[curiousgal]

The worst of those odds still beats living in Syria by a long mile believe me. For this particular guy, going for the "best possible odds" definitely doesn't justify the risk he took.

In a nutshell, beggars can't be choosers.

[vidarh]

Of course beggars can be choosers.

What that statement generally means is that beggars can't generally afford to turn down charity, hoping for others to give something better.

But in this case this is not what we are talking about, but a situation where someone has to decide which country they will try to apply for asylum in, amongst multiple possible options. In that case, they most definitively can choose to some extent, even though the alternatives may have different perceived risk profiles.

And as with everything else, of course some people will choose badly.

[PeterisP]

But these aren't simply "multiple possible options" that differ only in the final country.

One option, getting asylum as soon as you can, is your right, and the other option - crossing the border with forged documents to get asylum elsewhere - is a crime.

Yes, you may prefer A to B - but if one of them is permitted and the other is not, then there is a big ethical difference, and simply choosing whatever benefits you most is not appropriate.

[jamespo]

It would seem they can in this case, maybe you don't want them to.

[curiousgal]

Beggars can't be choosers.

Person A can choose.

Ergo, Person A is not a beggar.

Of course they can choose, but they have to stop playing the "refugee" card.