Victor Davis Hanson on immigration in the past:

https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/wise-and-suicidal-immigration/?singlepage=true

What then were the ingredients of past successful American immigration policy?

Four enlightened rules.

One, immigrants came legally. Breaking the law was a lousy way to start American residency. How can an immigrant continue to respect and follow his adopted country’s legal system when his first act as an American resident is to mock federal law?

Two, immigration was blind and diverse. It did not favor one particular group over another. The more diverse the immigrant blocs, the less likely they were to form lasting separate communities. There were, of course, mass influxes of immigrants in the past, but they were quite diverse: gobs of Germans, hordes of Irish, masses of Italians and Sicilians, huge influxes of Poles and Jews, lots of Japanese and Chinese, large arrivals of Mexicans. But note how diverse and varied were the immigrants’ places of origin and how destined they were to bump into each other upon arrival. Each group was wary of the other trying to use immigration as a crass tool to boost their own political fortunes by bringing in more kin than their rivals.

Three, immigrants usually arrived in manageable numbers; mass arrivals were usually periodic and episodic, not continuous and institutionalized. Only that way could the melting pot absorb newcomers and avoid the tribalism and factionalism that had always plagued so many prior failed multi-ethnic national experiments abroad. To avoid the fate of Austria-Hungary or Yugoslavia, immigrants—geographically, politically, culturally—by needs were soon intermixed and intermingled.

Four, both hosts and immigrants insisted on rapid Americanization. Immigrants learned English, followed all the laws of their host, and assumed America was good without having to be perfect. Otherwise they would have stayed home.

However, this is not stuff that is or was legally enforced.

"I really don't know what the solution is for our society, because we also don't want to kill the principles this country was founded on as a means of trying to protect ourselves -- but we need to do something. Any ideas?"

I won't touch the principles this country was founded upon at all if I kill the vermin assaulting a woman in public.

The word, to that savage making excuses, is "No."

Concealed carry. Or a bodyguard service, like Uber. Women want to go,out and party--they hire Big Beefy to drive them and ward off thugs. A couple of instances of these guys getting the shit beat out of them might create a ripple effect.

You take a pause on immigration until the mess can be figured out.

@ KateC - concealed carry? Yes, absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

But as to the rest of your suggestions - No. What you're suggesting is the exact same thug-ocracy that the perpetrators of these attacks favour.

The women of Germany and Austria already paid to hire people to protect them - the police - and the police should be set to work to do their job, which is to maintain public order and efficiently identify and round up those who attack others. A few random beatings of street thugs won't change anything, in fact, it will make things worse, because there are hundreds of thousands of 'migrants' who think as these thugs think, and are happy to support, harbour or replace them. A wholesale effort of social and political will is required. It may end in mass deportations as the only way to save and restore Enlightement values.

In the meantime - Tasers, Capstun, 38 Specials, ASP batons, switchblades, whatever people want to carry to defend themselves. But restricted to citizens and lawful permanent residents only.

llater,

llamascars

A few random beatings won't stop jack.

A pity that no one would be in favor of cutting heads off and sticking them on pikes and posting them at refugee welcome centers as a warning to the next ten waves of refugees that there certain crimes you just don't commit.

Even if your religion approves. Maybe especially if your religion approves.

A German blogger was thinking about it as well. Here is what he's thinking: http://www.germanimmigration.eu/2016/01/my-11-point-plan-from-august-30-2015.html

Victor Davis Hanson on immigration in the past: ~ Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 11, 2016 6:04 AM

Past waves of immigrants wanted to assimilate. Current waves don't.

The difference between First World and Third World has grown wider, making assimilation much more difficult. Women's suffrage, technology gains, ascendancy of science, and more have put Third World immigrants on alien terrain when they enter the First World without a long detour through developing countries (Second World?).

When your culture teaches you that women are the property of men and cannot be equal to men, then you enter a country in which women are not only equal, but enjoy legal protections unheard of in your culture, you cannot so quickly adjust to having a female coworker or even boss.

We need to think carefully about our immigration policies and how we acculturate new arrivals to our shores. We're focusing so strongly on quantity of arrivals that we're losing focus on quality of arrivals (i.e., what skills do they bring and can they make a living here with those skills?).

We can't afford to slow our economy down because waves of people came here with 14th century skill sets.

Another issue we have is that we are the only country in the world not ethnically pure, but is instead a created culture (i.e., Mexico is inhabited by Mexicans, but the US is inhabited by Asian immigrants, European immigrants, Latin American immigrants, etc.), hence we don't have cultural core to be defended like the French do. We made up our culture from ideas, not traditions.

In fact, it's hard to say what exactly our culture is. Our English language changes with new words from our neighbors, enemies, and immigrants (words like gung ho, schadenfreude, banjo, and even egg were taken from other languages). Our "American" food is an ever changing hodgepodge of various ethnic cuisines. Our traditional clothing was adopted from other cultures because it was useful, not because our people had always worn it.

With such a chaotic culture, it's easy to blame America for immigrants' woes or inability to fit in, but it's wrong. It's the immigrant's role to assimilate, no matter how difficult the host culture is to comprehend. If you want to come to America, our first requirement of you should be that you want to be American, whatever the hell it means to "be American."

We, as a good host, should be willing to help and to pave the way, but we shouldn't have to give up what makes us the freest society in the world because you think women are tools of the devil and we think they should be able to vote.

Statistics on the prevalence of FGM, child marriage, forced marriage, forced veiling and other evils are available. Men plucked straight from nations were such practices are the norm and enjoy religious and cultural sanction are not likely to comport themselves by the standards of free Western societies, especially not standards of civilized behavior around women and girls. Use those stats and profile profile profile.

"Women should in general not go out on the streets at night alone, they should avoid suspicious looking areas and also when in pubs and clubs should only accept drinks from people they know,"

So why is this BAD advice? Don't you think this is what fathers are telling their daughters? And except for the drinks their sons as well?

(Of course you can go out at night but you damn well better not assume Central Park is the same after dark as during daylight.)

His problem is that these rules do not apply when "gangs" are roaming around "wilding" or looking for fresh meat.

He should have realized this and stated things less PC ("UNTIL we have educated our recent visitors that this is not to be done women FOR THEIR SAFETY should ...") Of course he would have been fired but ...

These women surrounded by large numbers of criminals were fucked, literally in some cases.

All anyone can do in that case is comply and survive and try/hope something can be done after the fact. And make sure any PC/local politics crap is loudly protested.

"Women should in general not go out on the streets at night alone, they should avoid suspicious looking areas and also when in pubs and clubs should only accept drinks from people they know,"

So why is this BAD advice? Don't you think this is what fathers are telling their daughters? And except for the drinks their sons as well?"

People are slow to adjust to a new social order. While a New Yorker may be socially conditioned not to walk the streets of Flatbush and the projects at night, they aren't going to be wary of doing the same at, for instance, JFK.

Women and girls, probably rightly viewed the Hauptbahnhoff in Cologne much the same way as New Yorkers view JFK.

It takes a while for the new paradigm to sink in. And the police need to be really proactive until they get control of this shit. Merkel really sacrificed a lot of her political credibility by pretending that all these migrants were not going to be a huge cultural and law enforcement problem.

Bob, that isn't bad advice.

However, when a law enforcement official states it, it looks like an official accommodation of the sharia view of women as chattel. That can not stand.

There were demonstrations against such behaviour in Cologne and the police responded in force:

German protesters angry about the New Year's Eve mob sex attacks and muggings in Cologne, Germany, clashed with police on Saturday.

Give immigrants and asylum seekers a free hand: check.
Bust citizen's heads? check.

This isn't done to further the interests of the average citizen, but to further the interests of the upper class.

Out of all the appalling stories coming out (slowly, as the cover up crumbles), for me this was the absolute worst.

One man described how his partner and 15-year-old daughter were surrounded by an enormous crowd outside the station and he was unable to help. “The attackers grabbed her and my partner’s breasts and groped them between their legs.”

One thing I learned from being bullied at school was that if you fight back - make them pay a cost for their behaviour - bullies will generally back off. I had this confirmed by an old school friend who is still in contact with one of my bullies from 30 years ago, who told my friend that he remembered vividly that I nearly broke his ribs and resolved to never touch me again. I didn't know that at the time, I was scared shitless of retribution from someone approximately three times my size, but it worked.

The thing that struck me about all the stories was that there was not one report of violence. As far as I can tell, not one person fought back. Even to defend their 15 year old daughter.

I'm never in favour of starting fights. But anyone who tries to grope my wife's or female friends' breasts in front of me has already crossed that line.

Or as Dee Snider put it, "we're not gonna take it". Once enough people stand up to say that, problem solved.

Oh yes, I remember my tin-eared fellow Australian Sheik al-Hilali's lament about those poor boys who were enticed into an accidental gang rape. Our current Grand Mufti is no better. 18 years in Australia and he doesn't speak English in public. Apparently he can speak some English but his command of the language is too poor for public speaking. Plus, it's always nice to be able to claim translation error when you say something fucking stupid. Here's what he had to say about the Paris attacks.

"It is therefore imperative that all causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/paris-attacks-australias-grand-mufti-sparks-outrage-after-comparing-attacks-to-racism-and-a6737721.html

In other words, it's shocking, and sad, but it's still all your fault.

Regarding American immigration, it's forgotten that there were a lot of problems, and hysteria around foreigners particularly in the early 20th century relating to anarchists and later communists. These were not completely unjustified concerns either: a president was assassinated by a foreign anarchist, and there were numerous bombings in the US (which most history teachers have forgotten about). So into the 1920s plenty of communists were deported to the Soviet Union - even American citizens. Meanwhile, immigration was basically stopped, from the 1920s until LBJ.

It was this, the "great pause" in migration, that enabled assimilation in the twentieth century. The proportion of foreign-born in the population dropped, and people weren't sponsoring their whole village from the old country to come over in chain migration (which has been the biggest error of the last generation in immigration policy. For one skilled migrant, you might get a dozen or more useless relatives. Who each bring a dozen more....).

Today we have faster transport and communication, so immigrants can keep up with the old country and essentially stay part of that culture (I even had a scholar tell me facebook was "essential" for immigrants....). For immigrants of the late 19th and 20th century, the goal of many was to come to the US, make their fortune, and go home. Most of course ended up staying (and not making a fortune), but interestingly of Greeks prior to the 1920s, something like 80% did return. This is not a narrative we hear about today either.

A simple but effective response that would spread the correct message around would be to round up every non-citizen Muslim male within a mile of the Hauptbahnhoff and deport every one of them. I understand Syria has lots of vacant houses available right now.

As you were loading them into the deportation barges you would play a tape (in Arabic) over loud speakers saying something like:

"Someone among you has treated our German women disrespectfully." No-one disrespects our women." "You are not fit to live here." "Go home, disrespect your own women."

This would be massively unfair to many of them, but it's not like Germany is short on muzzies right now. The ones who wanted to could always walk back again, but they would have plenty of time on their walk to consider the question of how to treat those naked-faced German women next time.

And the police need to be really proactive until they get control of this shit.

Hollow laughter Isab. There were police there. They decided discretion was the better part of valour. Then covered it up. I wouldn't put your faith in them.

A simple but effective response that would spread the correct message around would be to round up every non-citizen Muslim male within a mile of the Hauptbahnhoff and deport every one of them.

No, kenmce. That's exactly what not to do. Because it would be wrong, capricious, and evil. And that isn't the message to send. Illegal immigrants, sure. But charge them with that, not the sins of their fellows.

It's not really about Muslims anyway, not in this case (yes, Islam is explicitly political and expansionist as Amy has pointed out many times, but I really don't think it applies here). Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world. But, despite some extremism there, you don't generally get this sort of thing. It's Arabic, Persian, and North African culture that is the problem.

No-one disrespects our women.

A little self introspection here - there is a bit of irony about Western men promising to defend their women - get off my lawn! - in the name of civilisation. I'm blaming evolutionary psychology.

Worth repeating.

our women

"Hollow laughter Isab. There were police there. They decided discretion was the better part of valour. Then covered it up. I wouldn't put your faith in them"

I've lived in merry ole Deutchland, and have seen the police there be extremely proactive.

When Merkel's government collapses, the gloves will be off.
The Politzi aren't going to get their marching orders from the Euro weenie appeasers forever.

And Ltw, you are exactly correct about the problem being culture.

Most of the previous Muslims accepted by Germany have been Turks and Eastern Europeans.

Merkel and her lackeys were idiotic enough to believe that there isn't any difference, and a Muslim, is a Muslim so to speak.

It's interesting that there's a near-complete uproar over this, but not, as I recall, over the idea that American women should take more "responsibility" for making sure that, when people they KNOW give them drinks, that the drinks haven't been drugged. As I said, would society tolerate that for a minute if we were talking about white predators drugging the drinks of black people (or other minorities, for that matter) so they could beat them up more easily? Would it make any difference, in our eyes, if the white people were friends or strangers with the victims? (Like maybe the bartender?) I can only hope not.

IRA has it right. It isn't bad advice to remind women to be aware of their surroundings or to use the buddy system, etc.; but, that is good advice from family. From a government official I would expect something more.

It is the job of the police to make sure that the area is safe. They know that there are trouble-makers and worse where huge crowds gather; so, they need to be more pro-active to deal with it.

Government has more resources available than your average father/brother/son have; so they need to do better than just give good advice.

After all, estimates are that one million gather in and around Times Square in NYC for New Year's Eve - and certainly they have their share of up-to-no-good folks. But, there haven't been reports of gangs of men harassing women like those coming out of Europe. And, despite all the crap that some folks throw at New York's Finest, I cannot ever, imagine New York cops letting it happen. I'd like to think that if word got out that a group of men where assaulting women the cops would be on them like flies on honey.

But, that might just be wishful thinking on my part as something similar happened at a Puerto Rican Day Parade in Central Park:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade_attacks

I do believe that NYC police department has made changes since to make sure that it hasn't happened again; after all, that was 16 years ago.

It's not terribly bad advice, no. Watching your drinks, etc is a good idea. It's not really about 'asking for it', more about 'don't engage in really risky behaviour'. I'm the first to tell women who complain about getting drunk, making stupid decisions, and feeling bad about it the next day that they took a risk and paid.

I worked for a year in one of the worse parts of Sydney, living in a club/hotel with 500 one arm bandits, and there was a guy used to regularly drop in for a drink after work. He explained to me why he went there and not the place down the road. Cameras everywhere. The place he used to drink, one night he was walking home and collapsed, woke up in bright sunshine with his wallet and phone gone. He was just glad his asshole wasn't sore.

But. There is being sensible and prudent, and there is being preyed upon by people who have organised a rape party and gone there with that specific intention. I don't know that dressing modestly would have helped in any way.

The semi-unrestricted immigration policy prior to 1924 and today's anything-goes policy are both wrong for us. I think that we should return to the immigration policy we had between 1924 and 1965. And yes, that will mean most of the 250,000 immigrants per year under this policy will be white First-Worlders. So what?

P.S. Make sure our future immigration stock is entirely non-muslim as well. Sorry, Middle East; go eat sand.

Won't work mpetrie98. Suddenly every potential immigrant will be Christian. And there are no available records to check.