I think most of the posts on this thread are not taking into account
what the cause of the mass migration may be.
If it is caused by a war, then generally it will mainly be from one
particular country.
However if it is caused by a shortage of fuel for farming and food
distribution, then we can expect millions, if not tens of millions of
people to be on the move.
You could in these circumstances expect to see tham arrive not in
fishing boats but large ships carrying perhaps 10,000 people each.
However in that circumstance a fuel shortage may only have internal
effects in each country as the people will not have any money at all
having previously spent all their resources on escalating food prices.

So perhaps the people would split into two groups, those that foresaw
what was about to happen and joined the ships while they still had
some money and those that were waiting for their government to help.

Either way it will not be pretty.

For every person who arrives here by boat ten arrive and stay illegally by air.
For every one of that combined number 100 sit and wait in a camp.
If the world said ok lets clear the problem, take all camps boats air, we would see millions say it can be done let us do it.
If every working human in the world gave just $100 maybe we could save just one country say Zimbabwe as a safe home for its own people.
But remember world events do change that million refugees could come in your lifetime.

No, most of the posts don't give a phuck what caused people to decide to Country shop their way here... They are not genuine refugees under the UN's own definition, if they were, they'd be in Malaysia or Indonesia.

Personally, I dislike the fact that we are allowing people to come here illegally and live in a better fashion than 'some' Australian citizens.

They have no right to be here, why on earth should they be allowed to remain? They "CHOSE" to break the law, any other immigrant that comes here and breaks the law is deported, why the discrimination?

Oh that's right... To save looking in our own backyard and in an attempt to avoid dealing with the intractable third/fourth world conditions OUR CITIZENS live in, we'll make ourselves feel "worthy" helping some scheming, country-shopping queue jumper to stay here?

Nope.

For me, charity starts at home. We have NO OBLIGATION TO ANYONE until ALL Australian citizens live in conditions we'd be happy to have our own family live in. Don't agree, why ever not? I mean, it certainly doesn't seem like an awfully nasty thing to insist upon, does it?

I mean, as far as obligations go, our Government, being the servant of the people, is first and foremost obligated to the Citizens of this Country, not the UN (they don't actually control us YET). Why is it such a terrible thing to suggest we help Australians first? Is it racism? Is it some remnant of a cultural cringe? Is it some fallout from the "Sorry" stuffup that let people feel that they'd done everything that they could be expected to contribute to ATSI people?

No. I will agree to allowing refugees in WHEN and only when, ALL AUSTRALIANS live in first world conditions. Until then, so sorry, we have our own people to worry about. But tell you what, if you are that keen, keep floating South, there is a whole continent with no-one on it, try there.