Mal Fletcher comments on the current refugee crisis.

At the start of the current crisis, the British government elected to do very little.

Conscious of the fact that Britain saw a net migration of 330,000 people in the past year, despite government promises to reduce immigration, Prime Minister David Cameron chose to play a waiting game.

In the meantime, he reminded Parliament that the UK was the first G7 nation to enshrine in law its commitment to a UN development spending goal - to invest 0.7 percent of its gross national income on foreign aid.

However, on the refugee issue, public and political pressure arguably forced his hand. In early September, he announced that the UK will accept 20,000 refugees over the next five years.

He has stipulated, however, that these people will be drawn from Syrian camps, so that Britain supports genuine asylum seekers as distinct from economic migrants.

These people will be allowed to resettle as asylum seekers but will be required, at the end of five years, to apply for full asylum status.

This figure is nowhere near large enough, say some of the government's opponents. The Green party labelled it 'pitifully small'.

Critics point out that Australia, which is a long way from the crisis and boasts a much smaller economy, has pledged to receive another 12,000 people.

The debate over the scale of Britain's response is likely to continue. The outcome is far from certain.

One thing is sure, however. Over the next 10 years, on a global level, we will see a 'right to mobility' enshrined as a core human rights issue, particularly as increasing numbers of people flee wars, natural disasters and poverty.

This will spark ongoing, heated debates about the tension between humanitarian concerns and the manageability of migration, in terms of employment, social cohesion and healthcare.

At the end of the day, we must face the problem of mass migration with a strong dose of pragmatism. Developed nations simply can't take in everybody and we need to ensure that asylum seekers are distinct from economic migrants.

Politicos who promise quick and easy answers to the questions posed by sudden migrations are either disingenuous or intellectually lightweight. There are no easy answers.

Pragmatism will remain a vital component in decision-making on migration. Yet pragmatism must be tempered with compassion. Genuine asylum seekers must be afforded the right to protection and relocation.

When dealing with the vexed tensions between humanitarianism and pragmatism, our governments will make mistakes.

Yet if they err, when they err, it should always be on the side of compassion and generosity - at least where genuine asylum seekers are concerned.