Wanting to help people who were born into danger is a decent instinct. None of us earned the circumstances of our birth. It is reasonable to feel an obligation towards someone whose life would be much safer if they could live where we do.
That doesn't tell us how many people a country can accommodate, or on what terms. Those questions still need answers. I don't think acknowledging limits makes someone less humane.
What can we sustain?
Every practical system of help has constraints. A hospital needs staff and beds. A charity has a budget. A country needs homes, services and institutions capable of supporting the people who live there.
A lifeboat is a limited analogy for a country. Nations can build capacity, and newcomers can contribute to it. There isn't a fixed number we can read from a plate on the side. But the analogy captures one point worth keeping: intending to help doesn't remove the need to consider whether the help can be sustained.
We should argue about actual capacity, including what could reasonably be increased, rather than pretending either that it is unlimited or that it can never grow.
Too often the immigration argument avoids that discussion. Someone defending a managed, generous policy uses language suggesting that any border is immoral. Their opponent answers as though they had proposed admitting everyone. Neither ends up discussing the policy actually on offer.
A limit has a human cost
A defensible policy should explain how many people can be admitted, what support is available and what obligations admission brings. It should also recognise that refusing someone may leave them in circumstances we would never choose for ourselves.
That is a painful consequence, rather than proof that all limits must be abandoned. Equally, setting a limit doesn't make the people outside it undeserving of concern. Helping people closer to where they live, and addressing the conditions that force them to leave, remain part of the responsibility.
We won't agree on every number. We should at least be honest about what a policy can sustain and who will bear its costs. Compassion doesn't require pretending those choices aren't there.