Help that refuses every limit isn't more generous than help that sets one. It's help that destroys the thing doing the helping. The honest humanitarian names a number, and mourns the people outside it.
Crossbencher · 19 July 2026
The instinct on one side isn't weak, and shouldn't be treated as weak. A person born into danger did nothing to earn it. A person born into safety did nothing to deserve that either. The line between them is an accident of latitude - morally arbitrary, and a decent person feels the pull of it. Meet that pull with a shrug and you have mislaid something important. The urge to help the stranger in the water is the last urge a civilisation should want to lose.
The argument goes wrong at the next step, and it goes wrong on both sides at once. The people who feel the pull most strongly usually argue, in practice, for a managed and generous policy - while reaching for the language of no limits at all. The moral arbitrariness of borders. The abstract wrongness of the line. The people who resist usually attack the language instead of the policy, rebutting an open-borders case nobody is quite making. So the two sides talk past each other. One borrows absolutist rhetoric for a moderate proposal. The other rebuts the rhetoric and calls it a rebuttal of the proposal.
Members only
Every writer, every column
The last 30 days of the argument are free for everyone, always. The archive beyond that is a Member thing - it is part of what keeps the whole record free.
One email a day: today’s quiz, the Bench question, the argument and what broke - every figure with its source. Free, and it saves your streak. Stop it any time from one link at the bottom of it.