The post you are reporting:
The problem is that the 1951 convention ( amended by the 1967 Protocol) defines refugees as:-
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."
As of July 2013 there were 145 parties to the Convention, and 146 to the protocol. These include some of the most tyrannical states on the planet and states from which the refugees are actually fleeing!
Whilst the convention and the protocol were signed up to by almost everyone it was very much an expression in the original founder's case of post war guilt over the treatment of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and no-one thought that there would be many who would qualify for refugee status.
Indeed during the 50s/60s most cases of political asylum were based on 'plucky' escapees from Communist states who we milked for publicity.
The growth of international transport post 60s along with the increase of Civil rather than inter-state wars has meant that half the planet seems keen to jump on the nearest plane/truck and head for one of the few countries which still takes these outdated treaties seriously. i.e. The U.K.
One only has to look at the way our European Partners across the Channel (apparently one can't say 'frogs' anymore?) deal with matters.
The 'jungle' in Calais has purposefully not been regularised.
The inhabitants should either have been granted Asylum, removed whence they came, or granted temporary exceptional leave to remain.
Perhaps the French should add 'hypocrisie' to 'Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité'?