Matt Cardy/Getty Images Opinion Budapest backfire If all refugees got to choose their destination, the EU they dream of would cease to exist.

Fleeing home, for whatever reason, sparks a series of choices, almost all of which are too hard for a human being to make: Whether or not to leave in the first place? How? Trusting or paying whom? Going where? The father of Aylan, the boy found dead on a Turkish shore, told reporters of the choice he had to make. When their boat turned over he saw his first son drown. He decided to let him disappear in order to save his second son. He tragically failed. All of his family died. Only he was spared.

So, should he at least be free to choose a specific EU country as his safe harbor? Yes, he should. And no, not all refugees should. Tragic but true: If all refugees get the right to choose their EU country of destination, they will demolish much of what they came looking for — a common European area of freedom, justice and security.

Honestly, it is a very proud moment for a German like me to see how many of my compatriots have rushed to help nameless refugees pouring into our country. The same goes for all other European nations witnessing a similar surge in civic compassion. Yet, in the long run, compassion only is not a solution. Sadly.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has decided to practically freeze the Dublin III procedures which set out that refugees are to be sent back to the EU country in which they first arrived. Morally, it was a good thing to do. Merkel has since been praised in public, with the people jamming Budapest's main railway station shouting: “Germany, Germany!” Yet, in the long run, just acting morally isn’t a solution either. Sadly.

It clearly falls upon member states to decide, to choose and to share the burden.

Just have a look at one of the consequences of what Merkel said. The other day, refugees refused to board a train in Budapest because they didn’t trust Hungarian authorities. They didn’t want to end up in a camp nearby. Hundreds of others broke away from such a camp. They all long to get to Germany instead. So, what is the lesson?

Tough choices

For centuries, Europe was about war, blood and borders. Since 1957, the European Union has been basically about peace, prosperity and no borders. First, member states suppressed borders for goods and services. Then a large number of member states cleared the way for people, too. In 1999 they declared a common area of freedom, justice and security. That is pretty much what is at stake now.

It boils down to one question: Who is to choose? The EU member countries, by deciding whom to take in and where to shelter them? Or the people crossing borders in the legitimate pursuit of happiness — be they refugees from war-torn Syria, or from poor Kosovo?

There is no easy answer. There may be no fair answer either.

At the end of the day, it clearly falls upon member states to decide, to choose and to share the burden. Otherwise, one government after the other will reintroduce border controls once their nation’s capacity of will for welcoming refugees reaches its limits. In a figurative sense, that is a “beggar my neighbor policy.” It would inevitably dismantle the European Union, morally as well as legally — and thus end up creating the opposite of what most refugees come searching for.

If there is a strong enough political will, it might be justified, and even feasible, to send back migrants who left their homeland fleeing poverty. For the majority, however — namely, all refugees from Syria or Africa — even the best options are pretty uncomfortable.

Separating refugees along national quotas, for instance, is a far-from-perfect solution. From the refugees' point of view, it is not fair. Since Germany currently harbors about 40 percent of them, authorities would have to first select and then transport thousands of people, against their will, to other EU member states. Or Germany would have to stop welcoming new refugees for a while just to bring its quota down. None of these options is politically tempting, dignified or morally unassailable.

In a recent press conference, Merkel called for less German regulatory “Gründlichkeit” (thoroughness) and more flexibility to cope with the situation. Again, she was right. But she did not dare to mention that we will also have to exercize flexibilty as regards our traditional standards of morality, fairness and justice.

Nikolaus Blome is a German journalist and writer.