical about it and also use common sense. Put Muh responsibility and Muh poor women and children to one side for a minute.
You can't send people back who have integrated into society and have not given the police any reason for concern i think we all agree on that.
I think the rest of the world needs to do more though countries and states like
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain
Brunei
Egypt
Malaysia
Maldives
Morocco
Where they would fit straight in with the culture. There is always going to be a clash of cultures when they keep coming to Christian countries.
Then why did you start with a knee jerk insult in your first reply to me? You haven't once even begun to engage me in conversation, but sat there telling me what I think is completely different to what I actually think. You've actually created an opposing viewpoint from me yourself, and subsequently used that to argue with me. That's why I've called you a bigot, and I'll stand by that whilst you continue to do that.
I'm more than happy to have a discussion, but I take umbrage with anyone attacking my opinions before I've even had a chance to express them.
Let's also not forget the 2015/16 New Years Eve sex attacks in Germany. Mass sex attacks, 24 alleged rapes and numerous thefts.
"police report that 1,200 women were sexually assaulted and estimate that at least 2,000 men were involved, acting in groups"
Which turned out to be the norm for the attackters back home. It even has a name taharrush jamai (translated as "group sexual harassment).
The other problem is the definition of a refugee and the terms of the treaty for both parties, once these people leave the area known as their country they are by the terms of the treaty which is agreed upon by the UN and it's members, bound to remain in the first safe country they arrive at. But they don't, they travel and become migrants because they want to come to a country that quite rightly but not without cost to itself full-fills it's duties to it's citizens.
The idea, ambition of wanting to make a home in a country such as ours is fine, however a country has a constitutional right to ask who these people are, to ensure fairness to other individuals who are following due process and the innate responsibilities to those already living here. A country especially an Island such as ours does not have a limitless capacity to absorb endless amounts of individuals and families from different cultures. Any country has a right and a duty to define between citizens and non-citizens and the rights that are given and duties that are expected in return.
I think Derrida's idea of a borderless humanity with unconditional hospitality is being undermined by the fact this kindness is being abused by those that look to destroy the hard fought liberty both internally with the liberal obsession of the self and externally from those committing acts of violence after being allowed here.
The grandiose ideas of a utopian common mankind sharing and caring is an illusion, we struggle to share parking spots and even forum spaces without descending into conflict, the nation state, borders, security, law, lightly governed markets that bind people into a social identity is as good as it gets folks. We have to protect this but there is never an answer that is fair to all parties.
Oh dear, a nerve does seem to have truly been touched. But you go on calling me a bigot if you like, no worries. I think I'll manage to sleep ok tonight 
If you do have an opinion of your own though, rather than one downloaded from the Guardian, don't let me stop you expressing it.
I just gave you every opportunity to engage in the mature, civilised debate you said you preferred. The snide remarks only serve to show the opposite.
If you can actually reply without throwing an insult then I'll happily respond in kind. If not, then I'll leave you to have your last petulant dig so I can get back to ignoring you. I suggest that would be a good thing to do when you see my posts from now on too.
Really? It's just that I have yet to see any intelligent, civilized debate from you at all yet, just a constant defensive whine about some imagined slight or insult that is entirely imaginary. All the while throwing out childish insults along with the toys out the pram.
Perhaps if you could just quote me where I have referred to you as a "bigot", or a "poppet", it may help understanding?