Why don't the countries responsible for the refugee situation take care of the consequences instead? Like, who has been destabilizing the Middle-East for like dozens of years now ?

But the British are part of the EU as well...

Exactly, and more importantly this is the most natural and health way to deal with issues of asylum seekers.

Very concerning topic and one the could easily get much worse; aka ship all asylum seekers or for the matter "unwanted" to somewhere willing to take them.

I read that most refugees pouring into the EU are there for economical reasons, and states argue that as such they don't have to admit them. Cannot find that article right now.

"Many" as in absolute values like "more than 1,000"? I can believe that.

Or "many" as in relative values like "more than 30%"? I have difficulties believing that. If so, it's amazing how coincidental the timing is between the start of the ongoing civil war in Syria and the start of the refugee crisis.

It's also amazing how the UN "has identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W... . Are the ones you mentioned in addition to those numbers?

Those number seem unbelievably high, given there are less than 18 million Syrians total.

Umm, that's why there's a crisis.

Do you think the numbers are wrong? Why, and by how much do you think they are wrong?

It's not credible that 75% of Syrians have left the country.

They haven't. The quote I gave is the total displaced population, "... of which 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria."

Only 5 million/18 million = 28% of the population has left the country.

This is an almost arbitrary distinction. These people are looking for a better life, one without violence but hopefully, yes, also one where they're not stuck in poverty. Maslow's pyramid and all that.

They should let only wealthy refugees in then right ?

The question isn't whether being rich/poor affects somebody's potential status as a refugee for non-economic reasons (e.g. persecution in their home country), it's whether enconomic reasons alone are enough to justify "refugee" status. Which side you come down on regarding this is subjective, but either way your comment isn't relevant.

Didn't know that, now it actually makes sense. Thanks.

Are they really refugees though?