Some troubles stay perennially newsworthy. Hardly is the “last one” about them penned, they revive through unforeseeable issues and, by sanity’s standards, surprising scandals. These reanimations of the plot are of a nature that the rational brain could not predict without ingesting dope.

A growing number of countries are helpless in the face illegal and criminal mass migration. Unable-to-defend-themselves victims of uncontrolled mass migration are Europe and the U.S. — with Canada about to join. Australia, being a country and a continent, resists the onslaught because it has the will to do so.

Let us backtrack to recapitulate the self-evident. Migration is a necessity according to the fraternity of the like-minded that have taken control of the problem. Its impact seduces the actors of public information to repress what is obvious. Naturally, that trick does not change reality even if it influences the way we cope with it.

Problem solving begins with identifying a problem. Prior to that, there can be no attempt to overcome. Ignoring a matter will seldom make it go away. Accepting something negative as inevitable and thus as natural, will only stifle reactions without altering the facts of the case.

The next step of prevailing follows the admission that a negative is happening and that it is not “natural.” Thus, societies identify causes, and go from there to articulate responses. This process hinges upon a condition. Without an open discussion free of taboos, there is no admission of problems and of responding.

Taboos — culturally embedded or artificially imposed — prevent not only a debate with an open outcome, but also hinder repair. The more taboos surround a subject; the more it is shielded by an artificial reality. Ergo, the solution is blocked, because the response follows paths that intend to avoid the target.

Let us examine a not entirely hypothetical example. Take a community that is occasionally decimated for reasons unknown. As long as this is attributed to unfathomable causes, the calamity is silently suffered. Once perceptions change, the plague will be regarded as being avoidable. Then a cause can be searched to prevent a reoccurrence. We have a solution if inadequate sanitation is identified. If a belief in “spirits” is more appealing than cleanliness, then evildoers will be found. A hunt for witches might follow, or the Jews that poison wells will be blamed. The wrong theory backed by a pseudo-reality will lead to measures, which will not only fail to thwart the epidemic, but also assure its reoccurrence.

Possibly, doubting “witchcraft” will be proof that its advocate has a pact with the devil. Also, the poisoned well’s skeptic can be a hireling of the Jews; the scourge will remain even if those fighting it will feel to serve virtue.

The foregoing provides a perspective on our time’s migration crisis. In the case of this challenge, an appetite to moralize distorts its magnitude and its cause. The attempt to redefine the problem is also expressed by our accepted terminology that points in misleading directions.

Misreading the problem.

The “liberal” ideology of advanced countries prevents the assertion of their laws. To avoid the challenge, new meanings for words have been developed to wrap problems into cotton. Whether along the Rio Grande, in the Mediterranean, or along the “Balkan route,” the pressure does not come from a “refugee crisis” but from a new “migration of peoples.” Indeed, there is a war in Syria. However, 90% of the migrants are not from there but from places that are underdeveloped but hardly war zones. Those that force their way into “the North” are, as in the case of Sri Lanka, not persecuted and the claim to be victims of war lacks substance. Such pretensions are tolerated by the professional immigration industry whose officialdom does not mind that in this case, the war has ended years ago.

An ignored aspect of claimed asylum is that those that demand protection (or else!) have passed several “safe” — and culturally compatible — countries on their way to the welfare state. Once in Europe, the demand for refuge is postponed until a place is reached where the living standard is high and the support generous.

Solutions that worsen the problem.

Another fact-defying myth that warps the challenge is that the arrivals that distort their case escape homeland poverty. Illegal entry is expensive, therefore not the truly downtrodden can afford to flee. The investment is worth it: Even if no job can be found, in home country terms, leaving brings riches — paid by the welfare system. (In some targeted countries, it is the local village that must support the families assigned to them. The costs can wreck the community’s budget. It is the case near to your correspondent, a place spends $65'000.00/yr on a guest family.)

By the official yarn, the illegal entrants are the meek victims of violent governments. Even the doctored criminal statistics tell another story. Crime and illegal migration correlate. Poorer nations that were not taught thought control and “newspeak” react defensively. Citizens’ patrols and demands for protection are the upshot.

Wrong responses follow from the misidentification of a problem’s cause. The habit of suspending, and then replacing reason with illusions, is illustrated by assertions about the masses already in holding camps. The vanguard held was to be distributed by a quota among Europe’s countries. Doing that might seem to be a solution. As the problem is knowingly misrepresented, it is not the case. The proposal wishes to place ten of thousands. In fact, the problem is redefined by its explosion-like growth. In North Africa alone, half a million wait for passage. One need not add the matching masses along the Balkan route to make a confession.

Doggedly clinging to an error.

The stubborn fact is that underdevelopment resists the emigration of scores of millions as its medicine. Without endangering their institutions and ways of life, neither Europe, nor the USA can admit and assimilate the avalanche that gathers on their outskirts. Create thriving societies in desolate landscapes by siphoning off residents? No chance. Only locally facilitated organic development can transform “poor houses” — often located in rich areas — into new Singapores.

Emigration does not correlate with success. South Korea’s rise from a sub-African living standard to a top economy is unrelated to emigration — or to socialism, for that matter. Overall, emigration can only solve individual problems but not that of entire nations that wish to stumble away from their nest.

Ignore elites: Revisit sanity.

Migration is to be judged from the point of view of the migrant and the hosting community. Among others, America has benefited historically from migration. It might have moved masses, but these consisted of individuals with suitable attributes. They — as a youth the writer has been a beneficiary — recognized the superiority of the way of life and of the system that they were allowed to join. By performing like the natives, they wished to be successful in the “new country.” Individuality needs to be expressed by excellence and not by demanding privileges or by hiding in the ghettoes of failed traditions. Acceptance has been earned by the imported desire to assimilate and to participate. (In college, when assigned a roommate of the same ethnicity, we both refused. The replacement I got became a life-long friend. The “other guy” became an architect in San Diego.)

Censure-ripe conclusions we are commanded to ignore.

So as not to cause the ruin of the host, migration needs to meet several criteria. Migrants must come with certain qualities and ways. One is a “positive” one, namely, that they need to be “opportunity driven” and not “benefit oriented.” The “negative” one is that, besides skills, or an attitude that makes one “educable,” there is a cultural criterion to be met. It is that the “pre-programming” should not make the migrant into a “rejectionist” of the values of his new surroundings. Those that see in integration a dishonorable loss of their identity are a threat. Thus a reasonable demand: “Please do not settle in a country you dislike.”

Ultimately, if not coupled to selection, mass migration can, as history tells, overwhelm those that consented to harbor it. Therefore, mutually beneficial immigration must be individual and seek thriving with the host and not unearned benefits at his expense.

At present, that condition is ignored. Most of the economic migrants are unqualified to succeed in a modern context. That pertains to their know-how and expectations. Additionally, the trigger of the move is not “unlimited opportunities” but a secure existence. The latter term means dependency on social services. Initially, in terms of a home-country perspective, welfare in a ghetto conveys the impression of “having made it.” The radicalization of those unable to comprehend the roots of their surroundings’ success will follow in the second generation. Possibly earlier, namely when the finer things in life that the indigenous can access become an object of desire when acquired tastes develop.

Once that happens, the vicissitudes that the migrants had fled will become the problems of their adopted commonwealth.

The settlement of large, close-knit groups whose collective identity is reinforced by their sense of separateness creates dangers. Such huddles protect those that choose crime as a way of life — as in the case of the notorious “Nigerian drug dealer.” Shared religion, ethnicity, language — especially if they overlap- create close-knit clusters. As in the case of the Mafia, crimes against the majority are excused as respected traits. Democratically impaired law enforcement is unable to penetrate the defensive wall created by the asocial loyalty expressed by an “umerta.” Claims of “racism” and intolerance for those that are “different” will reinforce that impotence.

Will you, reading this, be made to ponder the direction at which the arrow points for your people? Release your frustration. Therefore, while you still can, get a pork chop.