The subjects of asylum and immigration are much discussed at present and the distinction between the two is ever more blurred. Someone who wishes to escape a war zone or is in danger of persecution in their own country is automatically deemed in need of protection. Those who wish to escape poverty are almost by definition economic migrants. So why the confusion?

If we look first at the situation facing those from Syria, Afghanistan or Eritrea, it’s a ‘no brainer’. But if we look further, things are not quite as straightforward as they appear. Syria, for example, is bordered by Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. Those are considered by the UN as ‘safe countries’. Every Syrian asylum-seeker must have passed through one of those countries.

It is the responsibility of the asylum seeker to register for asylum in the first safe country he enters and stay there until the application is accepted or rejected. How many of thesepeople currently in Europe have applied for asylum in non-European countries and awaited the result? We are seeing masses of people leaving the western shores of Turkey and land in the nearby Greek islands. They do not wish to claim asylum in Greece – an EU member state.

They pass on to the Greek mainland thence through Macedonia and Serbia, and again no asylum claims. Then on to Hungary (Shengen area) but they do not wish to stay there and want to go to Austria, Germany or Sweden.

Would it not, then, be proper to refer to their status as asylum tourists who wish to beresettled on their terms? I realise that to some the foregoing will be seen as an anti-migrant rant. This is far from the truth.

If I were in their place I cannot claim that I would not do likewise.

But I write in complete frustration at how this all too predictable crisis has been dealt with at all levels, UN downward.