The same is true, of course, for the so-called “refugees” (in reality, economic migrants – pure and simple). They come to Western nations for exactly the same reason: the risk-return profile of this endeavor is sufficiently attractive to a sufficient number of individuals to create a very serious problem (and ultimately an existential threat) to Western Civilization.
Bleeding-heart liberals claim that there is no way to stop “refugees” from coming. This statement is only partially correct – there is no such way under the liberal democracy.
A neo-Ordensstaat will solve this problem in a matter of days – by sinking boats with refugees without warning (using stealthy or not-so-stealthy attack drones) and by shooting without warning (and shooting to kill) those that make it (illegally) to the territory of the Western nation in question.
These operation will be videotaped and uploaded onto YouTube. This will (obviously) radically alter the risk/return profile for refuges and their helpers (drones will not care about whom the boat in question is registered to and operated by). And – no less obviously – reduce the number of invaders (let’s call a spade a spade) to practically zero.
I am not saying that this is the best solution to the “refugee problem” (there might be other, more humane options); I only want to demonstrate how it can be done in a matter of days. A 50-caliber Browning M2 is a far more convincing argument than any other. As is, of course, the AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface (and anti-ship) missile.
Liberals simply can not grasp a fundamental truth (no wonder – if you want to make a liberal really mad, tell him or her the truth): any government is responsible only for its citizens (not even for permanent residents). Period.
Hence, no government is (or can be made) responsible for helping refugees and no “refugee” has (or can be given) a right to asylum. The cultural security (absolutely essential for any nation to survive – let alone prosper) requires that it can (and should) let in only those willing to completely abandon their culture and to adopt the culture of the “receiving nation” (i.e. to be Westernized if the latter is the Western one). In other words, borders must be open only to so-called “transcultural individuals” – and to no one else.
But let’s go back to the subject of crime. Another kind of crime that must be all but eradicated is, obviously, rape – which is a horrendous crime against humanity. And there is a relatively easy way to do it (no, it does not require sending rapists to neo-Dachau indefinitely).
However, it requires a compulsory training of all ladies since the age of 12 (and possibly even younger) in self-defense against rape. Physical (i.e. in martial arts) and (what is much more important) psychological.
Studies and experiments demonstrated beyond the reasonable doubt that this solution works – and works very well. In some cases, the number of rapes went down by as much as 80%. The number of domestic violence against women also went down sharply.
The problem is that no liberal government has the desire, discipline, determination and dare to make it happen. But the neo-Ordensstaat will – after all, in the Third Reich lots of things were made compulsory quickly and efficiently.
If these skills do not protect a woman from domestic violence perpetrated by her husband, another solution pioneered by the Third Reich might help. A weeklong stay in a Dachau-style “reform establishment”.
Most of the time, after this “vacation” husbands lost the desire to hurt their wives completely and for good. I stand corrected – this method was used a few centuries ago in at that time not-so-liberal Britain.
Ditto for the children. If parents hurt their child, the only thing the latter needs to do is to file an official complaint… no, not with the police, of course. Simply with his or her Hitler Youth or BDM group (their modern equivalents, of course).
Group leader informs the appropriate detectives, they investigate the complaint and if it is confirmed that the child in question tells the truth (children not always do)… you guessed correctly, parents earn a weeklong “correction therapy” in the nearest Dachau-style establishment.
Which was (at the time of the Third Reich) and will undoubtedly be more than enough for the individuals in question to lose any desire to hurt their children – for good. But again, the liberal democracy simply can not do that – hence the widespread domestic violence in so-called “democratic nations”.
Another problem that liberals simply can not solve is homelessness. There is an easy way to solve it – make it illegal for anyone to live in the streets. If anyone loses the place of residence – for whatever reason – the state must supply him or her with acceptable accommodations.
And if the individual in question has mental health issues (the overwhelming majority of homeless do) provide him or her with appropriate care and treatment. Obviously, liberal democracies can not make it happen as the right to live on the street appears to be one of the key rights cherished and protected by liberals.
Another problem endemic to the “liberal nations” is poverty. Again, it is not that difficult to solve this problem (every Western nation has the necessary resources – only the will is lacking).
To solve this problem, the government must recognize that there are two kinds of poverty – some people are poor because they can not earn enough to get out of it and others (the majority if not the overwhelming majority) because they are too lazy to do it (sloth was included into a list of seven deadly sins for a reason).
Consequently, all the state needs to do is to provide those that can escape property with the necessary tools and other resources (and, first, and foremost, “carrot and stick” incentives) and those that can not with sufficient support for a decent lifestyle.
And again, liberals are totally impotent in this department because they simply can not grasp that the overwhelming majority of the poor are poor because they are simply too lazy to “get up, show up” and work sufficiently hard to make enough money to put poverty behind them.
Like their “best friends” Bolsheviks, liberals consider all poor individuals inherently good and all rich ones inherently bad. The reality in most cases is exactly the opposite with the exception of a few ones who inherited their wealth (or married into one), there is no such thing as an “affluent lazy individual”.