My opinion is that anyone who passes through the first safe haven is no longer a refugee but an economic migrant and so I'd be a no in that case.

I also think and have stated elsewhere on these boards, that the rest of the region has done little to take Syrians and the main Gulf States in particular have failed in this.

There has been poor control of Turkish borders with Greece and this has meant many more have come through Greece rather than Bulgaria.

What you are saying, is that if we can find a reason not to become involved in a refugee crisis, we should take it. There is a very good reason why many of the Gulf States aren't popular destinations for people fleeing Islamic extremists. Places like Saudi and the UAE are dangerous places for a lot of peoples being displaced by ISIS or the Rebels. Last place you'd what to end up as a Shia is Saudi.

Of course, its also not entirely true, as a lot of the North African states are experiencing refugee crisis. Jordan and Beruit, for example are overwhelmed. The countries bordering Libya are in a similar situation.

The problem is of course that these countries are not stable, are economically incapable of coping, and most currently have problems with their own militant insurrections.

Not getting involved and resolving the issues of displaced people and refugees, ultimately will create greater problems elsewhere in the world. How long can Greece cope? Its no surprise that Turkey would 'turn a blind eye' to Syrian refugees headed to Greece, given the enmity and history between the states.

And of course the last thing Turkey wants is displaced Syrians, many of whom may very well be Kurdish.

Finding excuses not to resolve a problem, doesn't resolve the problem. Making it someone else's problem, will just come back to haunt us.

What I am doing is absolutely distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants.

By turning refugees into economic migrants, and placing the emphasis for dealing with refugees on other countries.

The UK doesn't really have a problem with Asylum based migration. Even in its busiest year, we granted 26,500 applications. Considering that on average 125,000 UK citizens leave the UK permanently, its very much manageable.

We should of course be taking individuals displaced into refugee camps, rather than waiting until they turn up on our doorstep and claim asylum. All states should because a) it gives us greater control over the problem b) it keeps refreshing the camp population c) it prevents the market for traffickers.

Instead, we've essentially stalled, done as little as possible, over 5 years, and now complain that people who may have been in a refugee camp for several years, are resorting to desperate measures.

We complain about taking 20,000 Syrian refugees (over 4 years) and how it will overburden our public services. Lebanon, a country of 4m, at the last count, had around one million refugees, displaced by the Syrian civil war.

Our problem is with actual economic working migration, and always has been, people who are essentially being used to provide a cheap labour force.

The statement I have highlighted in red is not in accord with the news this morning about G4S and two other companies struggling to house asylum seekers and making a loss from the £11.21 ongoing allowance from UK government to house/feed individuals per night.

[Link]

G4S are saying that not only are they making a loss but it is getting impossible to find a local authority that actually wants asylum seekers, so they have to be housed in hotels at enormous cost.

It's all very well feeling sorry for these people but finding them homes to live in when we are overcrowded already from EU migrants flooding in is a logistical nightmare and very expensive.

is there a way refugees can get to the UK without passing through another 'safe country'?