I tried earlier in a gentle way to suggest that such comparisons are not a good idea. Let me try again.
Such comparisons are
a) Over the top.
If someone can really make a case that our immigration policy is reasonably comparable to the deliberate slaughter of millions of people from racial, political, and sexual minorities, I have not seen it. These sort of stretched comparisons just discredit those making them. As a part-Jewish friend put it to me, even a comparison to the repatriation of refugees by England to Stalin's Russia after WWII would be stretched, let alone a comparison to Hitler's extremination campaigns.
b) Counter productive.
Making such over-dramatized comparisons just makes it easy for people to dismiss your arguments. Why should people take seriously those who make such inaccurate comparisons?
c) Dangerous.
You run the risk of seriously offending and demeaning those who were impacted by the events of WWII, by implicitly diminishing the scale and horror of their tragedy.
Further, if you make such comparisons without proposing an alternative policy, and showing what its realistic implications would be, you also lack credibility. What is the alternate policy? That anyone who shows up and claims to be a refugee can stay? Surveys suggest that 40% of the third world's population would move to a western country if they could. What would be the implications of this? Among other things it would make our current welfare state impossible to sustain. Forget Medicare. Forget aged pensions. Forget unemployment benefits.
Saying we should be more humane to claimed refugees is not a policy proposal. The Greens' 'policy' falls well short and does not analyse the consequences. They are silent on the question of what happens to those not found to be refugees.
Some libertarians do say that they support the right of unrestricted immigration. They acknowledge the consequences. I do respect this to some extent. But when I see these statements without any actual concrete policy proposal, and without acknowledging the consequences of such a policy, one might begin to suspect that what we are seeing is not much more than moral posturing.