One could argue that current European policies on asylum/immigration are encouraging people to risk death to come there, and that restricting access to Europe would actually
save lives as opposed to endangering them. Perhaps if Europe's borders were completely closed off, not as many people would be trying to enter it, thus resulting in fewer cases like that of Aylan Kurdi (whose family had already been staying in Turkey for three years).
This article seems to prove my point:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/migrant-wave-inspires-others-to-attempt-trek-to-europe-1441668591Also, the idea that Syrian refugees only have two options - ''Go to Europe'' or ''die in Syria'' - is a false dichotomy. There is no war going on in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, or the United States. Aside from Turkey (which still isn't exceptionally poor), all of these countries are wealthy and have ''very high'' HDIs. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United States in particular have actually been significantly involved in the Syrian Civil War; unlike Austria, Germany, Italy, Greece, Poland, Hungary, etc. Even if the Arabian Peninsula states can't be made to take any in (or if you object to their status as authoritarian states), that still leaves Turkey (which is at least a hybrid state) and the United States as options. The point is that their lives can be saved without Europe having to take them in. There are places outside of Europe that have both the ability to and are better suited than Europe to take in these refugees.
