ELIZABETH Andrew should not be bemused by Graham Brady's decision to vote against the Syrian children (Messenger, November 3).

If she were to think with her head, rather than her heart, his decision makes sense.

The crux of the matter is that a refugee should take refuge in the nearest country, not necessarily the country providing the best benefits.I If Ms Andrew cares to look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean, she might notice that there are plenty of war free countries between here and Syria.

Three thousand unaccompanied children now would, no doubt, in a short time involve numerous adults claiming that they needed to be with their children, who were already here.

Does she not realise that social services, health and education already have a heavy burden in the UK and, where are they going to be housed on a permanent basis?

One might add, why are these refugees not going to nearby Muslim countries ? Perhaps the answer to that is that they do not provide the economic benefits that are available in the uk.

People tend to liken the situation to that of pre-war Europe, with refugees coming to escape the Nazis: these refugees were from a similar cultural background, many of whom spoke English, and they were not expecting to live off the Welfare State, as it did not exist.

These are economic refugees, not refugees from war.

David Olliver, Altrincham