And in “Western expats in Korea feel so entitled compared to poor suffering immigrants in America” news, the New York Times calls immigration-restrictionist conservatives “nativist fringe right-wingers” with “white-supremacist views” for having the temerity to demand that the nation’s immigration laws be enforced and to question the wisdom of fostering significant demographic, cultural, social (and ultimately political) changes through mass immigration (legal and illegal).
While I expect no different from the New York Times, I would like to correct them on one thing: one of those nativist right-wing white supremacists, Marcus Epstein (the author of the report the NYT slammed), is, more accurately speaking, an off-white supremacist.
He’s half-Korean.
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Let the accusations commence.
I say he’s fellow commentator mizar5. But what is a Bostonian doing writing for the NYT’s?
If anyone is still unsure why newspapers are going out of business, and everyone hates their reporters, please report to the nearest airlock. That is all.
Uhm, sorry. “White Supremacist” does not mean a “supremacist” who is “white.” A white supremacist is someone who believes that the “white race” is superior to all others. A half-Korean white supremacist is not a contradiction in terms, so you are the one who needs to be corrected, not NYT. Marcus E. may be a self-hating white supremacist. He may be a self-undermining white supremacist. But none of that means that NYT is inaccurate in characterizing his views or him as “white supremacist.”
A scan of several of Epstein’s articles reveals that whereas he stands against uncontrolled immigration, nowhere does he insist on a white only immigration policy. Could it be that the NY Times once again makes this broad leap to arriving at its ‘white supremist’ conclusion? lupin_the-4th sums it up in a nutshell.
The NYT, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and other national papers keep recycling the meme that everyone who opposes uncontrolled immigration is racist. Maybe the national papers need to follow the lead of the local press and start outsourcing their reporting to India.
The NYT, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and other national papers keep recycling the meme that everyone who opposes uncontrolled immigration is racist. Maybe the national papers need to follow the lead of the local press and start outsourcing their reporting to India. They’d save money and objectivity and balance might actually improve.
Well, Sonagi, I mean, let’s not push the bias TOO MUCH to your end. At least try, you know? It wasn’t too long ago that Palin tried desperately to associate Obama with them terrorists.
Republicans haven’t exactly helped their cause here, is what I’m sayin.
What’s ‘my end’, JW? I haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.
Sorry, I recently came across some of these white supremacist elements disguised as reasonable anti-immigrationists. Has kinda made me irascible.
I notice that if one searches for “KKK”, New Jersey, one gets an article on how Stormfront and the KKK are lobbying local government there to keep out illegal immigrants but these are the same people that go after non-whites when it serves their goals.
These are not good people even though they sometimes back a reasonable cause.
Reminds me the way I spent my last week at Mangan’s. Anyway, I’m happy that my paper shares the same view as me — extremely liberal immigration policy all the way!
As far as Mr. Epstein, that reminds me of another thing. During the colonial age, Koreans used to say the Korean imperial police is a lot scarier than the Japanese imperial police. Same thing with him.
“the wisdom of fostering significant demographic, cultural, social (and ultimately political) changes through mass immigration”
The problem with accepting the legitimacy of this line of argument is that it could have been used to justify keeping out every single wave of immigrants from after the Mayflower – the Germans, the Irish, the Poles, the Italians, the Jews, etc: every single one of these groups did indeed give rise to the “demographic, cultural, social (and ultimately political) changes” you mention, yet can it be said that America is really worse off for them? This sort of argument was used in the 1920s to justify drastic cuts in immigration which left millions of Jews stranded in Europe when WW2 broke out, and leading to the Evian conference, lack of results from which seemed to justify the German government in its policies.
It’s one thing to say that immigrants should be expected to be law-abiding, to not become drains on the state, and to respect certain reasonable, widely-held cultural norms (e.g. no marrying 4 wives etc.), but to reject immigration for fear of “demographic, cultural, social (and ultimately political) changes” is something else, and reeks of xenophobia and yes, racism, even when championed by a half-Korean. All of these things are going to change whether or not immigration happens, so to use them to justify keeping immigrants out of a country which is hardly overcrowded by any sane measure is extremely dubious.
“but to reject immigration for fear of “demographic, cultural, social (and ultimately political) changes” is something else, and reeks of xenophobia and yes, racism, even when championed by a half-Korean. ”
No. To identify these conservatives with white supremecist elements, even if they do share some ideological ground on the issue is an error in logic, a false correlation.
While people like Lou Dobbs raise some valid points about immigration policy, they do tend to go to philosophical extremes. As this is a common political ailment, to glibly attribute it to white supremecism is to present a false argument. We must not resort to an extreme to refute the extreme. We must accept the sincerity of the argument and seek a valid counterargument. We must also refrain from phrases like “racist” that do nothing but sensationalize the debate. Otherwise the debate veers from the constructive and descends a slippery slope into name calling, emotionalism and irrationality. As long as we continue to resort to intellectual trickery to make our points, we will continue to talk past one another and resolve nothing.
Some more logical counter arguments would include the following:
“imigrants contribute to our economy and to our society. For example, the economy of California is dependent on immigration.”
100% correct. But here’s the problem — it is SO easy to make that correlation.
In my view, anti-immigration folks make a rational argument. Their worries are rational, although I disagree with them. I also see that it is possible to make their argument without being racist.
But the big problem for anti-immigration folks is that their argument invariably attracts honest-to-goodness racists to their camp. And usually, that is the point at which the discussion degenerates into stupid name-calling.
This is not unlike what labor movement in Korea had to face in the 70s and 80s. Their most reasonable arguments — such as honoring minimum wage and safe working conditions — were buried because invariably, they would attract honest-to-goodness revolutionary communists to their camp. And whenever a commie joined your camp back in those days, the jig was up.
Pointing out that conflating anti-immigration argument with racism is false does not do much, when that conflation is so easy and so tempting. Is it logically incorrect to make that conflation? Absolutely. Is it the non-racist anti-immigration person’s fault that racist people get attracted to her argument? Of course not. But that is the landscape that a non-racist anti-immigration advocate must face. And much to my delight, the anti-immigration camp has not been very good at navigating that landscape.
The term “anti-immigration” in your statement is part of the problem. There are people who want to reduce immigration period. There are others, like myself, who opposed uncontrolled immigration, which I think is a preferred term to illegal immigration. Moreover, there isn’t only one argument against uncontrolled immigration. While some proponents of enforcement of immigration laws fear cultural annihilation, I, as a teacher of children of immigrants, have no such worries. I see every day that most foreign-born residents, regardless of immigration status, want to fit in with and be accepted by the community.
Furthermore, those of us who oppose uncontrolled immigration do not agree on current enforcement strategies. I strongly oppose our government’s approach, which targets mostly the immigrants themselves, rather than their employers. If you want to stop something, whether it is drug use or the employment of unauthorized workers, you need to target the demand, not the supply. Rounding up moms and dads and sending them to jail to await deportation while their children suffer at home is just fuckn stupid. There are crimes for people deserve to spend time in jail. Working illegally isn’t one of them. Besides, rounding up, jailing, and deporting undocumented workers is futile; either they come right back over the border or they are replaced by others.
Sadly you are correct.
TK, wll said. My belief is that the majority of immigrants are hard-working and contribute to society.
There are elements that just “work the system,” so to speak, but it may also be argued that some Americans who do the same. If we become overly stringent about immigration, we might as well tear down the Statue of Liberty and change the basic concept of what the United States of America stands for. And where is the cost/benefit analysis?Frankly, I don’t get the anti-illegal immigration argument.
But I would like an honest discussion of the matter rather than the one-sided rhetoric of Lou Dobbs (he’s the one who conducts viewer “polls” that are just loaded questions that tell you what to think.
I’m tired of circular premises, debate framing, and dishonest rhetoric – on both sides. I want an honest discussion in which all the facts are laid out to evaluate – the facts, the pros and cons, and the philosophical backgrounds of the arguments. That way each side can contribute something that can lead to a measured, effective means of dealing with the problems that illegal immigration presents, ie.
1. What are the costs, what are the benefits? How can the costs be mitigated and the benefits maximized?
2.What are the costs and benefits of a crack-down? How will/can it be implemented? Is it even necessary, or is it simply an emotional/political hot issue without any real substance?
3.Will it become just another meaningless, expensive, ineffective and unconstitutional boondogle for law enforcement like the war on
marijuana? Why should taxpayers have to contribute to it?
Those who criticise me for my harsh criticisms of Korean society can see that I am equally unforgiving in my criticisms of US society. The whole debate sucks, and those who are on my side of the argument (the liberal side) have the onus to make some responsible arguments, instead of ad hominem red herrings like racism. If our arguments have real merit, let’s get them out there.
Isn’t the PRC on the verge of bankrupcy? The present state of California isn’t exactly a persuasive argument in support of the net positive economic contributions of immigrants. California’s downward spiral is even more tragic than Michigan’s steady decline.
Good response. I don’t yet know enough about the issue, and although I favor a more liberal approach on philosophical grounds, I have yet to hear enough to make a fully informed decision. So, as Barach Obama has said, “I’m all ears.”
Dry, I just caught your comment (“I say he’s fellow commentator mizar5. But what is a Bostonian doing writing for the NYT’s?”)
Thank you for the aside. You must have known that, as a New Yorker, I might object to being called a Bostonian.
Not to derail the thread, but this is exactly what I’ve been saying for YEARS regarding illegal teachers in Korea. Going after the teachers is pointless. There’s a near-endless stream of them to replace any you catch; a veritable Hydra of illegals.
Go after those that employ the illegals, the shady hagwons, and hit them where it hurts: the pocketbook. Fine and jail the owners each and every time you catch them hiring an illegal, and eventually (except for the congenitally stupid) they will stop hiring illegals. When the source of illegal jobs dries up, the illegal teachers have no where to go.
Going after the teachers is a losing battle. Going after the employers is the way to stay the tide.
Yup, but the Korean government targets illegals rather than their employers for the same reasons Uncle Sam does: foreigners make great bogeymen distractions from real domestic issues and more importantly, illegals don’t vote or make generous donations to public officials.
I beg to differ.
I have experienced living in a California with 22 million souls, versus the 35 million it bears only a few decades later. Quality of life was much better when the population was less dense.
And as Sonagi points out, California is now suffering for it. While overcrowding may not be the cause of all its ills, it has certainly exacerbated them. And the same is true of the U.S. as a whole.
I’ll anticipate your argument and note that the same would’ve been true had the increase from 22 to 35 million resulted entirely from inmigration from other states, hell, let’s say they were all white folks. But that’s not what happened.
Overcrowding and population density tolerance depends on one’s culture and background. Your frame of reference, for example: you have lived in Nigeria and England, two places many Americans would consider overcrowded.
And let’s go further. Let’s say you’re right, the U.S. should not restrict immigration severely because it is not, in fact, overcrowded. That leads to the question, would there ever be a point beyond which you would concede it’s overcrowded? And if yes, would you then be willing to limit immigration on that basis?
I’ll tell you right now, most Americans would not relish the thought of living like Indians or urban Chinese.
I agree with what you say, except for the “delight” part.
If there is any hope for anti-immigration advocates, it will come from the left of the spectrum, those who oppose immigration not on racist, nativist grounds, but on ecological grounds. Although that group lost steam after the ’70s, I suspect they’ll find more favor under Pres. Obama.
‘to demand that the nation’s immigration laws be enforced and to question the wisdom of fostering significant demographic, cultural, social (and ultimately political) changes through mass immigration (legal and illegal).’
Last I checked, the nation’s immigration laws were hardly draconian. In another article, though, I read that of the 2 million plus representing the recent Iraqi diaspora, only 23,000 have been admitted to the US. This seems like the control Epstein would like to see. Send the immigration and border control agents packing, and will see Dogbertt’s
hypothesis about American’s living like urban Chinese be realized all too soon.
#22,
Don’t know if you know, but the Iraqi diaspora was established years ago – many Chaldeans (Iraqi Christians) settled in Detroit and San Diego (two large communities that I know about) seeking the American Dream. I personally know of several guys from near Kirkut who worked their asses off to make better for their families – that’s the positive side of immigration.
For those who doubt (Robert?) that people of mixed race can be white supremacists and/or racists, they need look no further than:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_van_Tongeren (father is Javanese).
Hitler was long rumored to be fathered by a Jew, but this was never proven. Nevertheless, concerns that he may have been of Jewish ancestry may, in fact, have pushed him further into the arms of anti-Semitism.
And here is a Stormfront discussion asking how people feel about half-whites/half-Asians:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=147168
Thanks for the news! I’ve been reading about this pseudo-controversy on various paleoconservative sites for a few days now, but didn’t know he was half-Korean; I just thought he was a somewhat Asian-looking Jew.
hamel, a quibble, but Jack van Tongeren is not a “white” supremacist, but merely someone that holds some views in common with white supremacists.
Ironically a lot of these white supremacist organisations have members who are not white. Sometimes it is well known, like your example, other times a white supremacist is busted for being Jewish, having some black ancestry, or other such matter. Certainly these racist organisations are more diverse than the US senate.
LOL
I also recall a half-white/half-Korean Korean supremacist on the “Fighting 44s”. Love to see him and this Epstein in a room together.
Ex-pats wailing about border controls. Too precious.
How on earth did a middle-aged lawyer become interested in a bunch of Korean fenqing?
Interesting that the news comes from John Derbyshire, who, referring to his Chinese wife, once “joked that the only reason he was not an open white nationalist was because ‘it would get me in trouble at home.’” He has also said, “I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one.”
#24 Personally, communities I’d like to see resettled in the US in great numbers is the current Iraqi refugee one, currently spread out in nearby middle eastern nations. They were given an undeserved ass-pounding, and then made to leave their own country under the threat of death of religious nutters.
Back to Epstein. I don’t believe that his views are inconsistent with his mother being Korean, and that he is a white supremist.
shakuhachi: no need to quibble with me. Perhas you didn’t notice the and/or operator between “white supremacist” and “racist.”
While you’re here, I’d love to see you come clean about your racial views.
hamel,
“Come clean”? OK, you come clean first.
Shak: I don’t write a blog that predominantly criticizes one (okay, sometimes two) nations and predominantly praises another. All the while living in neither and claiming not to have a stake in either of them.
I’d say the one who needs to come clean here is you, old skin flute.
Hamel, you asked, I merely asked for the same. If you had read my blog properly, you would know that I think that East Asian peoples are the same race. That is my “racial views”.
That doesn’t make shak sound suspicious at all. Wow. *golf clap*
That is either a disingenous reply, or I am having trouble reading plain English. Perhaps I could ask shakuhachi to provide me with an interpretive tool, a secular Urim amd Thummim, if you will, with which I can read his blog and NOT get the wrong impression. It seems I might not be the only one who needs this.
For those who doubt (Robert?) that people of mixed race can be white supremacists and/or racists
They don’t even have to be of mixed race. Michelle Magdalang Malkin is a minority of Philippine origin who famously argued that the US was justified in rounding up Japanese-Americans into internment camps during WW2. That argument was used to justify racial-profiling to identify terrorists during the darkest days of post-9/11 hysteria.
These kinds of people are nothing new for minorities. They are called Uncle Toms.
In America, it has been an open secret for decades that black cops are often worse than white cops. Black cops constantly feel like they have something prove for their white counterparts. Therefore they may treat black suspects harsher than even white cops.
A similar dynamic may also explain the Michelle Malkins and Marcus Epsteins. The fact that such minority-backgrounded individuals espouse political views aligned with white supremacists or racists is not contradictory.
[sigh] I guess you are right, Netizen Kim. Just as there is no contradiction with a Korean immigrant (or child of immigrants) being less than sympathetic towards biracial children growing up in Korea, or towards foreigners who choose to live in Korea long term (as temporary or permanent migrants).
It is the same old pattern throughout human history: the abused become the abusers.
I was just reading a book review yesterday of a book dealing with immigration patterns into AND out of the Netherlands. It was interesting to see the parallels: the hardships and treatment faced by Dutch migrants to Australia in the 1950s were not entirely dissimilar to those faced by Moroccan immigrants to the Netherlands in later decades.
Basically, what we learn is that nobody ever learns, and nothing ever gets better. What a wonderful world!
Maybe Michelle Malkin, a Pinay, is similar to many Korean-Americans who harbor a learned grudge against the Japanese? That could explain her refusal to condemn the internment.
Are Korean-Americans who dislike the Japanese, like wjk, “Uncle Toms”?
And, why do you still hate white people?
Michelle Malkin refuses to condemn internment because she doesn’t have the mental capacity to deliver anything other than kneejerk opinions and neocon horseshit. Her kind are all too often mistaken for incisive commentators, but really are just good at talking a lot and remembering facts. She is nowt but a slightly more heavyweight version of Elisabeth Hasselcrack.
You must log in to post a comment.