Satire, as Shaker suggests, is a genre which can easily lead to unforseen consequences because it relies upon saying or suggesting (often outrageous) things whilst actually trying to draw attention to a much more nuanced argument which can often be in direct contrast to that stated. Hence, I see the work of a satirist has to be particularly skilled if the point actually being made comes across to the chosen audience.
Two examples come to mind:
'Till Death Do us Part' satirised Alf Garnett's attitudes ruthlessly, and, I believe, partly succeeded in mocking his prejudiced, bigotted views. However, there were many people who actually saw Alf Garnett as some sort of hero, and, far from seeing their views being ridiculed, as Johnny Speight intended, they saw Alf as an honest working class character with views reflecting their own.
Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' was an essay which proposed the idea of the poverty stricken Irish selling their young children and babies to well off people to be eaten by them in order to ease their own poverty. For me, this is a masterful piece of satire because Swift manages to get over the desperate conditions of the Irish poor, the inclusion of intricate cold hearted detail, and the callousness of the narrator while putting the idea of cannibalism on a seemingly practical commodity level.
My own thoughts on the CH cartoon are as follows. It is a rather ugly and ungainly attempt at being satirical at the temptation to stereotype migrants. It doesn't seem to have the quality of shaming those who hold the views expressed, because one is easily sidetracked by the simple unpleasantness of the juxtaposition of the dead child and the 'groping' adult. Hence it seems to come over as simply being distasteful.
