I've a theoretical preference for open borders. I've seen work extolling the benefits of immigration to the receiving country but the economic arguments aren't decisive for me being what you would probably consider a moral masturbator.

However the case of refugees and economic migrants are different and I'm good with treating them separately.

That may not have been the nicest thing to say but its meant to be directed at people who think that getting them over here is one of their (the refugees') better options while Im much more in favor of stabilizing the area where possible. These people often do not even want to move and recently there have been increasing numbers of them who have shown interest in returning to their (at war) country because they want to rejoin their family, can't adapt to the local culture or because the accommodations aren't what they thought they would be.

Any war refugee is welcome in my country in my opinion, the current policies are just not very adequate when it comes to defining who is and who isn't a refugee, partly because of the open borders within EU part you described previously and partly because of the huge pressure on the institutions responsible for registering and vetting incoming refugees. My points of criticism are pretty much never against the refugees themselves but rather against people encouraging them to come and my own countries and the EU's failing policies.

I didn't take it anywhere near seriously enough to take offence.

I'm in favour of choice, firstly where it is possible to contribute to the stability of a region I would like the EU, where I live and who will lead on it, to make the best contribution it can. I agree creating an environment where fewer people become refugees is preferable to dealing with refugees.

However once there are refugees we have to provide them refuge as a union and the current infrastructure is inadequate. Here I think we also agree.

However while I think our legal obligations to refugees differentiates how we treat them in comparison with economic migrants I think the cases are similar in significant ways. I share some of your assumptions that most people will prefer to stay in an environment/culture/country in which they were born a significant number will feel the need to move due to economic necessity and it is generally preferable for people to have opportunities at home. However this is not the case, and even if it were, I would support the free movement of people searching for other legal opportunities. Here I'm not sure we agree.

You're right, we probably wouldn't agree, I guess we can't have it all . But (again) my disagreement is mostly based on how the (my) national policies handle the economic immigrant cases, I could articulate scenario's where I wouldn't be opposed. If I were an economic immigrant with the possibility to move somewhere else to better my situation and it would be within the law of the country I'm moving to I would do the same, thats why I usually oppose the policies rather then the people using those policies.