The premise of my response to this is that this death is more complex than either political position on it can encompass. On one had, this child died because the adult responsible for her chose to take a significantly risky path to enter the US. This is regardless of whether he was warned or not; Any person likely knows how dangerous it is to swim across a massive river (even if you are in shape for such a physically-tasking challenge). It is truly tragic that this choice led to his death and the death of a child that had no choice in the matter. On the other hand, those of us commenting comfortably from our computers do not fully appreciate the pressure of a lack of social mobility in a society. For example, I was easily able to migrate from one 1st world country to another using the legal process because I am financially wealthy enough to endure the process, and I also had the chance benefit of being born a citizen of a country where social mobility was viable to me without any significant risk. My ability to contemplate a home for myself and a better future for my family have always been available to me, with negligible sacrifice required to attain any of this. The conditions that would compel someone to go to these lengths for a better life does warrant some consideration.

​

Had he stayed home and not taken this risk, this tragedy would not have occurred. Had he and his child survived this effort, he may have had an opportunity for a better life for his family and this would not have been a tragedy. Determining which choice is "right" really depends on whether your tolerance of the pressures he lived under would lead you to one choice or the other. Some of us would stay home and others would risk the river, and in either choice we would potentially be setting ourselves up for one form of tragedy or another. It's an open question that reddit reactions are trying to turn into a polarised reality.

​

Just some thoughts for everyone.