Perhaps, but the point is the Howard Government set up a strict border security regime where there was offshore processing for those asylum seekers coming by sea. This caused the amount coming to dwindle. This was considered inhuman by many of the left, so the Rudd government got rid of it and said they would process people those coming by boat in Australia. The amount coming soared, as did the amount dying at sea - hundreds, perhaps over a thousand, died in five or six years. The second Rudd government, under intense pressure, and then the Abbott government took a much stricter line, basically stopping all boats and refusing to allow those coming by boat to settle in Australia. The amount of boats coming has dropped right off, as has the amount dying at sea. Here we an example of strict border security saving lives. In directly contradicts the implied message of some that the best and most humane idea is to be as lax and open as possible. I'm not saying the Australian example necessarily shows this is the way Britain and Europe should proceed, but its shows some of the nuances of the issues, and the idiotic rhetoric and puerile personal accusations of unhinged leftists is hardly a substitute for proper thought.
What Mycroft is trying to obscure by his asinine performance is his argument is essentially:
1) Migrants are dying and suffering trying to get to Europe.
2) We wish to prevent this.
3) We prevent this by being as welcoming and open as possible.
4) Therefore, we should be as welcoming and open as possible.
There is much that is debatable in such an argument. It is far from self-evidently correct, as the Australian example perhaps shows (it is possible, of course, that he might argue the Rudd government was not open and welcoming enough). If one doesn't accept this argument, then it is hard to see why emotive appeals to these deaths would lead one to conclude as he does.