Perhaps the following links may clarify things
for you people:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/21/if-europe-listens-to-tony-abbott-the-future-for-refugees-will-be-cruel

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/15/migrants-cant-be-left-to-die-in-the-seas-of-europe

Malaysia’s home ministry said in a statement that of the 1,158 people who landed on Sunday on Langkawi island, 486 were Burmese citizens and 672 were Bangladeshis. There were 993 men, 104 women and 61 children.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/12/malaysia-migrants-boats-rohingya-bangladesh-myanmar-burma
So the "refugees" are 85% adult men 8% women and 7% children, children being a euphemism for minors, so people under the age of 18, teenage boys in other words. From those figures and figures from our own government we can come up with an accurate definition of asylum seeking, the term Asylum Seeker must be interpreted as "Man", the activity named "Seeking Asylum" is an economic activity performed almost exclusively by men and boys from the third world.
Discrimination is not the same as persecution, this is another trick of language used by the Anti Australia lobby, the dishonest assertion that attitudes always led to violence, there have been riots and tit for tat violence in Burma over the last few years, Muslim mobs have attacked Buddhists and vice versa.
Readers will notice though that the term "Asylum Seeker" has disappeared from the media and from the press releases of governments over recent months to be replaced by the word "migrant", changes of diplomatic language like this don't happen without a good reason and it is a significant difference.

Spindoc, keep your rug on, historically even when Europe has been flattened and her cities burned to the ground it's only take a few years to recover,"there but for the grace of God.." is a silly thing to say. There's no crisis in the Third World, as other posters have noted the different races and ethnic groups have different ways of life, ours is materially superior to many of the others so they want to come here, for work and for welfare, it's simple enough.
If you want to scare yourself silly with apocalyptic daydreaming then I recommend Camp Of The Saints by Jean Raspail or any of J.G Ballard's science fiction work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_Wild_(novella)

Here is another website that explains things:

http://theaimn.com/facts-boat-people-government-media-lying/

Dear Spindoc,

Seeing as you called me a cretin - the
following is a quote from Umberto Eco on
the subject:

"There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins,
fools, morons, and lunatics...Cretins don't even talk; they
sort of slobber and stumble...Fools are in great demand,
especially on social occasions. They embarrass everyone
but provide material for conversation ...Fools don't claim
that cats bark, but they talk about cats when everyone else
is talking about dogs. They offend all the rules of
conversation, and when they really offend, they're magnificent...

Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong.
Like the fellow who says that all dogs are pets and all dogs
bark, and cats are pets, too, therefore cats bark... Morons will
occassionally say something that's right, but they say it for the
wrong reason ...A lunatic is easily recognised. He is a moron who
doesn't know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has
logic, however twisted it may be.

The lunatic on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at all with
logic, he works by short circuits. For him everything proves
everything else. The lunatic is all "idee fixe" and whatever he
comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the
liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of
inspiration ...

At first they seem normal, then all of a sudden ..."

Foxy - When you provide a link please read it first to make sure it applies to the thread.

To quote part of your link "Imagine you come across a small child who has fallen into a pond and is in danger of drowning. You know that you can easily and safely rescue him, but you are wearing an expensive pair of shoes that will be ruined if you do. We all think it would be seriously wrong to walk on past the pond, leaving the child to drown, because you don’t want to have to buy a new pair of shoes – in fact, most people think that would be monstrous. You can’t compare a child’s life with a pair of shoes!"

This is totally stupid in relation to the current situation, as the refugees are mostly illiterate for starters therefore the chances of finding them employment is virtually zero therefore requiring welfare for life. Secondly the quote applies to one child if the scenario involved 1.5 million children which is how many Rohingya refugees there are it would be different besides most are not children.

Economically it would break any country.

Foxy's link to the Facts About Boat People blog (on a website called the Australian Independent Media Network aka AIM Network)) presents a one sided discussion from Glenn Murray that completely fails to consider the long term ramifications if the boat people keep coming, and are admitted.

The blog says boat people aren't cue jumpers but in the summary offers this contradictory statement - "I’m saying we should separate our onshore and offshore refugee quotas, so boat people don’t take places of resettled camp refugees."

Glenn Murray then goes on to offer this ridiculous piece of advice- "we shouldn’t be using ‘population’ issues as an excuse to turn ‘boat people’ away. If there are population issues (which I don’t believe there are), curtail regular immigration. At least then the people being turned away will merely be inconvenienced. They won’t be killed, tortured or wrongfully imprisoned."

A quick Google search reveals Glenn Murray is essentially a no body with lot's of (predictably left leaning) opinions and his own blog offering his "ramblings" on everything from supporting burqas, anti-corporate rants, anti-Coalition government rants, climate change fear mongering etc.

Goggle the AIM Network and all you will find are links back to their articles. It doesn't appear anyone has reviewed the AIM Network's balance/bias. Reading through the AIM Networks article titles, it looks like the ABC in disguise; you won't find any support for the current government or opinions that question Islam, global warming, over population, illegal immigration, the nanny state, or political correctness.

I wonder how anyone finds and gets turned on by these kind of websites, the One Borders website being another example.