[beagle3]

The UN convention on refugees is that a person MUST seek refugee status in the first non-war location they set foot on.

Whether or not this convention/policy makes sense is a different matter (it was not conceived of for the mass migrations we are seeing now), but technically speaking, these people stop being refugees when they leave the first peaceful state they are in. And practically, they are shopping for benefits -- why settle for Denmark which forces you to integrate, when you can get to Sweden and only integrate if you want to? Why settle for Greece or Turkey, where you get safety in a refugee camp, when you can go to Germany and get safety and help among the local's preferred residence?

I do not fault these people for trying to get the best for themselves - I'm not sure I'd have acted differently in their place - but the word "refugees" has very specific legal meaning, both locally and internationally, and therefore "so called refugees" is technically correct, because these people are not refugees by international conventions and definitions.