I agree with Outrider and david f

Overpopulation is the overall problem. Overpopulation is an increasing problem in the author's listed country - which is Malaysia.

Malaysia would like to shift more of its refugee problem to Australia. Malaysia is less than half the size of NSW but has 30 million people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia .

Australia has the right under international and Australian law to determine who can enter Australia.

Australia accepting more illegal immigrants allows overpopulating countries to export excess population for money. Not only people smugglers make money out of refugees but government officials in their home countries and transit countries rely on refugee money.

I think you have to be a little slow to still be talking about helping over-breeding and illiterate people after all the money and other aid that has been thrown at them for decades without result. We are under no obligation to help. Australia is what it is through democracy, the rule of law, property ownership, education and the work ethic.

The other poor wretches are the way they are because they are the exact opposite. There have been enough attempts to show them how to do it. They have not learned, so they must survive or not on their own. They are no more use to Australia than they have been to their own countries; but if some people had their way, we would have all them here dragging us down to their level

It' well past time for people like this author to put a sock in it.

You say that we are under no obligation to help.

However their failure today will sow the seeds for our failures tomorrow.

At some point we should acknowledge that and stop saying "Bugger you, I'm alright Jack".

Hi Bugsy

The more Australia settles refugees coming by boat - the more boats, the more people drowning when those boats sink. How do you reconcile that?

If those refugees are in camps in Indonesia and Malaysia then Australia can consider and sometimes accept their refugee applications.

Refugees in Indonesia and Malaysia, are, of course, considered alongside refugees in camps in the Horn of Africa region. Many of those Africans are Christian and have been slaughtered and starved out by Muslims and others.

The question of who is more in need should run higher than the political pressure exerted by people smugglers and transit country officials taking people smuggler bribes.

"rather than attempting to solve the actual source of the problem."

And how the hell do we do that?
"The" source?
There are a myriad of causes involved, some of which are probably unsolvable, and none of them are our responsibility.

"conflicts are very likely to develop and erupt between neighbouring countries."

But we have no land borders and virtually no "neighbouring countries".
Only two, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.
And that's not where the migration is coming from.

"many cities will not be able to take the strain. Infrastructure may just collapse, urban transport will be inadequate, unemployment dramatically increase, food and water shortages occur due to supply chain stress, making cities almost totally unmanageable. The sustainability of cities will come under threat."

It's already happening.
With legal government-approved excessive immigration.
Many experts think we are already past our sustainable population size.

"The decision making models that exist within the world today are self-destructive"

They are insufficiently self-protective.
We need more of what the author fears, not less.

More blatant self-interest, more governments looking after their own people's future, not the future of "the planet" or "humanity".

You can never solve other people's problems. They are intrinsic/internal.
But we can keep them out.

That's why our ancestors built walls, moats, fences and drawbridges.

"Humanity beware!"

Of the "humane" global dictatorship apparently favoured by this author and his kind.

Think about the Titanic: there were not enough life-boats, so those in life-boats pushed away those swimming in the water who tried to come near them.

While they were all on the ship, everyone was friendly and there were no similar divisions among them, but once in the water, suddenly those in boats have something in common (but not with the others), suddenly a life-boat becomes a "nation"...

Fortunately, we are not anywhere near there yet - only the cities, actually just some of the cities - so why prevent entry into other areas of this continent rather than only to those cities?

But then one is afraid that if allowed in the country, those immigrants would also infest the cities. This fear, however, is based on a combination of three unnecessary and irrational ideas:

One: Everyone is equal and must be treated the same: if you cannot afford to treat immigrants the same as yourself, then better not treat them all.

Two: National identity and pride: the name and fame of your nation is enhanced and glorified by signing and keeping international treaties (even if they are only kept in a technical/legalistic sense). In turn, those agreements prevent self-defence and demand the above "equality", thus the need to circumvent them and nip immigration at the bud.

Three: Sovereignty: a "nation" may and must occupy as much space as possible and control everyone within that space, regardless of all differences in the values of the inhabitants.

For example, some of those boat-people would be grateful to be able to come here as slaves with no rights: to labour all day in the fields in return for some food and a leaky-hut with a straw-bed; or to stand all day in the sun building roads, rails and dams; or to constantly nurse the elderly, feeding them and changing their nappies, especially as the baby-boomers age. But no - the Australian ethos does not allow such things, there are industrial rules, safety-and-health regulations and international agreements to keep... "our nation would not look good if we did that"... Thus a lose-lose situation!