The arguments about economic refugees started in Europe in the 1990s. I have never really understood the logic behind this. Yes, I get that people with the biggest slice of the cake are reluctant to share (too much) with the less fortunate. I get that if borders are thrown open the better-off countries can be overwhelmed and dragged down. What I don't get is the frequent implication that economic refugees are trying to pull a fast one, to get away with something shady, to sneak in where they aren't actually eligible to go. Economic refugees are just people trying to make a better life for themselves and their children. What is so terrible about that? Is it not commendable that people look for better opportunities elsewhere in order to improve their situation?

Why should an accident of birth determine someone's fate? Many countries simply do not have the resources or organisation to afford their people opportunities to get ahead. Why should it be surprising that these people then look for better possibilities elsewhere? If a refugee is threatened with immediate extermination from warfare, intolerance, starvation, or some other disaster, then that refugee is considered 'genuine'. But if a refugee is merely condemned to a lifetime of grinding poverty and arbitrary discrimination with no hope of improvement, then that refugee is deemed 'economic', out to steal our jobs and profit from our prosperity. I find that perplexing.