"New York was front and center when Congress refashioned America’s immigration system in 1965, replacing quotas based on race and national origin with a system centered on reunifying families. This time, with heated debate focused on illegal immigrants who cross the Mexican border and settle mainly in the West and South, New York’s experience has received less attention. Yet central to the city’s storied comeback from the precipice of population loss and bankruptcy in the 1970s, most agree, was the big influx of unexpected immigrants — an unintended consequence of the 1965 overhaul, sponsored by an influential Brooklyn representative, Emanuel Celler."

-------------------------------------------


There you have it. A point that I've made on these pages. The 1965 immigration law did not intend to make America multicultural. In fact Edward Kennedy promised that the new immigrants would reflect the native population and that there would only be about 200,000 new immigrants. John F. Kennedy wanted less. Keep in mind that only a few years before, Dwight Eisenhower had kicked out millions of mexicans in a plan called "Operation Wetback" sending the mexicans back to their country. Eisenhower was one of the most popular presidents in modern American history. No American voted for multiculturalism.

At the end of the day, however, I think America should be a multicultural society given its very foundation has multicultural roots, its history of forced international slavery and an imperial foreign policy in latin america and asia. For other countries with no such history, multiculturalism has no historical foundation.
----------------------------------------------------


May 30, 2007
Overhaul of Immigration Law Could Reshape New York
By NINA BERNSTEINCorrection Appended

Few places in the United States could be more deeply affected by the proposed overhaul of legal immigration than New York, say scholars and demographers of immigration.

The proposed law certainly would not end the flow of legal immigration to New York. But it could profoundly alter the currents that have long fed the city’s mom and pop entrepreneurship, its kaleidoscopic diversity, and family networks that nurture and help assimilate newcomers.

More of the city’s newcomers, compared with immigrants in other parts of the country, continue to gain entry through the very family visas that the pending bill would restrict or abolish — and that would be replaced with a point system based on skills and education.

New York was front and center when Congress refashioned America’s immigration system in 1965, replacing quotas based on race and national origin with a system centered on reunifying families. This time, with heated debate focused on illegal immigrants who cross the Mexican border and settle mainly in the West and South, New York’s experience has received less attention.

Yet central to the city’s storied comeback from the precipice of population loss and bankruptcy in the 1970s, most agree, was the big influx of unexpected immigrants — an unintended consequence of the 1965 overhaul, sponsored by an influential Brooklyn representative, Emanuel Celler.

These days, in a Lower East Side neighborhood that has been a cradle of family chain migration to America for 200 years, the deli at Delancey and Allen Streets is a 24-hour operation run by a man from Bangladesh — one of about 70 relatives to follow a Bangladeshi seaman who jumped ship here in 1941. In luxury condominiums nearby, the newest residents include the affluent great-grandchildren of the eastern and southern European immigrants whose teeming poverty in the tenements prompted immigration quotas in the 1920s to keep out their kind.

And when these newcomers need a key, they turn to Good Locksmith Inc. on Grand Street, a business run by the Lai family from China, who finally unlocked their door to America, relative by relative, after being unwelcome by law for a century.

“I love what I have now, and everything I have now, I work on it,” said Steven Lai, 46, whose immigration at 23 depended not only on his mother’s sponsorship, but on a long line of male forebears who endured 20-year family separations and exclusion from citizenship as they labored in the United States, first building railroads in 19th-century California. “Family is more important than everything else,” said Mr. Lai whose mother, Oilhang, 66, helps in the store.

Under the proposed point system, Mr. Lai would have been locked out. The measure aims to reduce chain migration — the practice of one immigrant sponsoring others — and to make room for those the federal government selects as the world’s best, brightest and most easily assimilated. It would end preferences for the adult children and siblings of United States citizens, and eliminate a citizen’s right to sponsor parents. Instead, the government would admit foreigners who scored highest on a scale that values advanced degrees, skills approved by the Department of Labor, and fluency in English, much more than family ties. Only those admitted on points could sponsor their spouse and minor children.

Yet immigrants like Mr. Lai, who learned English and locksmith skills at night school and opened his business 18 years ago with family savings, have been a vital economic engine for the city, said Gary Gerstle, a historian of immigration who teaches at Vanderbilt University. The city’s record, he and others say, casts doubt on the dichotomy being drawn in the debate between family ties and other factors that might lead to economic success.

“The way that New York has come back is one of the great American success stories of the last 40 years, and immigrants are absolutely central to it,” Professor Gerstle said. “Mom and pop stores in New York have been a very dynamic force in the making of American society, and I would not want to see that possibility foreclosed.”

Unlike the rest of the country, the city has experienced a plateau in its large and diversified flow of legal immigrants since a peak in the early 1990s. Its immigration accelerated in the 1970s through a classic pattern of daisy chain migration with “seed” immigrants sponsoring close relatives who eventually sponsored others. According to 2005 figures, the latest available, more than 72 percent of the city’s 102,545 legal immigrants admitted that year came through family ties, mostly as immediate kin of citizens, and only 11 percent through employer sponsorship; in the nation, 58 percent came through family-based visas, and 22 percent through employment.

Joseph Salvo, the city’s demographer, cautions that such numbers are an imperfect reflection of the scramble to find a way through the immigration maze, not a measure of New York’s family immigrants, who include large numbers of both the highly educated and the low-skilled. And he is confident, he said, that New York will remain a magnet.

To Jamal Hussain, 26, the Bangladesh-born owner of the deli at Delancey Street, it seems obvious that families, which can be banks and safety nets, are the foundation of success. He opened his deli with loans from relatives four years ago, and he points out that families also provide a screening mechanism and an incentive to succeed.

“They know I’m a hard worker, motivated,” said Mr. Hussain, who has repaid the loans, married, had a baby, and bought a house in the Bronx. “Kids are going to school, they’re being doctors, lawyers,” he added, citing a niece who is a graduate student in science at New York University. “Bottom line, instead of bringing those people already educated from over there, we have the opportunity to be homegrown Ph.D.’s.”

It is difficult to forecast the impact of the proposed changes on the mix and number of future immigrants, experts say. The bill aims to reduce legal migration in the future by eliminating family sponsorships outside the overall numbers set by government, and ending the diversity visa, which brings thousands of fresh “seed” immigrants by lottery to New York each year. But for the first eight years, it would grant family visa applications already in the pipeline, many stalled since the 1990s, when demand to sponsor foreign relatives far exceeded the numbers allowed in categories like sibling of a citizen.

Many people in the pipeline might no longer want to come, however; others are already here illegally. And if they overstayed temporary visas, like an estimated 40 percent of illegal immigrants, they would no longer qualify for family visas. Under the bill, they would have to apply separately for legal status, like other illegal immigrants.

“If it was just geared to skilled labor, New York would be in trouble,” said David Reimers, an emeritus immigration historian at N.Y.U. “Like all big cities, it depends on unskilled labor.” If family members are left out, he added, “they’re going to come in by hook or crook.”

For now, the proposed system grants up to 47 points for special occupations — to be determined later — and up to 28 for educational degrees. Only if a would-be immigrant scores at least 55 points would additional points be awarded for family ties: 8 to a citizen’s adult son or daughter, 6 to the adult child of a permanent resident, 4 to a citizen’s sibling.

Such a scheme could affect New York disproportionately because among states with the most foreign-born, it has the largest proportion of legal to illegal immigrants, demographers say. Some of the city’s immigrant groups, like Koreans, Indians and Filipinos, have such high rates of education and professional skill, however, that they could do well under a skills-based points system.

But Seung Jin Jung, 43, president of the board of the Young Korean American Education and Service Center in New York, said he and his two sisters would have flunked on points 20 years ago, after coming of age in South Korea during a seven-year wait for visas while their parents worked in New York. The children spoke no English and had no degrees when they arrived. Now he has his own import-export business; one sister is a music therapist, he said, and the other is a physical therapist — and both are working on their Ph.D.’s.

“The current proposed immigration change views the families of immigrants as an unnecessary burden,” Mr. Jung said. “That’s the wrong approach. Take a look at what’s going on in New York — once you are here with family members, you not only become part of the work force in this country, you become part of the social fabric.”

César González, 58, a Dominican immigrant whose family-run bookstore, Librería Caliope, is now a literary cultural center in Washington Heights, echoed the sentiment, noting that he and his brother José had little education when they were sponsored by an uncle and a sister. “It’s the same story for most of the people in the neighborhood,” he said. “Lots of them would be excluded. Only the well-to-do would qualify and people who already have an education.”

Mexicans, mostly unskilled and illegal immigrants, are the newest group to emerge as a large presence in the city, demographers say. They are now estimated to be among the city’s top three immigrant groups, joining Dominicans and Chinese, Mr. Salvo said, with about 350,000 in 2006, up from about 200,000 six years ago, including children born here. In dense and diverse city neighborhoods, they generally have been absorbed as just one more immigrant group, though in many communities in the metropolitan region, as elsewhere, conflict has erupted over their rapid settlement.

Peter H. Schuck, a Yale professor of immigration law who supports a points system to meet global competition, says most Americans do not want more immigration, and want to improve immigrants’ quality.

“We have a very valuable resource that we are distributing, and we ought to do it in full consciousness of what we want to absorb in the way of immigrants,” he said. “The country can’t simply throw up its hands and say, ‘We’ve done it this way for the past few generations, so we just should go on doing it.’ ”

But Professor Gerstle points out that immigrant families who helped populate the city over the last 40 years have become part of its lifeblood.

“They’re New Yorkers, aren’t they?” he asked. “A lot of Americans may think that’s not American, but it isn’t foreign.”

If it wasn't for blacks there wouldn't be multiculturalism.

I can't say it works currently. It's more of a mixed bag. Some get along while most don't even talk to each other.

America has government sponsored messages to talk to your neighbors and get to know one another. But it's not happening. I remember when I first came to America and there were barely people of color. White people would have barbecues outside and their kids would play in the neighborhood. Now everyone sit in their homes and never come out.

Usually the younger generations tend to mix cultures but usually go their separate ways after they've grown up.

But what does this have to do with Koreans?

Well, multiculturism is becoming an issue in korea and of course many koreans emigrate to the US.

btw, I agree with you that if there hadn't been black slavery there would never have been multiculturism in the US.

France gets tough on illegal immigration, setting quotas for arrests, expulsions

By Associated Press

Monday, June 4, 2007 - Updated: 04:53 PM EST

PARIS - France set tough new quotas for the number of illegal immigrants authorities should arrest and expel each month, the new immigration minister said Monday.
Brice Hortefeux, who heads the newly created Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Co-Development, said a monthly quota also would be set for ferreting out those employed in France illegally.
In a meeting with security officials, Hortefeux reiterated President Nicolas Sarkozy’s goal of 25,000 expulsions by the end of 2007 - compared with 24,000 in 2006 - and set a year-end goal of 125,000 arrests for alleged illegal entry or illegal residence, a ministry statement said. The number of those already arrested was not immediately clear.


Sarkozy, who was elected May 6, pledged during his campaign to create a ministry of immigration and national identity to rein in the flow of migrants and ensure they are integrated into French society. Riots in French housing projects in 2005 were largely driven by anger among children of immigrants at persistent discrimination and a feeling of alienation from mainstream society.
Hortefeux said the new measures were aimed at "dismantling networks that exploit the misery of illegal immigrants," the statement said.
His orders came after he and Prime Minister Francois Fillon visited a holding center for illegal immigrants Monday _ and three days after the bodies of 18 illegal immigrants were fished from the Mediterranean by the crew of a French frigate.
The dead _ 12 men, two adolescent boys and four women _ were believed to be seeking new lives in Europe, though it was not clear what country they were coming from. They will be buried in France.
"The French Republic will be extremely firm. It will ensure laws are applied," Fillon said, adding: "Naturally, these laws must be applied with the greatest humanity."
Many saw Sarkozy’s proposal as a nod to the electorate on the extreme right, which long has made fighting immigration one of its main causes.
"Generosity is not opening wide the borders without thought for how people will integrate, how they will live, how they will subsist," Fillon said.
Hortefeux, in his meeting with security officials, also insisted on the need to develop a system of paying illegal immigrants to voluntarily return home, setting the number of paid departures at 2,500 for this year _ a 25 percent increase from 2006.
Those volunteering to leave, as part of a program started in late 2005, are given a fixed sum of money, normally $4,700 per couple, with $1,350 each for the first three children.

http://news.bostonherald.com/international...ticleid=1004803

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can we all learn from the French Experience?

Little bit of Multiculturalism can be creative for a society, but Korea should not make the same mistakes that US and Europe has made as France has just found out and is trying to correct. Immigration policy should only extend to people who come from other developed nations. There is a great deal of cultural difference between people from developed nations and those who do not.

Also, having a large ethnic minority that are often resented can have long term devastating consequences for a country. Again, look at what has happened in Europe with Arab population and the Hispanic population in America. It's important for Korea to study and understand and learn from it and not to repeat the same mistake that the West has made.

One of the reasons why West is in decline is because of it's nonsensical immigration policy based on greed. Cheap labor is not often not cheap, if you add all the hidden costs involving crime and racial tensions that often follow such reckless policy. You just can't move in large ethnic minority and expect people to get along. It doesn't work that way. All societies have prejudices and policy makers have to understand that.

We all love to live in colorblind society but that is not often how reality operates. We need to live in sobering reality and not lustful fantasy. However, as I've said, Korea should just import hot Russian women. Like this one




http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/...amp;Search=true

What mistake? Allowing Koreans to come to the west. If it were not for the 1965 act then few Koreans would be in the US (including yourself I believe).




Didn't you post a thread about your hatred of male ESL teachers? Obviously Korean ultra-nationalists are jealous and resentful of male caucasians. Why would they (including yourself) want them to come to Korea at all?



Good point. Many leftists have stated that the west allows in immigrants to pacify the third world. They claim that a socialist revolution would breakout in the third world without immigration. The leftists want a revolution. However, communism as a system has never lead to anything but totaltarianism. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the USA and the third world to keep the status quo. However, the USA could improve it's image and reduce terrorism by promoting good labor laws and a fair wage in the third world. That would certainly reduce any desire for communism.

However, I doubt the US will improve thier image unfortunately and so the show goes on.




The only other option is communism. The west should improve it's image as I stated before.



Good point and minorites are really asking for it sometimes. For example, the riots in France certainly did not help the liberal cause. A minority in a foreign land should be humble. Arrogance will only lead to arrogance and hate from the majority group. I don' t like "The Birth of a Nation". I have no problem with race mixing and I don't view the white man the world's savior.

However, "The Birth of A Nation" made a good point. Arrogant northerners and blacks had it coming (Remember, all blacks and northerners were not arrogant but some were). The more humble the blacks and foreigners (Well, actually the northerners should have just left except for schoolteachers) were then the more peaceful things played out.

What I am trying to say is this: Immigration works with humility but not arrogance.



Oh I get it. Korean men can sexually harass white women but white pigs should stay away from Korean women .

In the old south it was same deal. White men could rape black women (with no consequences) but a black guy is lynched for just looking at a white woman.

Hey, What if I posted a pic of a hot Filipina or Thai? Ultra-nationalists on here would be calling me a imperalist chauvanist pig. Your hypocrites.

America would've been multicultural with or without black slavery because we didn't have any choice if we wanted to grow economically. Immigrants from undeveloped countries bring cheap labor, which keeps costs low, which keeps inflation low, which encourages people to borrow money for investment. When people get invested in a society, they want to keep it stable so they are more likely to demand responsible behavior from public officials than people who aren't invested in economic growth. Why do the same 20 year olds who vote for the Legalize Marijuana Party start voting for mainstream parties by the time they're 30? Because if they live in an economically mature country they're probably invested in their country's growth and they know the Legalize Marijuana Party isn't going to make them any richer.

Allowing immigrants from undeveloped countries isn't a charitable act, it's a matter of economic survival. The more Korea develops, the greater its need will be for immigrants from poor countries. If they restrict immigration from these countries too much, the Korean economy will not be able to perform at the highest level possible.

Korea isn't America and no it's just not economics with multiculturalism. America in other hand need foreigners because whitey is too good for minimum wage or servicing people.

Far as I know foreigners in Korea make same amount of money as Koreans when they should be making half the wage as Koreans.

korea already has a large migrant labor force in its country. Until 2050, korea will probably restrict immigration to its fullest as there is simply too much people flooding the country (south korea is top 5 in population densities).

yeah, there are many negatives to multiculturalism. The US needs immigration since it's a large country. Korea is actually 100 times more populated than the US. In the US you can have millions of different race foreigners but often you don't even see them in your own residential communities whereas in korea we're all living cheek by jowl. In the states, you only see these poor immigrant workers on street corners, service/food businesses and they live in minority ghetto neighborhoods. This is changing, though, and whites are now going to be a minority in the US by 2050. But I think there will be a backlash before that happens and the recent fight over the new immigration law is an example of whites saying no to more immigration.



I think forced integration did a lot of damage to the black community in the US. For example, before integration there were black doctors and teachers for the black community but after it blacks sent their kids to white schools and doctors lessening the need for black professionals. Resegregating would give blacks their culture back along with more pride and more self-determination over their lives.



as I noted in my OP, korean immigration to the US was an UNINTENDED consequence of the 1965 immigration act. the people voting for it thought they were getting more white immigrants, lol.

There are many downsides to immigration. also, it really doesn't help the countries sending their people abroad if those people never come back, e.g. mexico and philippeans. the philippeans is still a poor country even though they send millions of workers abroad. Their economy will only develop if they stop the mass exodus. It's only the greedy business elite that profits, leaving the REAL cost of providing services like health care, education, welfare payments, police, etc. to the middle class that ends up footing the bill. the rich get richer and move to exclusive neighborhoods. the same thing will happen in korea. korean elites are no different. the economic argument works for the elite NOT for the middle class.



basically, you can't blame people for wanting to work in korea if they wave a bucket of cash in front of you. the problem is this whole language hakwon INDUSTRY that is ripping of the public with their shoddy and ineffective products. close the hakwons down, stop requiring english for entrance to university or to get a job. People, who are interested in language can learn AFTER they get into university or AFTER they get the job for promotion. That would free up a lot of students to study the subjects they want. Imagine if there had been a french requirement and a score of 700 on a french version of TOEFL to get into university or getting a job in the US? The whole idea is so absurd but that's what is happening in korea now.



I think korea's present system of work permits is working. But there are misguided "liberals" in korea who want to expand it and make korea the same as the states. Given korea's size, though, I don't think that would work for korea. Also, as I wrote it's not good for the exporting country since they lose valuable labor and skills that never return to their country. so some immigration of highly skilled people is fine but more than that and you do damage. The rich elite koreans will just take their profits made on the backs of the exploited cheap foreign immigrant workers and they will move their hypocritical arses to gated or exclusive and effectively segregated communities in the US.

The idea that immigration only benefits business owners simply isn't true. It probably benefits them more than it benefits the workers, but think about it: if you want to sell your labor (which everyone does, assuming they want to make money) how many choices do you want as to where to sell it? As many as possible right? Then you go to the highest bidder or at least the bidder that offers the most of what you want (money isn't everything of course, people choose jobs for plenty of other reasons). The ability to migrate gives you more bidders. If you really want immigration policy to benefit only business owners, then restrict movement out of your country. Now your citizens are stuck and businesses can collude more easily to keep wages down.

I'm not saying immigration doesn't create a lot of conflict. The conflict would probably be worse in Korea because of the population density and because most people here are used to living in a generally homogeneous society. I'm saying that without immigration things will get worse for Korea. If immigration is limited too much, wages will stay artificially inflated, which will keep inflation high, which will limit people's access to investment capital. Without enough access to investment capital, new businesses aren't started frequently enough and existing businesses can't attract sufficient investment and a country stagnates. When a country stagnates, its best people start leaving, creating a shortage of skilled labor.

Of course there are ways to limit immigration without creating the kind of scenario described above. Being able to calculate the demand for different classes of labor and adjusting visa quotas accordingly would probably be the best.

One more thing: not all migrant workers here make the same as Koreans. English teachers have it pretty good, but a lot of the rest of the migrant workers don't have it so nice. If you want to respond to this article by saying "America does the same thing" here's a link you should use http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/humanrigh...es20070117.html. Yes, the same thing happens in America and it's stupid to abuse people this way in America, Korea or anywhere else.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGASA250092006

Tens of thousands of migrant workers in South Korea face discrimination, exploitation and appalling working conditions, according to a new report by Amnesty International. Many face a spiral of debt and are forced to work illegally because their employers withhold their salaries and existing laws make it hard to change jobs legally.

South Korea is the first country in Asia to protect the rights of migrant workers in law. But two years after the Act Concerning Employment Permit for Migrant Workers (EPS Act) came into force on 17 August 2004, foreign workers still face multiple abuses, industrial hazards and few possibilities for obtaining redress, according to Amnesty International's findings.

"South Korea led the region in legislating for the protection of migrant workers. Now the government must address the problems that continue, such as unpaid wages, difficulty in changing jobs, and hazardous conditions -- ultimately it must ensure that migrant workers are treated as human beings and that their rights are respected," said Rajiv Narayan, East Asia researcher at Amnesty International.

Around 360,000 migrant workers -- or 1.5 percent of the workforce -- were believed to be working in South Korea as of June 2006, based on government and NGO figures. Workers come from China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Nepal, the Philippines and Indonesia among other countries.

Migrant workers work excessively long hours for lower wages than Korean workers. They experience high levels of physical and verbal abuse in the workplace and often work in dangerous conditions.

"BS", a 33-year-old Nepali man, worked for Misung Industry, a plastic manufacturing company in the southern city of Daegu.
"On 7 October 2005, my left hand glove got stuck and rolled into the plastic making machine; I could not remove my hand. It was not until my left shoulder was about to roll into the machine that the machine was stopped. I heard later that people could hear the sound of the bones being ground by the machine... When taken out the machine, my arm was without flesh or bones... There was no first aid... "
Misung Industry initially kept the accident secret and refused to tell BS' friends where he was, until they threatened to tell the police. After five months the company stopped paying for BS' medical treatment. BS still suffers great pain in his arm and cannot work. He is having to pay for treatment out of his savings and does not want to go back to Nepal before getting compensation.

..... Many foreign workers have paid large fees to recruitment agencies in their home countries which they then need to repay -- but find that salaries are lower than promised or employers fail to pay them on time. The resulting debt forces many to seek a new employer who might pay a regular salary.

But the EPS Act has failed to make it easier to change employer, meaning that those trying to escape crippling debt or harsh working conditions have little choice but to work for a new employer without the correct documentation. Undocumented workers face regular police crackdowns and can be arrested at any time. Prior to deportation they are often held in overcrowded, stinking cells where they are at risk of being verbally abused and beaten. They are monitored around the clock; in some detention facilities male guards were monitoring cells where women were detained.

"The South Korean economy benefits so much from foreign workers -- but in many cases they are exploited, abused, and treated appallingly," said Rajiv Narayan."

foreign works don't do anything except make some slave driver rich. Stealing technology is the best way to get yourself ahead. America is a great example.

The foregoing quote from your post makes it appear you believe multiculturalism constitutes some form of punishment for a nation's or society's sins, crimes and international bad behavior. Is that what you mean?

Jealous. Get over it. Well, buddy ESL teachers make the same wage as Koreans. What are you going to do about it?

How about set up another DPRK or Cuba? That's what you guys usually do.




Korea has thousands of foreign workers doing jobs Koreans won't do. What's with this self righteous $hit?



I know. Putting up a few McDonalds and starbucks doesn't do it. We know Korea isn't America so why don't you shut up about America (and the white race in general).



The foreign workers are richer than anyone in the DPRK or Cuba. America builds walls to keep people out. The DPRK builds walls to keep people in.



Following Communism and/or Ultra-Nationalism is a great way to enter the dark ages.

Can't you spell workers? You really need a rich good looking white male ESL teacher.



A great example of success. Something Korean ultra-nationalists have never experienced.

Especially with women

I'm really jealous. f**ing stupid.

Listen to your own advice. Shut up about Koreans when they haven't done $hit to you!

Laziness did alot of damage to the black community in the US. Blacks aren't victims. They created thier own hell. Your smart blacks like Bill Cosby have recently said this.

If black men start working, caring for thier wives etc then things will change.



They sent thier kids to white schools for a reason. It wasn't integration. Thier neighborhoods became bad. Their neighborhoods became bad because
black men became lazy etc.

Segregation is stupid and was done away with during the dark ages.

Integration would have been a beautiful thing but black men fu-ked it up. Perhaps they fu-ked up after the Civil War too. That's why segregation was set up in the first place.



Yeah, colored and white water fountains would look really good in modern america. I can just see the white, colored bathrooms at JC Penny and Wal Mart.

Get Real. You gotta be out of your fukin mind.

Blacks will gain pride and self determination when they stop blaming the white man. You know like Korean ultra-nationalists.

However, the socialist/fascist/Communist philosophy is "I'm a victim."



Nobody will pick the vegetables in America. As for Korea, well that's not my problem. Anyways, I don't see the need for immigrants there with exception of ESL teachers.




Well, you know men by nature are greedy. The only other option is Communism. An end to immigration would cause socialist revolution in the third world. That would lead to a thousand DPRKs.



What do you mean shoddy and ineffective products? I do know that many Korean children can't understand what thier reading. They simply memorize words.
However, some ESL schools are good and should be kept open regardless of the education law.

I don't agree that Korea should give English top priority. Few westerners are giving top priority to Spanish.



There will always be Koreans who want to learn English. Keep them open. Most of these anti-ESL Koreans hate the white race. They have personal grudges against whites etc. They despise free-market capitalism. They took thier liberal college professors a little too seriously.



It's in the best interest of western college graduates to keep the hakwons open. So basically it's up to Korea. If they change the education law then oh well.
If they keep it then hooray

I'm only addressing the .003 percent of Koreans read ultra-nationalist garbage.

I'm not ultra national anything. Perhaps if you even knew half the things that goes down in USA you would stop licking the spit off the ground that whites wiped their @$$ with.

Do all of these white hating ultra-nationalists live in the west? And America for that matter.

They want to ban foreigners from Korea but live in the west. Big time hypocrites.

Hey, if I'm not welcome in Korea then your not welcome in America.

Love it or Leave it.



How do you know? Did you take a poll? Alot of people (blacks, whites etc) are getting along. They are getting along especially in small towns. Now big cities is a different story.

For example, Blacks have a very bad reputation (in big towns) due to thier actions. Therefore, whites fear them etc. How about Asians? Well, nobody hates them except for a fewKKK or Nazis. But who the hell care's what they think? They are small in number but very vocal like another group I know. Why does everyone like them? They're hardworking and don't commit crimes.



Where? In south central LA or the south side of Chicago? As I said before, the inner city is a nightmere. However, if you go to small towns then most people are getting along just fine.



Can't comment on this one. But I think your making this bigger than it actually is. Kids are influenced by thier parents. They teach them racism.

Funny how you white people make people's lives hell and act like KKK to new minorities and tell them to leave because all you ever think about is white ultra national imperial interests. You think people are you pets and treat them so in a cage running around the wheel. Except the wheel is America.

I know because I've seen government sponsored commercials on Television to talk to your neighbors and get to know them messages. Next time try reading my posts instead of seeing anything negative about whites and you jump in their throats.

If you lived in America in 80's, white people did have barbecue outside and talked to their neighbors. Now they just sit home and don't come out because they think they're hated or don't want to bother with non-white people. Have a right to think that because whites in America have been acting like KKK all over the world.

I have no problems with white people as individuals. What I do have problem is whites treating people like slaves/animals when they gather in groups or work for the govt. to fu-k with people for no other reason other then what pleases them in their eyes.

What are they doing? Exploiting workers, discriminating against minorities, stealing resources from 3rd world nations etc etc.

Iv'e read Noam Chomsky. I know all about it. Chomsky, Marx etc is not the answer for the world's problems. A higher wage and better labor conditions are.
All we can do is improve the current system not adopt a worse one.

Anyways, you guys aren't real socialists. You are simply support a Korean versions of the Nation Of Islam. You just use Chomsky and Marx to point out what pigs white people are.



What about poor white people? White people always = the devil.



You people advocate isolationism. It doesn't work. That is what I call ultra-nationalism. It goes hand and hand with fanatical racism.

Imperial interests like what? Defeating communism? Get a book about Stalin or Mao. Who's right?



In the case of Arabs it might be true. I don't think anybody has any personal grudges against east asians. Black people could improve thier image by following George Washington Carver's plan for them.



I don't like the war on terrorism. However, America will not develop a good energy policy. Therefore, America won't leave the middle east. So your saying that whites don't talk to non-whites because they know thier hated.

In the case of Arabs it might be true. I don't think anybody has any personal grudges against east Asians. Black people could improve thier image by following George Washington Carver's plan for them. If you act bad then you will be treated with hate.

It's funny. You guys view US soldiers as troublemakers. However, you get angry when we say black Americans are not victims. You say we are imperalists and racists.

Except America didn't mess with Mao or Stalin, they just fu-ked around with small nations.

Maybe that's why these two nations are f*cked up. Funny thing is that those nations involve others in their f*ckedness as if their the fact they are f*cked up wasn't enough for them.

sure this helps the immigrant worker who will always work for less but how does this help the middle and poor domestic worker when his job is given to cheaper workers? Also, the idea that domestic workers won't do the jobs that immigrant workers will do is wrong. domestic workers will do the job but they don't want to be exploited by the business owners who want to make unreasonable profits. For example, most blue collar jobs in the US from meat packing to agriculture is still done by domestic workers NOT by immigrants so there are domestic workers willing to do the job. They just don't want to be RIPPED OFF by greedy elitist business owners who just look at the bottom line without considering the people or the country.



In a growing economy businesses will always have to compete for labor. When korea's economy was growing business had to pay more even though we didn't take in new migrant workers during the 80s and 90s.



increased productivity keeps inflation under control. The main reason inflation has been so low in the west is due to cheap goods from china, not immigrants. Note that those workers stay in china, they are not immigrants. For example, The main reason England developed machines in the 17th century was because they didn't have the mass labor that india and china had for their textile industry. England had to develop machines to compete.

reducing immigration would force business owners to create new technology that would make their business more productive which is one way to keep inflation in check. The cost saved by business owners when they hire cheap immigrants is not the whole cost. Mass immigration is actually a wealth transfer from the middle and lower class to the wealthy and immigrants. Somebody has to pay for the increase in police, health cost, education, welfare services, etc. and the middle class pays for them while the rich count their money.

Also, aside from the other costs that you mention like increased population density (korea's population density is 100 times that of the US) and the end of homogenity, since immigrants will have birth-rates much higher than the domestic population resulting in destructive and unproductive race politics, the donar countries, the countries from which these young immigrants come from end up losing, either through a brain drain or loss of valuable skills since most of these folks never return, prefering to live in the developed west.

countries like the philippeans and mexico as I mentioned earlier have not benefitted from their mass exodus. Keep in mind that the main reason korea's economy took off in the 80s was that the migrant workers that korea sent to the middle east for contruction, CAME BACK to korea, bringing back their work skills and experience which in the end was much more valuable to korea's economic progress than the remittances they sent to korea.



korea's work permit system has faults but I think it's a relatively effective system. Of course it needs to improve, for example, by making it a 5 year stay instead of the two years it is now. the rest of your post was off topic.



yes I agree. of course america stole technology from england and europe in the 18th century to start their industrial revolution. The idea that only originality will lead to progress is nonsense. countries and peoples have been "stealing"/using foreign ideas all through history. Every group of people didn't reinvent the wheel or the alphabet. they got those ideas from other people. btw, this was not through intermarriage but by trade or war.

It seems that americans really do believe in this myth that they invented everthing. absolutely absurd. Americans didn't even win their revolution alone, but had significant help from the french, who btw, went so much into debt because of it that they succumbed to their own revolution. and before that the british fought off the french and the indians which ironically hurt their finances and affected their ability to fight the american rebels. Americans auto companies copy japanese manufacturing techniques, just in time and quality control (which had been originally american), etc.

So to make the argument that importing cheap unskilled foreign immigrants from undeveloped third world countries will make a developed country rich is, sorry, but truly laughable.



I think the legacy of international slavery that left the US with a sizable black population (30%) in the 18th century forced the US to eventually accept multiculturalism. not so much as punishment but as simply a fact of realty. England's century of rule over india basically brought those two countries closer together so that a more multicultural country was even thinkable.



well I'm not talking about complete segregation. of course people should use the same water fountain. what I'm talking about is more direct self-determination for blacks. actually, the dreams of integration during the 60s have largely failed. from what I've read, american high schools are defacto segregrated now. Places like Washington D.C. and Harlem are segregated already.

The truth is that for 100 years after the civil war blacks were denied the right to property in downtown areas because of Jim Crow laws. If those laws had not existed I believe blacks would be much wealthier than they are now. Imagine if your people were forbidden by law from owning commercial property for a hundred years? I think the blacks have a legitimate arguement when they say that they were denied the right to earn a living, i.e. open their own businesses.



the current work visa program is fine. I do think that there is overemphasis on english in korea. english should never be required for admission to university or getting a job. if people are interested in learning english they could do it as a hobby. That doesn't mean shutting down the hakwons, just make the government policy more reasonable and don't force young students to long hours just to get a high TOEFL score that will have no real effect on korea's labor productivity, which is the real indicator of wealth creation.


nonsense, this isn't anti-americanism. The idea is that different nations develop differently and have different requirements at different times in their developmental process. What's clear is that the interests of tens of thousands of english teachers are not the same as the interests of the millions of poor students who are being irrationally required to learn TOEFL english.

Our interests are different, that's all and there's nothing anti-american about it. Your calling koreans anti-american is just name-calling and marginalizing other people so that you can get YOUR way. No thanks, korea should look out for her interests, as every nation does.

Blacks have always had self determination. However, they can't handle self determination.

Putting them in seperate schools doesn't make them feel more full of pride etc. Oh so what? I'm the top student in a really stupid school.

Blacks can do better. They can compete with other groups in an integrated school. It's just a big cop out. If blacks change thier attitude toward work, education and family then things will improve. Segregation is the acceptance of an inferior racial status.



They haven't for black christians. Blacks can achieve alot. Iv'e seen it when they change thier attitude. They can acheive alot more than any racist bigot. Blacks have a low IQ? No, hardly. Where did all these genius jazz musicians come from?




I assume you mean that whites and asians are in the smart classes and blacks are in the dumb ones. Yes, it's totally a result of the black man's attitude toward work, education and family.



No argument here. People see these cities and it justifies every racist stereotype they have.



Black people did something wrong after the civil war. That's why they were treated so harshly. Perhaps alot of them went out of control after they gained thier freedom. It may have been rape or theft. Similar to what we see in South Africa now. The harsh treatment was a reaction to the bad behavior of blacks. I don't thank anybody would hate people based only on skin color.

This stuff about preserving a pure white race is total lies. Some segregationists would bring up that stuff to justify segregation.

Anyways, they (blacks) were denied property rights (and all other rights) because on thier actions.



True, I think it's ridiculous. However, it means alot of jobs for college grads. It's basically up to Korea what they want to do.



The anti-American wave was against Bush. Koreans felt reunification was being blocked. So you would hear alot of comments about Bin Laden. Next, the Ohno thing happened and the two dead schoolgirls. However, now most Koreans aren't angry. So I see that mostly as a fad.

Anyways, I never attack Koreans (in general). I only attack the very small group of ultra-nationalists. They were/are name calling all the time (way before I got on here).



Yes, they have. Foreign workers send in alot of money. People who have this money can have homes, cars and a comfortable lifestyle.



I can't comment on the truth of this statement. However, if immigration stops then there would be alot of angry third world people. They're would probably be a revolution. The outcome would be far worse than the present world order. The key word here is worse.




True, maybe George Bush is right. Maybe it's better to get them before they get you.

Some examples of alternate history: An early attack of Nazi Germany and Japan would have finished them. This would have freed forces to fight Mao and Stalin. Without Mao and Stalin there would be no North Korea or Vietnam. In a second scenario, perhaps China and Russia could had been finished right after WWII before they gained nukes and so on. In a third scenario Russia could have been finished off after World War I which might have prevented the rise of China.

However, I still think abandoning middle eastern oil is the best strategy now.

Intercar: "sure this helps the immigrant worker who will always work for less but how does this help the middle and poor domestic worker when his job is given to cheaper workers? Also, the idea that domestic workers won't do the jobs that immigrant workers will do is wrong. domestic workers will do the job but they don't want to be exploited by the business owners who want to make unreasonable profits. For example, most blue collar jobs in the US from meat packing to agriculture is still done by domestic workers NOT by immigrants so there are domestic workers willing to do the job. They just don't want to be RIPPED OFF by greedy elitist business owners who just look at the bottom line without considering the people or the country.

In a growing economy businesses will always have to compete for labor. When korea's economy was growing business had to pay more even though we didn't take in new migrant workers during the 80s and 90s.

increased productivity keeps inflation under control. The main reason inflation has been so low in the west is due to cheap goods from china, not immigrants. Note that those workers stay in china, they are not immigrants

Mass immigration is actually a wealth transfer from the middle and lower class to the wealthy and immigrants. Somebody has to pay for the increase in police, health cost, education, welfare services, etc. and the middle class pays for them while the rich count their money. "

It doesn't help the job of the middle and low class worker, at least not right away. But like I said, if goods are cheap, inflation is low (yes inflation is kept low by productivity, but only if that productivity comes from a cheap source, like the Chinese), if inflation is low, investment increases. That's what creates wealth. With increased wealth, comes increased jobs. Whether they pay well or not depends on the demand and supply of the labor needed to do the job. This kind of labor situation creates a stable labor market.

In some ways, yes increased immigration is a wealth transfer. The wages of the middle class tend to go down and the wages of the rich tend to go up. But wealth shouldn't just be measured in terms of wages. It's also important how much your money can buy. If inflation is low because of the cheap goods produced by immigrant labor and imported from cheap labor markets, then a lower wage is worth more. Also, if your access to capital is easier, that means you can invest in the businesses that are thriving because they are basically free to keep their costs down and producitivity up however they need to (or you could just start a business of your own. By the way, I'm not suggesting zero regulation, just no unnecessary regulation). What will make Korea and Koreans rich in the future won't just be better jobs, it'll be greater investment opportunities. Right now 56% of American homes own equities. That's up from 15.6% in 1983, almost a 400% increase (http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_05_equity_owners.pdf see page 9). The same will happen in Korea if it opens its economy more. For right now, 15.2% of Korean workers own stocks, similiar to the US level in 1983 (http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2875114). So don't think the health of an economy begins and ends with wages. There's a lot more to it than that.

About wages going up during the 80s and 90s, remember I was talking about labor being restricted within a country, not from without. Koreans were allowed to work overseas during the 80s and 90s, right?

Also, remember that the kind of economic environment created by free trade rewards the intelligent more and more. It's easier to get rich but it's also easier to get poor. Manual labor pays less and less so higher education becomes more important. Korea, with its historic emphasis on education, will be well positioned to take advantage of the greater value placed on education.

Also a helpful reference for the progress of blacks in America is this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/busin...ges_101804.html. Intercar and TheHero, why haven't you used any sources?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/busin...ges_101804.html

Good article mack4289. The median household income is a bit higher than the median household income of Koreans. Some have commented that ESL teachers make the average Korean income. The ESL income is around $24,000 a year. The median household income for blacks is $29,645.

Blacks might find it hard to support a family on that income. Well, maybe not. I guess it's according to how fancy thier family lives. Are they willing to accept more modest living conditions?

I guess it boils down to this: Does money and fancy stuff really make people happy?

So basically this article says blacks are doing fine. However, this can't be right.


South African blacks could have something in common with post-freedom American blacks. Both viewed as dangerous by the white population.

Here's some stats about South Africa:



US prison statistics paint a bad view of blacks.

Some U.S. prison statistics:



More stats at the site:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Of course, some are saying the CIA is putting crack cocaine in American black neighborhoods. On the other hand, The South Africa stuff cannot be justified at.
all.

Of course things in America are changing as people in general (all races) clean up. As the Washington Post link shows.

Having lived in South Africa and grown up in America, I've heard a lot of similar things to what your sources say, The Hero (do you have any links?). But do you think blacks in South Africa and the US have the problems they have because they're black? Do you think the blacks in South Africa and those in America have anything in common besides their race?

Also, couldn't people have had the same concerns about Asians after the Korean War that you're expressing now about blacks? They could say, "The Koreans just had a civil war that left the North with a mad dictator and the South with a very fragile democracy, the Japanese terrorized the continent for decades until the US dropped two atom bombs on them and the Chinese had a civil war and now they have that murderer Mao in charge. The Asians are animals." But then the Japanese and the Koreans turned their countries into prosperous democracies and the Chinese at least stopped oppressing their citizens enough for many of them to get rich. The point is that:

1. of course, you can't lump all Asians together. Every country has distinct circumstances that account for their history. The blood in the history of these countries can't be blamed on being Asian.

2. circumstances matter at least as much as anything else. How could the Koreans go from fighting a civil war to building a prosperous democracy? How could the Japanese go from being warmongers and bullies to building a prosperous democracy? Partly because circumstances changed. How can you have a country like Botswana, which, according to the BBC, "is relatively free of corruption and has a good human rights record" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1068674.stm) next to crime-ridden South Africa and nightmarishly repressive Zimbabwe? At least partly because circumstances are different. I'm not discounting the role of culture but circumstances determine whether the worst or best impulses of a culture are indulged.

They were already finished before the bombs. The US air force bombed them practically into the stone age. I'm not proud of that just stating facts.
Plus the two cities were filled with civilians. Don't give me that "You gotta show balls crap". We already showed them.



It's a cultural thing not genetic. You got a good culture and a bad one for the same ethnic group. Don't you agree? The US and SA blacks can choose between a good and bad culture.



No, not really. Asian culture emphasizes education, hard work and obedience to authority. Most whites know this. The only whites with a grudge in the US are angry soldiers (You killed my brother etc) and extreme racists. Non-religious blacks have problems in the US and South Africa. Aids also doesn't affect really religious African blacks for obvious reasons.



Very true.



Industrialization and a good work ethic.



They got slapped in the face. Basically they were liberated from barbarism like Nazi Germany. The Nazis had lots of technology but no morals. They're similar to the Ancient Aztec. Thousands of indians joined Cortez's army.

Sorry Neil Young. Your wrong. -



True, Germany was considered an progressive country until the Depression hit.



Please post some links about Bostwana. I want to know more. True, most of your racists use South Africa, the USA crime population, and Zimbabwe to justify thier crap.

But blacks in America and blacks in South Africa don't come from the same culture. That Washington Post article said the median income for blacks in America is over 29,000 dollars. In South Africa, "Black African males have a median annual income of ZAR 14,162 versus ZAR 8,903 for Black African females". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa). That means the median income for the black men is $1969.41 and the median income for black South African women is $1,238.49 (go to http://www.xe.com/ to perform conversions). From my memory, the cost of living in South Africa was roughly $800 a month, including rent, for a single college student like me who liked to go out on the weekends. That's $9,600 a year for a single college student. Let's assume you have a married couple with children who both make the median income. That's roughly $3,300 for a family. In other words, the median black family in South Africa probably lives on roughly a 1/3 of what I, as a single college student, lived on. The unemployment rate for blacks in South Africa is 28.1% (same Wikipedia article). For blacks in the USA, it's 10.1% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/graphics/raceWages_101804.html). There's really no comparison between the life of the average black person in America versus the life of the average black in S. Africa.

About religious black men not having much to worry about from AIDS, consider this: 85.9% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa is either Christian or Muslim (http://www.afrikaworld.net/afrel/religions-in-africa.htm#_ftn8). That's where almost 2/3 of the world's HIV cases are (http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/20061121_EPI_FS_SSA_en.pdf). Clearly some religious blacks have very good reasons to worry about AIDS.

If you'd like to know more about Botswana, just Google it. You'll get loads of stuff.

There are Christians and Muslims (in name) everywhere. However, people who live a hard core Christian or Muslim life can resist AIDS and poverty.



True, but perhaps there can be some similarity between post freedom US blacks and post-Aparthied blacks.

There are some angry blacks in America (LA Riots etc) but it's nothing on the scale of SA or Zimbabwe. Of course the US is a black minority nation as opposed to SA and Zimbabwe which are black majority nations. The main thing hurting blacks now is crack cocaine. Some believe the CIA has introduced it in black neighborhoods to oppress them. Do you agree or disagree?



True, blacks in the US while poorer than whites are 12 times richer than SA blacks. True, but many US blacks are still angry.
What motivated the LA riots which hurt many Korean Americans?

Japan has a low rate of Christian infestation but low AIDs rates as well.

There are many factors that must be considered. The DPRK has a low rate too. Hmmm I wonder why?? Korean extremists don't like Christians. Christianity is about not blaming others.

Lol "infestation" should be applied to countries where Christianism are not"infested" as you suppose.

That's a reply from a christian. Many people know of the negative aspects of religion. More wars have been fought in the name of religion and atrocities. As we become progressive and move away from religion, it is better for the world as morals are universal and religion should not monopolize it. There are plenty of intellectuals who would disagree with you as well. Better to agree to disagree.

A society can function well with citizentry with a pure heart. Do they need religion to obtain one?

No, you don't. If you can't tell why Christianity, in a sociological sense, is extremely destructive and subversive I can't help you.

Christianity has had a net negative effect on the world, just like other Abrahamic religions.

Hinduism is an non-Abrahamic religion. Look at the untouchables. What a terrible religion! But the Beatles think it's cool.

The "untouchables" could be supplanted by "heathens" or "sinners" or whatever it is Catholics had it out for at the time; it's caused far fewer deaths than Christianity has.

The key word here is Catholic. The bible itself speaks of a false church. The Catholic church killed many people in the name of God in the Darwinian takeover the new world. Of course some indians like the Aztec had it coming. Generally, true christians (ones without political power) don't bother anybody. However, when you mix church and state then generally only evil can result.

But you have to agree that the criticism of religion cannot be limited to non-Abrahamic religions. Buddhism seems to be a peaceful religion but look at WWII Japan. Not wanting to offend any Buddhists on here (as this is a Korean forum). I guess the Japanese just didn't follow thier religion.

They weren't Buddhist, they were primarily Shinto and even many of them were some odd form of Christian.



What the fu-k is this? They were no more brutal than Europe was. They were warlike and committed atrocities on their own people, much like Spain.

saw this on cho sun nil bo
koreans can be quite racist sometimes
And I dont get the recent trend of marrying viet/flip women thing
koreans should remain as what they are today,
So that Korea will not to turn into another Australia or Singapore

The Aztecs commited atrocities on other tribes. That's why thousands of them joined Cortez. However, Indians as a whole were cheated. (In regards to Europe) It's difficult to say any people in the world are / were pure. One could say nearly all human societies are evil. However, there's a few good people. However, all warlike societies were not the same. They all commited evil but at varying degrees. For example, we could say that Hitler's Germany and WWII Japan were extremely evil.

The western powers of England, France etc?? They were a mixture of good and bad. Germany and Japan were mostly bad and also fell quickly. The Soviet Union was very bad but it didn't attack other countries (until after WWII) so it kept on.

Japan had it's share of Buddhists and Shinto.