Perhaps being unable to purchase an iPhone in Korea despite 13 straight years of legal residency has made me a bitter man, but this almost gave me an aneurysm:
The history of Korean immigration to the U.S. is one variation on the American immigration narrative. Immigration began in the late 19th century, as Koreans came to work as laborers in Hawaii, but the bulk of it occurred after 1965 following the repeal of the Asian Exclusion Act. Legions of Koreans came to America in search of freedom from an oppressive political regime and opportunity for economic mobility. Nearly a quarter million Korean Americans are undocumented as the result of this promise of a better life coming into conflict with the realities of the immigration system.
Undocumented Korean American college students have been especially vocal in the fight for immigration reform. The stories of the measures taken by these students and their families to support a college education give the push to pass reform a special sense of urgency. Their hardship extends well beyond their ineligibility for financial aid. A huge question mark looms over their post-graduation plans – without a Social Security number, how are they to find employment? On February 1, one Korean American student reiterated these frustrations and spoke of his aspirations to become a professor before hundreds who had gathered at a Los Angeles church for an immigration town hall. And Ju Hong, an undocumented student from the Bay Area, has come out publicly about his status and blogs regularly on immigration issues.
(things start flying around Robert’s computer table)
Excuse me, but without a social security number — or a student visa — how the hell is it that you’re in college in the first place? Perhaps over a decade in Korea, a regular weekly dose of John Derbyshire and today’s health care vote is playing games with me noggin, but it seems to me that a quarter million “Korean Americans” (a term I’d hope actual Korean-Americans would be offended by when applied to foreigners illegally residing in the United States) taking advantage of a taxpayer-funded education and stealing college spots — including, apparently, even at Ivy League schools! — from citizens and legal residents a “reality of the immigration system” that really needs fixing.
Anyway, I continue:
Immigration reform cannot wait, and the Korean American community will be present in Washington standing alongside other immigrant groups to encourage our legislators to take the action that America needs.
I can understand why “undocumented Korean American college students” would be “especially vocal in the fight for immigration reform” but, please, can one of my Korean-American readers explain to me why the actual Korean-American community — the product, I’ll assume, of a generation of Koreans who actually waited on line — would want to have anything to do with something like this?
(Blame GI Korea for the rant)
{ 171 comments… read them below or add one }
They should be all expelled from the schools and deported.
You also have to blame the lax immigration system that allows such idiocy from these people.
I don’t know if it is just me getting old, or if Korea is turning me more conservative, or if the realities of working in another country have shown me a thing or two, but I am definitely a changed man.
This would have seemed like a perfectly reasonable argument to me a few years ago. But now…. Fuck you guys, why should you be rewarded for skirting the rules while those who live by them have to compete with you? I imagine that getting a student visa in the US is not the most difficult thing in the world. Universities want the foreign buck, and they are gonna do anything they can to get it. It can’t be that hard.
If some western guy here was saying he shouldn’t have to have a visa and should be able to work wherever he wants and was complaining about the system here, i’d tell him to fuck off, and to follow the rules of the host.
And don’t get me started on affirmative/reverse affirmative action……
What is happening to me? Young me would kill himself if he met currnet me.
Blame these on their parents who decided to go illegal. Now their kids who were born and grown up illegal are going to suffer for it.
Aren’t the ones actually born in the US automatically citizens?
I can actually understand the frustration this guy must be feeling. If he were the parent who made a conscious decision to move his family to the U.S. illegaly, then I’d tell him to go fuck himself. But this guy seems to be the child of someone who made the decision, and thus shouldn’t be punished for the bad choices of his parents as he really had no say in the decision making process.
Having said that, I don’t think he should be demanding anything of U.S. immigration nor do I think he should automatically be given U.S. citizenship (assuming he wasn’t born in the U.S., which would automatically entitle him to U.S. citizenship, no?). I think his parents should be deported and never be allowed back in. And I think this student should be sent back to Korea and be allowed the chance to apply for a student visa, abiding by the rules of the process, with his immigration record wiped clean.
As I mentioned in my posting, I don’t feel sorry for these Korean illegals at all. My wife filled out all the proper paper to get a visa to come to the US and after we got married in the US she filled out all the proper paperwork to get her permanent residency card. There is a system in place that is frustrating and outdated but it works.
However, people promoting immigration reform don’t want to improve the current system to make it less frustrating but instead just want to give amnesty to these people that didn’t follow the system to get the proper documents to reside in America. That is a slap in the face of every immigrant that used the system to receive proper residency status.
#4, not born in USA, but brought and raised in the USA, whose parents made a conscious decision to go illegal. That kind of thought is so short sighted, it’s the parents who should be held accountable.
Send them all back – whether they are Koreans there illegally, Mexicans, Salvadorans or Martians. If they didn’t get there through the right channels, they have no right being there and no right bitching about lack of jobs, social security or anything else.
Does anyone believe people should be given a break here in Korea? I know lots of expats who were treated like dirt for skirting the rules giving private lessons. Korean police were ruthless in rooting out those people.
I hear that. At one time I might have sympathized, but now, I’m like, “Are you shitting me?” I’m trying to imagine what the response would be if I wrote something similar in any Korean newspaper not named the Hankyoreh. That is, if readers didn’t die laughing first after seeing something like 미등록 미국계 한국인.
If a child immigrates with their parents at a very young age, then they might not even speak Korean fluently and are, in all respects, a U.S. citizen because this is the only country they know. There should be some kind of exception for people who grow up in the U.S., go to primary school, middle school, and high school with all their classmates, try hard to get good grades and are then told that no, actually they can’t go to college because they don’t have a S.S. number. How messed up is that? If they aren’t a U.S. citizen are they a Korean citizen? Not in heart and mind. Citizenship is more than just a number.
And I don’t understand the comments that reference our treatment here as any kind of rationalization for treating people in the U.S. inconsiderately. Every country has its own human rights abuses but I wouldn’t want the U.S. to start using Korea as a measure on how to treat its citizens, legal or illegal.
No, it’s not. It’s a number attached to a passport. Which most foreigners have to work very hard to get. As for “how messed up is that?” let me ask, “How messed up is it that US taxpayers have to foot the bill to educate the children of foreign lawbreakers, who go on to steal university spots from US citizens and legal residents?” Sure, it might not be the kids’ fault their parents have no respect for US immigration law (in their parents’ defense, they’re hardly alone), but it’s not the taxpayer’s fault, either. Or your son’s fault when he can’t get into some Ivy League school because Cheol-soo the Undocumented Korean-American took his place.
As for “referencing our treatment here as any kind of rationalization for treating people in the U.S. inconsiderately,” allow me to retort — sure, Korean immigration can be dicks, but at least they sometimes enforce their nation’s immigration laws. I’m not using Korea as a “rationalization.” I’m saying Korea actually makes sense. They don’t use the US example to treat their own citizens and taxpayers inconsiderately.
I’m a Korean-American, and nope, I do not identify with these students from Korea studying here in the US without visas. And no, they have no right to look for jobs here after graduation if the US gov’t says they can’t. That’s just where I stand, plain and simple.
Follow the freakin’ rules!!!
Well, when I went to college, I tried not to give my social security number. I was told that I could do this (i.e. I would be allowed to not disclose my number to the university) BUT only if I did not apply for financial aid, meaning I wouldn’t be getting any sort of federal or state subsidized tutition or any need-based loans or grants. This was a seperate issue from proving my residency (my driver’s license, which does not list my social security number btw, was good enough for that iirc).
The article doesn’t say if Eric is using someone else’s social security number (which is a form of identity theft, and a serious one at that, it means there is an innocent and unsuspecting person – or victim – who won’t be able to apply for financial aid in the future). On the other hand, if he isn’t using a social security number, then I’d question the claim that he’s using US tax payer money to fund his education…
But hold on, this guy’s intention is to become a productive tax-paying member of US society, so what’s the problem? And would we want to let Korean immigration’s (and society’s) weaknesses influence US decisions? America was built on immigration and there’s still a lot of room (and now a surplus of housing).
What’s the problem? He broke the rules and jumped que. What’s immigration department for, if nobody’s going to follow the immigration rules? Just round them up and deport them. There’s nothing Koreans can say. It’s a lunatic policy to allow illegal people to attend schools.
I step in front of the firing squad, because bullets can’t touch me. For the record, here is my preferred immigration policy if anyone is curious.
Because the current immigration system is arbitrary, nonsensical, and contrary to America’s interests. And Ju Hong is an example of how the system is that way.
Illegal immigrants pay taxes, because the taxes are taken out of their payroll like everyone else. In fact, they pay more taxes than Americans in the same income bracket because they usually do not file for a tax return (for fear that their status will be exposed.)
Stealing you say? Please. Illegal immigrants “steal” college spots as much as Yankee “stole” the last World Series. It’s not stealing if there was a competition between A and B, and B ended up winning the prize. Especially if the entire game was loaded for A’s favor.
Your hypothetical son has no one to blame but himself. Who told him not to study? He does not have to deal with language and cultural barrier, not to mention the poverty and the time spent working at the store or taking care of his younger siblings as many illegal immigrant students do. Cheol-Soo went to an Ivy League with all those obstacles, so what’s your son’s fucking excuse?
Here is a really simple way of getting rid of all illegal immigrants—work harder than them! If you hate losing to illegal immigrants, don’t lose! As Americans, you have ALL the advantages in the world. It can ONLY be your damn fault if you end up losing. In fact, you should be grateful that winners like Ju Hong WANTS to join your team. That’s truly the unique strength of America that Americans too often underappreciate. The best and the brightest of the world want to come to America, and they don’t care what is stopping them. Why is this a bad thing?
Surely, there is some level of blame that must be assigned to illegal immigrants. But that blame cannot be so great when the rule itself is arbitrary and nonsensical to begin with. The worst that illegal immigrants deserve is some amount of fine.
If nothing else, it is a really, really bad idea for the entire society to have a large segment of population that is not educated.
Yes the rules are nonsensical, it’s nonsensical to give education to illegals, inviting more of them in. There shouldn’t be a large segment of illegal population to begin with. Just round them a;; up and deport them, no questions asked. If you got papers, you stay. If you don’t, bye bye. How can it get more simpler than that?
cm, I respect you as a person who makes fair arguments. I would appreciate it if you could give me some reasons as to why you propose what you do.
Following the rules woulda been great. Enforcing the rules …by US immigration woulda been better.
The problem right now is how to fix the current clusterbuck of a mess.
Yes, illegals did wrong, etc. etc. But right now, they’re all so integrated in to society, you just can’t kick them all out. It’s literally impossible.
The worst thing is the politics involved….especially in states like Cali.
I’m kinda with Robert Hedge here…I’d say that the last thing Washington should do is educate illegals and THEN send them packing just at the moment in their lives where they’re ready to be productive. That’s precisely what the U.S. does NOT need…a brain drain of highly-educated illegals returning to their home countries to compete with U.S. industry.
I’d say that as long as they’re able to shed their hyphenated-American baggage of divided loyalties, the U.S. should figure out a way for them to stick around.
What I would NOT recommend is to look at Korean immigration policy as a model for, well, anything.
DLB
Actually, Korea’s immigration policy is surprisingly liberal and rational. Basically, if you have a job for five years and can prove you can support yourself, you get a Korean citizenship. Very simple — contribute to the society by holding down a job, and you are in.
Of course, it is the manner in which the policy is implemented that gets Korea into trouble. But I like the policy at least.
TK – You are quite on to something here. The problem with emphasizing the written laws and regulations of Korea — and this goes to my beef with WK regarding the KORUS-FTA — is that what is on the books and how Korea’s bureaucratic Mandarins choose to selectively enforce or interpret those rules are two VERY different things…a point about which I assume you agree.
This is where I part ways with my conservative bretheren…I actually think U.S. immigration policy should emphasize access over seclusion. And the more talent an illegal brings to the table, the more ways should be found to make should he or she is able to stick around.
But I would not call Korea’s immigration policy an open one, and there lies the difference. (It is, however, better than Japan’s, so that’s something.)
DLB
The US is in dire straits, indebted up to its eyeballs, and on the road to a currency crisis.
The best thing it can do is let in every immigrant who has a Masters degree or higher from a top educational institution or has over $250,000 USD to invest in productive businesses inside the U.S.
It’s not immigration (even illegal immigration) that’s the problem. The problem arises when “humanitarian migration” becomes the predominant immigrant pool your country draws from. Just look at how f*cked France or Sweden have become for example.
My family waited in line and went through the process legally. I don’t have any sympathy for the illegals.
First of all, this kind of terminology is not only convoluted, it is an oxymoron. Overseas non-immigrant Koreans in the U.S (in other words, “Gyopos”), with ostensible valid or invalid non-immigrant visas like a tourist visa, the J-1 Student Visa or H-1B are NOT considered Korean Americans, are not considered part of the KA community and are basically considered usurpers and outsiders. Basically, the correct term for them is “yuhaksaeng”, and whether it be by choice or their isolation, yuhaksaeng as a rule do not join KA churches, participate in KA activities or events, and rarely befriend other KAs. (Yuhaksaeng have their own on-campus “yuhak” churches, organizations, cliques, and social events — usually run in conjunction with International Student Organizations — that are essentially run like they do things on a Korean college campus with everything is based on sonbae/hubae type relationships and the distance of your relationship based on whether you come from the same alma mater/same academic department/same entering class or not.)
However, when you start to have a critical mass of immigration scofflaws like undocumented yuhaksaeng, which has increasingly become a problem since 1997 when the yuhaks started coming to the U.S. en masse, what there is now is a virtual overseas Gyopo community — all connected by the Internet, or specifically cyworld ties — most of whom are the privileged sons and daughters of extremely wealthy land-owning Koreans who had the dumb luck of striking it rich within the past 20 to 30-years in Korea’s superheated real estate market (think of the the Beverly Hilbillies redone as the Gangnam Sangnomdeul now trying to send their kids to Harvard — but usually settling for Oakton Community College — while being hindered by a functional literacy in English that would’ve otherwise allowed them to renew visas at the right time.
While there are legitimate, i.e., documented yuhaksaeng who are usually full-time college students or post-grads/docs or research fellows enrolled in fully accredited institutions of higher learning, there is an even larger underground community of illegitimate/undocumented yuhaksaeng, who either overstayed their visas or lack the proper student visa, yet continue to pass themselves off as “college students.”
You can spot these whippersnappers immediately, b/c they rarely have done their military service in the ROK military due to deferments granted galore for overseas study, they typically drive a “Benz” or a “BMW” or something totally out of their income range that only daddy could’ve afforded, and they usually hang out 24/7 at Koreatown locations like seedy noraebangs and soju bars acting like gangsta wannabees.
Fixed it for you, gyopo-man.
First of all, this kind of terminology is not only convoluted, it is an oxymoron. Overseas non-immigrant Koreans in the U.S (in other words, “Gyopos”), with ostensible valid or invalid non-immigrant visas like a tourist visa, the J-1 Student Visa or H-1B are NOT considered Korean Americans, are not considered part of the KA community and are basically considered usurpers and outsiders. Basically, the correct term for them is “yuhaksaeng”, and whether it be by choice or their isolation, yuhaksaeng as a rule do not join KA churches, participate in KA activities or events, and rarely befriend other KAs. (Yuhaksaeng have their own on-campus “yuhak” churches, organizations, cliques, and social events — usually run in conjunction with International Student Organizations — that are essentially run like they do things on a Korean college campus with everything is based on sonbae/hubae type relationships and the distance of your relationship based on whether you come from the same alma mater/same academic department/same entering class or not.)
However, when you start to have a critical mass of immigration scofflaws like undocumented yuhaksaeng, which has increasingly become a problem since 1997 when the yuhaks started coming to the U.S. en masse, what there is now is a virtual overseas Gyopo community — all connected by the Internet, or specifically cyworld ties — most of whom are the privileged sons and daughters of extremely wealthy land-owning Koreans who had the dumb luck of striking it rich within the past 20 to 30-years in Korea’s superheated real estate market (think of the the Beverly Hilbillies redone as the Gangnam Sangnomdeul now trying to send their kids to Harvard — but usually settling for Oakton Community College — while being hindered by a functional literacy in English that would’ve otherwise allowed them to renew visas at the right time.
While there are legitimate, i.e., documented yuhaksaeng who are usually full-time college students or post-grads/docs or research fellows enrolled in fully accredited institutions of higher learning, there is an even larger underground community of illegitimate/undocumented yuhaksaeng, who either overstayed their visas or lack the proper student visa, yet continue to pass themselves off as “college students.”
You can spot these whippersnappers immediately, b/c they rarely have done their military service in the ROK military due to deferments granted galore for overseas study, they typically drive a “Benz” or a “BMW” or something totally out of their income range that only daddy could’ve afforded, and they usually hang out 24/7 at Koreatown locations like seedy noraebangs and soju bars acting like gangsta wannabees.
You are not the only one — yuhaksaeng and illegal gyopos are the bane of the KA community, first and foremost b/c they are usually the miscreant children of low-class “gangnam sangnomdeul”, who put on haughty airs, separate themselves and typically think they are “better” than us KAs.
But before we get hysterical, let’s look at the reality. First, I don’t know if you are completely aware, but over the past ten years, there has been a vast shift in the higher-educational landscape in America from the local community colleges, state and private universities we all grew up with to profit-driven institutions that are indundating our aiwaves with non-stop commercials to “take charge of your lives” with programs from everything in English literature, to X-ray technology at places like “ITT”. The exponential rise in “for-profit” education programs — what I call the ‘hagwon-ization of america — has been documented here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/business/14schools.html?scp=3&sq=for-profit%20higher%20education%20companies&st=cse
In my estimation, these kind of places are a breeding ground for undocumented illegal students, like yuhaksaeng, as such institutions are lax on student visas and tend to attract unqualified Korean yuhaksaeng, flush with their parents money, in droves.
As Koreans love the idea of being perpetual students, if there is a will, there is a way that such Koreans will find themselves in such going-nowhere spin-your-wheel programs, as they have been flocking to these programs in droves for the past decade.
On the other hand, legitimate Korean yuhaksaeng who have been study in accredited institutions usually have all the right visas and documentation. That being said, my issue with these types of academically qualified and legally matriculated yuhaksaeng is that they tend to stretch out their post-grad studies to the nth degree — while occupying valuable space in a university — all the while ruing the day they have to return to Korea immediately following graduation. (I knew one such yuhaksaeng girl from a wealthy family in Seocho-gu who stretched out a M.A. program in linguistics at the Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison for ten years.)
Please refrain from making false attributions. When I need your opinion about something, I will give it to you.
And for the record, “thekorean” prefers to be called by his preferred nomenclature, gyopo, b/c that is what he is — a Korean-born 1st generation K.A.
On the other hand, as an American-born 2nd generation K.A., I do not self identify as a “gyopo” while ouside of Korea, especially in the U.S. where I currently reside.
We went over this several times, gyopo-man, and each time I have shown you that you are using the term “gyopo” incorrectly. You can self-identify as a Martian if you want, but that doesn’t make you a Martian, or not an Earthling.
You have a peculiar notion of what constitutes a Korean American/gyopo, and tend to spout a lot of nonsense based on that idiosyncratic notion. I’m just letting you know that you are a party of one in that respect.
You are a gyopo with a Korean p.o.v. on everything due to your formative years and formal education in Korea..
I am not a gyopo whose formative years and formal education was in the U.S. Therefore, I have a vastly different p.o.v. on virtually everything with Korean-born individuals like yourself. (Your just going to have to accept that.)
I am an American-born Korean American in my home country of birth; therefore, I am a Korean American or simply an American when I’m in the U.S. like I am now.
However, when I am in Korea, I call myself a “gyopo,” b/c at that time it is proper for me to acknowledge that I am in fact an “overseas Korean.”
I am not in Korea.
Issue settled.
Trust me on this one — I don’t need your opinion about it. You need to be more respectful toward other Korean Americans who have a different opinion than you. I’m sick and tired of your know-it-all “Uncle Tom” pandering that you do so well in front of the whites. You sure do know how to schuck and jive! Well how about granting a lil’ of the same respect to a fellow Korean? Humor me!
The dictionary definition of “gyopo” is not a matter of opinion. If your “opinion” of what the word “gyopo” means is different from the dictionary definition, it is not even an opinion — it is an incorrect statement of fact. And an incorrect statement of fact deserves no respect.
And “Uncle Tom”? Seriously? After all the fire that I draw for being a strong Korean voice (both on this blog and my own), you call me an “Uncle Tom”? Ha.
So what would happen if every Korean were eligible for a green card, without a long wait and with few requirements? Seems to me the results would be good. And by the way why shouldn’t there be one billion Americans?
Actually, we’re not arguing about the dictionary definition of gyopo. We are arguing about its colloquial usage, and as a native Korean speaker, you should already know about that w/o me explaining it to you for the upteenth time. For example, a North Korean may feel comfortable calling his good friend 동무, even if s/he is in the South. On the other hand, calling out 동무 instead of 친구 in a public place in Seoul is liable to get you strange looks. Two words, one denotation, two connotations.
That being said, I will gladly stop calling you “Uncle Tom” if you stop calling me “Gyopo Man.” (I already told you I don’t like it.)
But these people are “gyopos”?
TK isn’t schucking and jiving. I think 8675309, what you are trying to say, is that you don’t use the term “gyopo” while in America, because it seems imprecise or unapplicable.
I think if you’re hanging out with a bunch of other gyopos, it would be weird to state you’re a gyopo. Or if you were a bunch of non-Korean speakers, it would be useless to call yourself a gyopo, instead of Korean-American.
That said, I do use the term frequently when in the presence of yuhaksaeng friends, the so-called batch of Korean-Koreans. Why? Because even though I’m in the States, I am different from them. So it’s a necessary term. Also, when I have met Korean adoptees, they have also pointed out my gyopo-ness, not as being a Korean raised here, but as a non-adopted Korean.
So, while I agree with you that certain times call for the correct titles, I don’t think you can suspend your gyopo-ness like it were a Netflix account or a newspaper subscription.
This is the sentence that I found so ludicrous:
“Gyopo” does not mean “overseas non-immigrant Koreans in the U.S.” That is patently against the dictionary definition; it is also patently against the colloquial use of the word other than your own use. Like I said, your own definition is contrary to the general definition of the word, be the general definition on the dictionary or through colloquial use. In other words, the first half of your sentence is a nonsense.
Then you follow up with another crazy nonsense about who are considered Korean American and who are not, relying again on your peculiar definition of what a Korean American is (or should be.) In effect, all you are doing is: “Here is my little world-construct, where words mean different things from what they normally do. And in my little world-construct, these are what the terms ‘gyopo’ and ‘Korean American’ mean.” In the real world, your use of the terms are wrong, wrong and wrong. I am trying to make it clear that you are the only one who thinks the way you do. 알것냐?
The Netflix™ analogy is off, b/c I don’t define or identify myself vis-a-vis Netflix. A more apt analogy would be the difference in using “home” team or “away” team to describe your team. When the Cubs are playing at Wrigley Field, they are the home team. When they’re playing elsewhere, they’re the “away” team. It would be colloquially wrong to call the Cubs the home team when they were playing in Yankee Stadium. Likewise, I am a Korean American at home (in America), and a gyopo when away.
Of course they are, b/c they are overseas Koreans.
I never made that equation. Again, dum dum, let’s stick to the dictionary definition of gyopo: an overseas Korean. Ipso facto, that makes you a gyopo, and me NOT. It’s a relative term that depends on the individual circumstances of those involved — not some pre-ordained dogma set down by arrogant sangnom such as yourself.
Instead of making blanket generalizations and ad hominem arguments, how about responding to the op and defining for us what you think is the proper definition of a Korean American should be? Should it include yuhaksaeng? H-1B visa holders? J-1 Visa holders? Korean gyopo scofflaws? I’m all ears!
When you lead a phrase with “in other words” (as you did earlier), that’s EXACTLY what you are doing — making an equation. Basic grammar.
Really? Didn’t you just say “Actually, we’re not arguing about the dictionary definition of gyopo.” Which one is it?
No matter, because either way you lose. 교포 means 외국에 살고 있는 동포. 동포 in turn means 한 나라 또는 한겨레에 딸려 있는 사람. This definition a fortiori makes both you and I 교포 as long as we are part of the 한 겨레 and we both live in 외국. There is nothing relative about it.
This is EXACTLY what I find so baffling. There is no other person in the world who use the word “Korean American” and “gyopo” in the manner as you do. The two words are not at all like “home team” and “away team”. If anything, those terms are exactly like “the Cubs” in your example. You are the Cubs whether or not you play at Wrigley or Yankee Stadium. Likewise, you are a gyopo as well as a Korean American no matter where you are. It is not a matter of opinion or choice. Everything you say about gyopos or Korean Americans is distorted because you keep on using your own strange definition.
Not to butt in, but I think that should be “ssangnom,” with two s’s.
DLB
I tend to agree with the Korean on this. However, I wouldn’t let it go with just a fine. For me, it’s simple. Enlist in the active duty military for six years. Spend at least four of those years in a non-REMF MOS and keep your service record relatively clean. Tada! You get citizenship. Hell, you don’t even need to be an illegal for that. We can recruit you directly in from your country, provided you can score in at least the 50th percentile on the ASVAB.
It doesn’t really matter if you’re here illegally because your parents decided to break the law for you. Parents make all kinds of decisions that screw up their kids and for the most part, you just have to deal with it.
Damn, TK beat me to it. In that example, you are the Cubs. Doesn’t matter if you’re home or away.
The Netflix example — and I’m not stubbornly going to defend it, like others do with their half-baked ideas — only applies in that you can suspend your account when you’re out-of-town. Like a trip to Korea.
As for this, I’ll weigh in:
I’m not sure what a “Korean gyopo scofflaw” is, but the others? None are Korean American. They’re 유학생 all the way, and if they came over to the country as a non-immigrant, then they’re Korean.
If there’s a gray area, it’s describing our parents or the Korean spouses of our Military Servicemen/women or a talented Korean hired by a U.S. company and given citizenship. They are all, in terms of the dictionary definition, gyopos. But that’s why we have the number system, IMO, the 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc.
@thekorean
Would you have any sense of when 동포 left the lexicon in favor of 교포? I learned 동포 in a Korean class and it seems to be a term used before modern immigration in the past 40 or so years. By that, I mean Koreans who were “taken” to work jobs to Japan or Koreans hundreds of years ago migrating to China. I still see 동포 occasionally, so it’s not extinct, linguistically, by any means.
According to 표준국어대사전, the term 동포 is inclusive of 교포, because 동포 could also refer to the same countrymen. (For example, a Seoulite and a Busanese are 동포.) In other words, 재외동포 is equivalent to 교포.
This is a helpful explanation outlining the differences between 동포 and 교포 if you are interested.
If I may add to the confusion, I’m not Korea but have often jokingly described myself as a 교포 to Koreans because I am 1st gen European American. Am I a 교포 or not? My interest in asking this question is seeing how Korean language treats other nationalities and backgrounds.
And this is exactly where we differ — I don’t consider the U.S. a foreign country — you do. You consider Korea as your homeland, I consider the U.S. as my homeland. Btw, what is your visa category? H-1B?
You are either missing the point or you don’t understand simple analogies.
Cubs in Wrigley Field : home team :: Korean Americans in U.S. : citizens
Cubs in Shea Stadium : away team :: Korean Americans in Korea : 교포
conversely,
Mets in Wrigley Field : away team :: Korean Koreans in U.S.: 교포
Mets in Shea Stadium : home team :: Korean Koreans in Korea: citizens
As you can see, both you and I have the ability to define ourselves based on where we are currently, and where we came from originally. As we are inherently different being that I never came from Korea originally, with you being originally from Korea, I am the “home team”" in the U.S., whereas as you are the “away team” in the U.S., and vice versa when we are in Korea. Get it?
(And stop trying to be the “Seoul Supreme Prosecutor of the Year”, which is how you’re behaving with your ‘gotcha now’ responses. You not only come off as unseemly, you sound like a superdork.)
외국 does not mean only “foreign country,” as opposed to “domestic.” (e.g. 외국인/내국인.) 외국 also means “non-Korean”, as opposed to “Korean”. (e.g. 한국인/외국인.) In fact, it is the latter definition that is used much more frequently. In other words, it doesn’t matter where you consider home. You are an ethnic Korean, and you live in a non-Korean country. So you are a gyopo. As clear as the dictionary definition.
Same blue eagle passport you have, fellow gyopo.
Let me make it super clear to you: there is no sense of “originality” in the word “gyopo” — at least not in a sense by which you are using the word. You think there is, and you are wrong. That’s what I keep telling you.
Documentation and ID requirements vary by state and by institution. Fake social security numbers are very easy to get as many of the parents of my students can attest to and may not be required for admission. Community colleges are especially lenient in granting admission without verifying legal status. In fact, undocumented high school students are often advised to attend a local community college first and then use that ID and transcript to get into a university. Some of these “undocumented college students” may be yuhaksaeng while others may have lived in the US since they were young.
Family and community ties are a significant reason why native-born and naturalized citizens support a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Native-born citizens didn’t wait in line and may hold US citizenship because their immigrant parents didn’t wait in line, either.
Hey, these illegals aren’t going to war against natives and wiping them out with diseases and what not are they? What the fuck is the problem then?
@8675309,
So have you tried calling Korean-Koreans in the US, 교포들? They’ll correct you immediately, unless they’re posing.
And this statement is essentially making the Korean immigration experience into a frivulous caste system of labeling:
What then of someone like myself, of people who immigrate before elementary school? The lines get tougher to chalk up, when you don’t have a gyopo who is born and raised in the States; and someone like TK, who actually attended Korean schools and can remember much of his experience there.
Also, for argument’s sake, let’s say, I’m, under your definition, a Cubs player playing in Shea Stadium. But let’s say, in fact, only to complicate things, I had played a few seasons for the Mets before coming to Waveland Avenue via free agency (and to avoid military service). Still, I hold my time with the Mets in high-esteem, and when I sprint out to right field that night, fans from Long Island, their faces painted blue-and-orange, actually are wearing MY old Mets jersey, cheering ME on. But wait, I grew up in Long Island. So lazy sportswriters on this lazy summer afternoon have even written a few stories in that morning’s paper proclaiming that the night’s game is my “Homecoming.” That a band of Song Supporters is waving–eh?–Korean flags in section 401b. Whoa. My more affluent of friends are wearing Cubs uniforms, with fresh stitching, while my blue-collar childhood friends from my neighborhood, wear tattered Mets jerseys, the cracked paint dangling off from the blue mesh like last week’s sunburn. But how can this be a “Homecoming” if this is an away game? Maybe I realize that I like it here in Shea Stadium. Or maybe I realize that, fu*k, I hate baseball–mostly because of its stupid analogies to life.
Getting to 2nd base, hitting a home run, playing the field, SMASH hit, being from the bush league.
Illegal people? Tell me, where on earth is it illegal to be a person? I’m afraid to ask what the consequences are for those caught being “illegal people.”
I agree with 8675309 that the article’s use of the phrase “undocumented Korean-American student” is an oxymoron. Korean-Americans are ethnic Koreans with American citizenship.
I agree with theKorean that “gyopo” in MEANING means any ethnic Korean who happens to reside permanently in a country other than Korea. A Korean-American is a “gyopo” whether he is living in the U.S. or temporarily visiting Korea. But 8675309 is right that in USAGE (not meaning), you don’t use the word about yourself unless you are talking to a Korean permanently residing in Korea, or overseas temporarily. Similarly, a Korean-Korean who permanently resides in Korea or is overseas temporarily would use the term to refer to Koreans who live outside of Korea on a permanent basis.
Can we kiss and make up?
There was this great bit of wisdom from a Chesterton quote that applies to the question of illegal immigrants. Ah yes, here it is:
“Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.”
Amen to that!
tk #46:
First and foremost, I am most decidedly NOT an ethnic Korean — I am totally revulsed by that term. It is repugnant to me as a Korean American b/c it suggests a stateless Korean or a Korean who is a refugee, illegal alien or a displaced person.
As a natural-born U.S. citizen and a 2nd-generation K.A. I would never use that term to describe someone I either knew or believed to be a Korean American.
Second, as long as I abide in my homeland, which apparently is non-Korean by your explanation, and is therefore a foreign country to you, I refuse to be involuntarily subjected to foreign nomenclature, e.g., the term “gyopo” or other foreign Korean terms used by native Korean speakers such as yourself to pigeon hole me in accordance with your uniquely Korean ex-parte world views.
God bless America!
t_song #49:
No problem. Just like my cousin who immigrated at the age of two, whom just like you, arrived at the right time totally untainted by the Korean educational system, you and her are ’1.75-generation K.As.’
TK for all intents and purposes is a first-generation, or 1.0 generation Korean American, just like my parents. (The only difference between them being that he is more culturally two-faced with a better vocabulary.)
That said, arguing with someone like thekorean from my perspective is futile and akin to arguing with your parents — or an uppity Seoul taxi cab driver for that matter — especially if arguing about idealogy, religion or politics. It’s almost if the best way to bow out is by remembering:
“East is east and West is west and never the twain shall meet.”
Very humorously put. However, at the end of the day, you still have to look at yourself in the mirror and irrespective of the fans and what they may call you, only you know who you really are.
Sambek_ZX, #51
Thekorean has yet to learn that in the West, we endeavor to live peacefully in a pluralistic society, which unlike the Korea he was spawned from, is a world removed far away from his monolithic, one-track, one mind, one-size-fits-all “ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer” Weltanschauung.
Again, you are the only person in the world who thinks the term “ethnic Korean” connotes “a refugee, [sic] illegal alien or a displace person.” If you are only person in the world who thinks “blue” means “red”, why is it not obvious that you are wrong?
First, I said that 외국 is equivalent to “non-Korean”, not that “foreign country” is equivalent to “non-Korean.” Again, this is all dictionary definition — 외국 means “non-Korean.” So you live in 외국.
Second, it is irrelevant whether or not the term “gyopo” is of foreign origin. You are a gyopo by its dictionary definition, as much as you are an homme and 人間. You cannot refuse to be who you are.
All I am saying is that this Korean word that you purport to apply does not mean what you think it means. It is as plain as daylight that your usage is not correct by the dictionary definition. It has nothing to do with your bullshit red herring about pluralistic society, fellow gyopo-man.
I agree that it is the correct usage. But I don’t think that’s what the gyopo-man’s position is.
Red alert! Until further notice: Due to his recalcitrant and incorrigible attitude, there will be no more free English lessons for the facist-spouting neo-nazi, a.k.a. thekorean.
외국 does not mean “outside of Korea.”
Try writing it as 外国 and reconsider.
What I mean is it’s speaker-relative. Otherwise all Chinese and Japanese would be 外国 to themselves because they’re not Korean.
I am sure there are many expats on this blog who would say that you are displaying a classic ethnic Korean behavior as a sore loser by resorting to irrelevant personal attacks. I wouldn’t say that, but I’m sure many others would.
Robin, there are many Sino-Korean words that deviated from their Chinese character meanings via repeated usage, 외국 being one of them.
That include those illegals who are paid in cash? There’s a lot of ‘em.
I agree that US immigration policy is a joke. Allowing illegals to dictate the terms of “fixing” it isn’t the solution, though. Their vested interest isn’t the same as a citizen’s.
Of course some illegals do benefit the economy. After scrapping the minimum wage I propose the US allow 200 million Chinese in so that it can compete w/ the other 1 billion+.
Oh of course Robin. If you put it that way, you are correct.
All the Koreans I know think a green traffic light is blue. It’s so obviously green, yet…
Human-constructed identities are not permanent or set in stone. I wonder if other native-born KAs likewise distinguish themselves from 1.0, 1.5, and 1.75 generation immigrants. The problem with using gyopo in an English sentence is that it appears to replace a more appropriate English term, Korean-American. There IS a difference. 8675309 probably feels more kinship with his fellow Americans of other ethnic backgrounds than he would with a group of jaeil gyopo or joseonjok.
I just sent USCIS Ju Hong’s info.
Buh-bye.
@8675309:
You may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but what term do you use in Korean to identify KAs?
Right, so when people claim that 外国 means “outside of Korea” or “non-Korean” versus “foreign” or “etranger” it’s clearly because they’re being Korea-centric. It’s so clear once spelled out like this that there’s no resisting. This is precisely a linguistic manifestation of the group-think that causes Koreans many headaches in relating to the rest of the world.
Isn’t it obvious that Korean language is Korea-centric? How else would it be?
Headaches without trying, I should add, and I don’t mean to suggest that everyone else who’s not Korean doesn’t have their particular cultural problems either. TK you wrote a nice blog entry about how to criticize Koreans; I guess this advance falls into the “brute force” category, and hope it’s not too annoying. A similar but maybe less-clear manifestation might be Koreans’ insistence that Catholics aren’t Christians. Koreans are insisting that their local jargon, using borrowed words by the way, is universally correct.
No, sorry, not obvious that Korean should be Korea-centric. That is merely a detail of history. Other languages are far more universal in usage. In all major languages I can think of “foreigner” has a universal sense and the speaker is clearly aware that they are modifying the universal to fit the particular nationality, geography, etc.
Watching two Gyopos arguing about the definition of “Gyopo” is priceless! That’s right, 8675309. It doesn’t matter what you say. You’re a Gyopo whether you’re in America or Korea. You can call yourself “American,” but if you look at your census form from your US government, you don’t get to mark yourself off as just “American.” You check yourself off as “Korean American.” Unless you’re ready to divorce your ethnic heritage and claim yourself as anything other than Korean-whatever, you’ll always be a Gyopo. So, stop hating yourself and accept it.
Because our ecosystem can’t sustain that number and allow all one billion a decent quality of life.
I’m all for sticking to the dictionary definitions of words. Because despite what several of my ex-girlfriends think, words have meaning. However, I think The Korean’s (and the dictionary’s) use of 한 겨레 to prove his point over his counterpart is spurious. The concept of 한 나라 and 한 겨레 are for all intents and purposes subjective. 한겨레 is a myth. Several studies of genetics have shown that Koreans from areas like 경상남도 share more DNA in common with the people of Okinawa than they do with their “brothers” to the north. The long history of Mongolian, Chinese and Japanese invasion and the subsequent mixing of lines that goes along with that, as well as the peaceful integration of monks from India and former Vietnamese princes and their families into former kingdoms and states located on what is now referred to as the Korean Peninsula is evidence of how arbitrary this concept is. If the concept of “겨레” is as the dictionary indicates “같은 핏줄을 이어받은 민족” then those entitled to refer themselves as 한겨레 or 한민족 spread to all corners of the globe and all the way back to our shared primate ancestors (cue Christian rage). I think the most powerful point of argument that can be made though comes from the definitions themselves which continually use the phrase “우리나라” or “우리겨레.” “We” is a term that is defined by the individual in question, not that can be imposed on that person by an outside force.
When Koreans — the owners of Korean language — refer to 우리나라 or 우리겨레, they are obviously referring to Korea and ethnic Koreans. And that is indeed the dictionary definition.
But 외국인 does not just mean “foreigner”. Can you think of any other language that has a double meaning like 외국인?
Can you think of any other language that has a double meaning like 외국인?
But which double meaning is that? 외국인 is Chinese with a Korean accent.
As for dictionaries, in truth they are not good guides. I can also say “notre pays” to a bunch of French people and they know I mean France if they are French. The problem is that only Koreans ever speak Korean (except for me and a few other weirdos), so they are blind to these simple but incredibly important points (which I’ve maybe not been presenting as carefully or clearly as I should). Oori nara only says “Korea” in the dictionary because the writers of the dictionary are Korean and don’t assume a group of non-Koreans will be using the term outside Korea. However, they are still mistaken! Oori nara only means Korea if and when Koreans say it. *I* say oori nara to Koreans and they know I mean America.
I made a mistake also, because I said I could say “notre pays” to French people and they’d know I meant France, but they might also think I meant America. These terms are speaker-relative or subject/object dependent (I could come up with a good term after a beer maybe…) but the words themselves are universal to all of “our species” which as far as I understand, even in Korean (우리 수종) still includes non-Koreans. But even this is speaker relative. If a chimp were taught to say 우리 수종 she would be referring to chimps or if not would be speaking non-sense.
Dogbertt, yes, environmental concerns, though I’m not sure the US couldn’t handle a billion -Americans. I’m not an environmental scientist so I can’t say. But if they immigrated then it could be net neutral in theory, less there more here…
Holy s@#t I must be old. As I recall, giving the wrong information to a university got you beaten at the registrars office, while LYING about your SIN number or nationality was regarded as academic dishonesty and you were given the boot from higher education for 10 years. Lying and cheating of any kind was not welcome at that level, and you were shown the door. Fallen standards or failure of bureaucracy?
As for the hijack debate regarding the identity politics, who the f@#k cares? If you’re an American, and you can’t grasp the freedom to label yourself as you want, then you’re not much of an American. If you’re an American who is being labelled unfairly, having a label forced on them, or is being dictated to, go buy a gun. To defend your freedom to be who you want to be.
Well you’re only an American because of dumb luck, first, and second, what would you have done in his place, just not gone to college at all?
On the language and nationalism stuff I hope I don’t sound self-important, btw.
Some would say that since Americans’ lifestyle is more resource-intensive (i.e., greater use of energy, better food, more land, etc.) than that lived by the poor schmucks elsewhere in the world — like my family here in Seoul, where our six year-old daily driver is fast approaching 60,000 kilometers (37,300 miles) on the odometer! — it may not be a one-to-one trade.
That is actually a very good point Brendon.
When has bureaucracy NOT been a complete clusterfuck of incompetence?
Leaving aside the delicate question of whether illegal immigrants — or perhaps just as important, their US-born children — “work harder” than anyone else for a moment, I’ve got an easier solution, and one that, while I’ve yet to conduct a survey on the matter, I’m willing to bet the overwhelming majority of societies on the planet would chose simply as a matter of course. That would be to start enforcing the people’s laws on immigration. And yeah, it is stealing if B ended up winning the prize if B was unqualified to even participate in the first place.
The combatants are both gyopo AND American (or Korean-American, if you prefer), but one can’t be allowed to identify with one over the other? The argument is silly. Jenny identifies with being a KA, TK identifies with being a gyopo. Bully for both of them. But imposing an identity on someone else is a little presumptuous. (I identify with being just a Canadian, not a hyphenated Canadian despite my family’s insistence)
But can we agree that the Koreans in the OP are NOT Korean-American, and are incorrectly referred to as such? To be KA, you have to first be American, and they are not.
But immigration law is not something that’s set in stone. The Asian Exclusion Act was law at one time. And people are arguing that the current immigration law ought to be modified. For example, I would also be in favor of a modification that allows immediate permanent residence to illegals who have held down a regular job for about 5 continuous years without a criminal record. The DREAM act of course is a no brainer.
sambek_zx #51:
sambek_zx is exactly right and this is precisely what I meant by relative usage of the term — it’s correct in some circumstances when talking to certain types of people while unnecessary or superfluous in others. I couldn’t have said it better actually.
tk, #74:
Regardless of how you try to manipulate its meaning, I find it sad that after all the benefits of U.S. citizenship you currently enjoy, you still deign to call your adopted home country a “foreign country.” I don’t need to hear your silly argument that the U.S. is a “non-Korean” country — that is a foregone conclusion. Your specifically stating that you live in the U.S., or a 외국 — a foreign country — is clear enough.
We are not talking about double entendres here. We are talking about secondary definitions.
Sonagi #63:
I totally agree, which is why I encourage everyone to develop their own identity regardless of what others say. (see the movie with Ellen Paige, Whip It.
Sometimes this can be a matter of life of death. Succumbing to other people’s definition of who they think you are or allowing facists like our uncle tom “thekorean” to create clever canards to pigeonhole you into his social Darwinian categories, is no different from what the Nazis did to Jews and those they deemed “inferior” at places like Dachau, Buchenwald and Auschwitz.
I deplore the act of depriving someone of their inherent right to self identify according to their own value system. Our basic human right for self identification as well as self determination is one of our constitutional rights ingrained in our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This is especially so for Korean Americans, and any other immigrants who have experienced a brutal and genocidal civil war like the Korean War…
FYI — before and during the Korean War, there were hundreds of thousands of innocent South Koreans, who through no act of their own or through complete ignorance, inadvertently got caught up in government roundups and dragnets trawling for suspected communists. Most of these people were either falsely accused by neighbors, illiterate peasants tricked into admitting they were communists in exchange for undefined benefits/promises, or just fanciful simpletons who didn’t even know what a communist was but just to be agreeable, said they were communists.
Of course when Syngmann Rhee got wind on day two of the war that he had potentially hundreds of thousands of suspected South Korean commies sitting in his jails as close as Daejon, fearing behind-the-lines reprisals, or fifth-columnist sabotage, in a knee-jerk panic and fear-mongering response, he ordered all of these people summarily executed with nary a trial.
That’s why we must be wary of people like “thekorean”, whose indoctrination and brainwashing at the highest echelons of the Korean educational system has made him culturally janus-faced — one second he’s as American as can be. The next second, he’s a Korean fascist espousing eugenics and Korean-style social Darwinism. His infiltration of English-speaking Korean expat blogs is reminiscent of how the Nazis infiltrated English-speaking SS troops behind-the-lines posing as G.I.s during the Battle of the Bulge.
Sonagi #63:
True true. I couldn’t agree more.
Sonagi #65:
In Korean, I would call myself “jae-mi gyopo.” But like I said, I have no problem calling myself a gyopo in Korea.
tk #73:
First, Koreans are not the “owners of Korean language.” That is the most fascist statement I’ve heard all night. Koreans are simply the progenitors. or even the gatekeepers of hangeul. As language does not a tangible entity, I would say that it lacks physical owners. However, it could be said that whoever speaks Korean is a part owner of the language. Regardless, the idea of owning a language is ridiculous at best, as language is and always has been an intangible commodity and a personal thing. Once it becomes yours, it transcends ownership.
In fact, any language you learn automatically becomes yours although it’s helpful to remember from where it came.
Second, you seem to have no concept of the difference between denotation and connotation, let alone literal meaning and figurative meaning. The literal meaning of 우리나라 according to its denotation — or dictionary definition is “our country.” The figurative meaning according to its connotation — or its colloquial usage in South Korea — is exactly that, Korea.
True. But then again, no law is. That’s no reason for the authorities to fail to enforce them. If the people don’t like the immigration laws, they can change them the way you’d change any other law. Until such time, however, they should expect to see those laws enforced without 12—20 million illegal foreigners running around their country.
It p*ssed me of no end, being referred to as a 외국인 when living in Australia.
For heaven’s sakes man, I *know* I am not Korean, but in my own country I am *not* a foreigner, too! Have some perspective.
At least, in their worst colonial arrogance, the Brits called their subjects “locals” or “natives” or some not-so-nice epithet.
Just in case anyone noticed, Immigration law is a red-flag issue for Robert.
I think we have seen more individual comments and more lines of comment in total from Robert in this thread than average.
Darth Babaganoosh #83:
Darth, you hit the nail on the head and I agree with you 100%. The Koreans in the op are NOT KAs of any kind — they are transients or yuhaksaeng ostensibly on J-1 student visas or some other type of non-immigrant tourist/student visa. I already reiterated that in my experience living in the Chicago KA community, such yuhaksaeng are socially, economically, politically, morally and psychologically different than your prototypical 1st or 2nd generation KA. Not only do we not socialize with them, we avoid each other at all costs. And, interestingly enough, you would be hard pressed to find a marriage between a KA and a Yuhaksaeng in the U.S. Everyone knows they’d never work out.
I totally agree — the idea of me caving into thekorean’s definition of gyopo is absurd. I would never do it on principle alone. That said, even though we are both KA, thekorean is inherently more fobby in his thinking than I am– being that he completed his formal education in Korea, and he’s only been in he U.S. for about a decade (or 1.0 generation).
On the other hand, I was born and raised here, as well as served in U.S. Army for four year as a 11B, which trumps any feelings I had of being Korean. Because of these differences, I usually would never talk to someone like thekorean in the U.S., and I know for certain that thekorean wouldn’t deign to talk to someone like me — ever. Under normal circumstances, we’d keep to our own crowds….
I know, that’s why I love commenting in this thread. Glad you can finally join in Robert! I can finally ditch that stupid argument I was having just to pass time. It’s boring to speak with an idiot.
But America became the best country in the world precisely by refusing to do what the overwhelming majority of societies on the planet would choose. You have to make an argument about why the current immigration law is a good idea in the first place. (And I don’t think it is, obviously.)
But there was no reason why B was unqualified to participate, but for the accident of birth. Depriving people of opportunities because of the accident of birth — what is more anti-American than that? And after B has amply proven himself to be someone who is most likely to contribute to America, why stop him from joining the team?
tk, #90:
Take’s one to know one, doesn’t it? And this from the mouth of person who just the other day compared a person’s appearance with Down’s syndrome. You are a sicko.
Here we go again you two-faced Korean with your Uncle Tom pandering. And this is the same guy who calls America a “foreign country”?
Not only is thekorean a total Uncle Tom, he’s a hypocrite to boot! One second he’s imperiously telling ME who I AM, even though he doesn’t know me from Adam, the next second he’s kow-towing to Robert, kissing his ass, and playing the classic Uncle Tom advocating for the rights of Americans? What a fucking hypocrite!
Topics reminds me of this topic:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/11/01/drivers-licences-for-illegal-immigrants/
Cute, I drove you over the edge I see.
No, I call America 외국, as in “a country that is not Korea” according to the dictionary.
1. I know enough about you to call you a gyopo. It is a simple term that applies to you according to the dictionary. You are “caving” to nothing, and you are losing nothing. That’s all I have been telling you so far, and it’s so strange to see you going over the edge for that.
2. I seriously doubt that any conservative like Robert would think that I am making an Uncle Tom argument.
Why in the world would reasonable people want to spend millions in tax money on trying to make sure that good hardworking people are disallowed from entering the country through more efficient means than are currently allowed by the current inefficient system? These are the very people the descendants of whom will provide the tax base necessary to support you in your old life. They are part of the equation that allows us to avoid a declining population rate. You should be thanking them, not rejecting them.
외국인 is a Chinese character word.
I think that is the problem with the Chinese character derived Korean words, for example, sometimes the actual construct/meaning of the characters have just lost its strict and original definition. It’s almost like how people use the characters to name their children, e.g. Koreans would think of the meaning beautiful lotus? when they say out loud a name like 미연. I guess in Chinese or even in Japanese this is different, you see the name constructed in Chinese character, I guess they also see the meaning so an English speaking person can and will sometimes refer to this woman in story books as “Beautiful Lotus” but in the Korean language it’s much less so. No one really thinks of what the characters might mean when they say it, it’s just become more phonetic.
Being referred to as 외국인 especially in their own countries, I think it’s just more laughable than something to be offended for, in that sense, because we have long stopped associating 바깥나라 사람 to 외국인, rather it’s just warped to become a term to use for those who are not oriental looking, because 일본인 and 중국인 sometimes get left out from 외국인. Oops, oriental, that’s another thread.
correction Koreans would think of the meaning -> Koreans do NOT usually think of the meaning when the call out
I like to think it’s the Americans who are the owners of the Korean language, and I reckon most ought to agree with me. Pawi and others have repeatedly told us the Japs were practicing a cultural genocide, and if Korean culure wasn’t yet on the precipice, it was getting close. The tumble to oblivion was inevitable, Mr.
IchinoseJun.That being said, when the English – the owners of the English language – say “pay up polliwog”, they mean it.
250,000….sounds likes a perfect start. Baby steps, for learning purposes. Plus, they’ll be deported to a relatively successful country that ought to be able to take care of its own – hasn’t the US taken in enough of your tossed away children? Have to provide opportunities for the adults also? Enough of the free ride, welfare queens. Has the US got some backbone?
Not sure if anyone mentioned this above in a thread that went semantic pretty early on, but think of the economic ramifications from all the places named Lotus or Jade Massage shutting down if they somehow managed to find and deport all these illegal Koreans. We’d have to send WangKon on another fact-finding mission to determine the effect on the price of certain *cough* services *cough*.
Chinese and Japanese likewise use 外国人 in an ethnocentric manner.
Fixed it for you.
Right, that’s what made America great — mass Third World immigration.
Actually, the beauty of this is that I don’t. If I were arguing to change the law, I would. In fact, I do think immigration policy needs to be changed — albeit, I’d imagine, in a very, very different direction that the one you might propose — but that’s neither here nor there. I just want to see the people’s will on immigration enforced. That’s all.
To borrow Brian (?)’s turn of phrase, Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, are you serious? An “accident of birth?” That’s usually how this whole “nationality” thing works — you become a national of the country in which you’re born. Now, sometimes, you can move to another country and change that, depending on the laws of the countries involved. Going bankrupt and getting divorced in your home country, then taking your two kids to a wealthier country with what seems to me the clear intention to violate its immigration law, subvert its population policy and
take advantage of state servicesmake the most of its opportunities (see Mr. Ju/Hong) is generally frowned upon by most states, unless of course you’re a Western liberal democracy with a post-colonial guilt complex, in which case it’s welcome aboard!Seriously, though, an “accident of birth?” Hey, 111 million people live in Mexico. Why deny them the benefits of tax payer-funded K-12 education and Obamacare due to a mere “accident of birth,” in this case, being born Mexican nationals in Mexico? They have just as great a right to tax payer-funded services as Mr. Chu, after all. What about all those people in Somalia we’re denying opportunities to on account of their land of birth? Good Lord, it’s just so… un-American!
Beautiful argument, Robert. But I just have to make one point – it’s not Brian’s turn of phrase…it belongs to all of us who use it.
If you are making an argument that laws should be enforced, you would get no objection from me. But clearly, your argument goes farther.
Put yourself in the 18th century: “That’s usually how this whole “government” thing works — you become a subject of the king for the kingdom in which you’re born. Now, sometimes, you can move to another kingdom and change that, depending on the laws of the kingdoms involved. Going bankrupt and getting divorced in your kingdom, then taking your two kids to a kingless colony with what seems to me the clear intention to violate your monarch’s sovereignty, subvert his dominion and take advantage of his good will to make the most of its opportunities (see Mr. Franklin/Jefferson) is generally frowned upon by most kingdoms, unless of course you’re America, the greatest country on eart. In which case it’s welcome aboard!”
My point is that America has become great by taking a radically different path from other countries’. We can do the same with immigration law.
That’s a good question. I don’t see why either. Many of them want to be in America, they want to have jobs, they want our way of life and they want to contribute to our country. Why do we deny them? It makes no sense.
(To be sure, I am not talking about any “right,” or any moral imperative attendant to that term. I just think it is a very good idea to have much more open immigration policy.)
Also, your tax argument is a red herring. I addressed it earlier because your presumption that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes is incorrect. But if all you care about is taxes, there are ways to tax illegal immigrants. The issue is squarely about whether or not it is a good idea to take immigrants, or not.
You keep forgetting about all the illegals who don’t pay taxes, and it ain’t onesie twosie numbers. Why is that?
That being said, shall the US forgive other criminals, say loan sharks or human trafficers or bookies or any other ne’er-do-well that honestly reports his/her ill-gotten gains? Hmm.
Because, like I said, that issue is an irrelevant red herring. Immigration issue does not depend on taxes.
‘Scuse me, but who wrote this: “Illegal immigrants pay taxes, because the taxes are taken out of their payroll like everyone else.”
That gets a free pass and goes unchallenged?
When 40 – 60% aren’t paying up it’s very relevant.
Of course, illegal immigration is more a crime issue, and since they broke the law, they ought to face the consequences.
Yes Sonagi as I think and look this morning I see that you’re right so thanks for pointing that out. My mistake. There are caveats and qualifiers still so maybe if I have a chance I’ll look more closely. That said I’m still not convinced that this ethnocentric usage isn’t fundamentally illogical and I tend to think it should consciously change. Likewise Americans for example have stopped using “oriental” even though it originally only meant “eastern,” and it would seem that there’s nothing easier than for entire peoples to make mistakes in these areas. Let me ask you then, do you think the ethnocentric aspect is fundamental to the words, or is it a colloquialism? Is the “nation” of “guk” geographic or ethnic? How should non-native speakers use the words?
If taxes was the only issue you cared about, you would find a way to tax the illegal immigrants instead of rounding them up and deporting them — thereby spending even more tax dollars.
Sure. And I said some amount of fine will do.
@theKorean
You are contradicting yourself, first you state that the current immigration laws are “arbitrary, nonsensical, and contrary to America’s interests.” And therefore illegal immigrants should get off with paying a simple fine.
But then you say
“If you are making an argument that laws should be enforced, you would get no objection from me.”
See the problem? Because the law doesn’t state that illegal immigrants should simply pay a fine, it states in most cases that they should get out of America.
So which is it? Do you think we should enforce the laws, or that they are nonsensical and therefore illegal immigrants should instead simply pay a “fine?”
Frankly I’m not sure how I feel, but your position seems very inconsistent.
There is no contradiction if you consider that the law does not act on its own; it depends on its particular enforcement patterns. The statement here:
“If you are making an argument that laws should be enforced, you would get no objection from me.”
… means that if Robert wants to make a general argument about law enforcement, I would not make any objection to that. As a general proposition, laws should be enforced. That’s a self-evident truth. But as I followed up, Robert is making an argument that goes farther.
The quesiton is HOW laws should be enforced. There are many laws that are not enforced absent a very serious violation. (e.g. speed limits, jaywalking in New York.) There are still other laws whose enforcement continues to be delayed because the goal of those laws is practically unattainable. (e.g. portions of No Child Left Behind Act.) Then there are still other laws whose enforcement is not at all carried out for decades because of political considerations. (e.g. Capital punishment by the federal government.) And each of the enforcement patterns has a good reason for it. It would be horrendous to live in a society where you get a speeding ticket for going 1 mile over the speed limit.
Robert is arguing that immigration law should be enforced like homicide — strict enforcement, few exceptions. I am arguing that immigration law should be enforced like traffic laws — flexible enforcement, catch-and-release.
And I must add that many people have this mistaken notion that all laws are to be enforced like laws against homicide, all the while driving 10 mph over the speed limit. Law enforcement is a little more complicated than that — vast majority of the laws on the books are NOT enforced like laws against homicide. Our lives will be hell otherwise.
I’m with thekorean on this and in fact am struck by those who accuse him of fascism while seemingly polishing the boots they’ll wear as they march across town deporting people.
Return on investment. One concern with unrestricted immigration and blanket amnesty is that not all comers are willing and/or able to support themselves and their families without long-term public assistance. Older adults in particular will not spend enough working years in the US to offset potential Medicare costs. This is true of legal immigrants, too. Social security payments are based on contributions, but eligibility for Medicare is not.
A fair number of undocumented workers would pay little or nothing in taxes after deductions. This does not mean that they contribute little or nothing to our economy.
Residing in the US unlawfully is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. Working unlawfully is a criminal offense, and knowingly using a false identification like a social security card is a felony.
As I think about Korean semantics, I’m getting quickly lost (I’m a 2-gen KA).
1. Is a KA a waegukin? Is a naturalized Korean citizen (not ethnically Korean) a waegukin?
2. How do Koreans refer to naturalized Korean citizens?
If the answers are what I suspect they will be then it will confirm my suspicions that the Korean language is so ethnocentric that one must assume a racial, if not a subtly racist, mindset to even think in the language.
According to all reputable reports, illegal immigrants will not be covered by the new health care reforms. As stated here and here.
Furthermore, according to this Knight Ridder/Tribune Service article (it’s from 2006, though I doubt the numbers have dramatically changed), a whopping two out of three illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes.
Is this enough to cover all of the burden illegal immigrants would put on the social welfare system? Perhaps.
1. No and no.
2. —계 한국인.
“Taking the native-born population as the standard, people aged 15 to 34 are substantially overrepresented among new immigrants, whereas those in the older age groups are significantly underrepresented.”
The New Americans at 54.
Does this allay that concern?
Agreed completely. That’s why the tax issue is a red herring.
Based on my knowledge of CJK languages, the ethnocentric aspect is not fundamental and can be changed.
Geographic. The Chinese character root for ethnicity is 族.
I use them in the same way I use their English counterparts. This is not incorrect.
About the burden of older immigrants on Medicare somewhat. We are already approaching zero balance and every liability counts. About the burden of young and middle-aged working immigrants unable to provide fully for their families, no.
Given Korea’s traditionally ethnically homogenous population, it is hardly suprising that 외국인 = non-Korean. It is ethnocentric, but it’s not racist.
@Sambek
How is it racist to categorize ethnic Koreans from non-Koreans? Know that 외국인 literally means a foreigner, but has the double context of meaning someone who is not ethnically Korean.
1) So, it’s possible for a Korean-American to be a 외국인, on technical terms, so that is why most Koreans refer to us as 교포들. But, in my opinion, a non-ethnic Korean, despite Korean citizenship status, is still a 외국인. So, someone like Charm Lee, is 한국사람같애 but still at the end of a day still a 외국인. It’s a non-inclusive term. I don’t think it makes you liberal or forward-thinking if you desire to change its useage, nor conservative if you think it should remain.
2) A lot of non-Koreans take offense to Koreans using the term 외국인 while in Canada or the U.S., but they are only translating the word directly into English. But I can’t answer No. 2, though say half-other ethnicity, half-Koreans I met while living in Seoul were always called 혼혈. According to Korean Wikipedia, they just list him as 독일계 한국인, a German-Korean (if my translation is correct–and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong) but a quick Naver search on his name presents a lot of search matches that refer to him as 외국인 고위직 이참 or 외국인이라불린 이참. So, I guess it varies.
Whoops, obviously I accidentally deleted a sentence in my answer to question 2, after I realized that I COULD answer question 2, but after doing a Naver search.
TK has the fastest response time, and I get the Apollo Ohno medal (bronze). Um, so TK, am I wrong to say that 외국인 in no case applies to me, even if to convey that I carry U.S., not Korean citizenship? It’s only used in regards to disctint those who do now own Korean citizenship (regardless of ethnicity) or Korean ethnicity?
If so, interesting.
Without immigrants, fertility rate would be below replacement level, thereby causing fiscal disaster down the road. Whatever extra financial burden you speak of is absolutely nothing compared to an entire new line of descendants made available to the US as a productive tax base.
But with immigrants, our population is growing and not just replacing itself. This is not something I desire. I support amnesty but a conditional one that requires would-be legal residents to demonstrate that they have been law-abiding and mostly self-supporting. I support amnesty if and only if coupled with immigration reform that scraps family visas except for spouses and minor children and introduces a unified point system that factors in family ties, education, English proficiency, and age. Immigration works only if a significant number of immigrants are low-investment, high-yield.
In that limited context, you are not wrong. In other words, you might be properly standing in the 외국인 line when you enter Korea, for example. But given that (Korean) people more often talk about Koreans-vs.-non-Koreans rather than citizenship, the dominant usage for the word 외국인 is about ethnicity, not about citizenship status — particularly because Koreans are more likely to use words like 시민권자 to speak about legal status.
As to naturalized Korean citizens who are non-ethnic Koreans, I would not be surprised if the ethnocentric definition of 외국인 is used colloquially. But at least in newspapers (which usually have a higher standard of Korean language,) –계 is much more frequently used. (e.g. 독일계 이참.)
While this is a lot more restrictive than my ideal scenario, it is far more attainable. So I can definitely get behind this.
But why? 1) there is so much empty space in this country it’s not even funny 2) I repeat, in terms of your financial worrying, population growth is absolutely good for the fiscal situation down the road for the foreseeable future 3) if pop growth really turns out to be a severe problem that all reasonable people will recognize, then we can always act *then*.
Takes a lot more than empty land to support a growing population. We need agriculture that increases yields yet remains sustainable. We need clean air and usable water.
1) I think most Americans like having their open space.
2) I’ve got an idea. Rather than import half of Latin America to pay for bankrupt entitlement programs, why don’t we just stop spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave?
3) Right, we call always act *then*. I’ve got news for you — most Americans recognize illegal immigration as a problem NOW, but can’t act because their government — and this goes for both Democrats and Republicans — won’t enforce immigration law, with whole cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. That is, when the Department of Justice isn’t out investigating Joe Arpaio. And that’s not, as The Korean suggests, like looking the other way when you do 66mph. It’s holding up a big middle finger to the American people, who by and large don’t want 12—20 million illegal foreigners in their country and the right — as any other nation does — to determine who gets in and who doesn’t and a say over the future of their own culture and society.
Wow. I’m just going to let that one stand as is.
Robert,
1) Openly spaced out people are more prone to getting depressed.
2) Most Americans like the entitlement programs and want them to survive.
3) If illegal immigration was as high on the priority list of americans as you make it seem to be, the government would have no choice but to act, because otherwise they would be voted out of office.
Sonagi,
I definitely agree water may be a problem. If it gets to a point where water is obviously a severe problem for the entire country, I would be in favor of limiting immigration to the point where population doesn’t increase.
1) It’s empty space for a reason: few, if any, want to live there. At least the German and Scandinavian immigrants got out of the way by going to Wisconsin, Minnesota and the Dakotas. 2) If that’s the goal then we ought only take immigrants from high population growth nations, such as those in the Middle East, the subcontinent, and Africa. Of course the US ought to refuse immigrants from nations w/ very low pop growth, to help them out. 3) Ahhhh, just like other things that have become too big to fix.
we are in BIG trouble. Let’s not wait until it gets that bad.
And I overlooked this earlier:
Act then? And do what? Deport legal residents? Abolish immigration altogether? Sterilize people? You seem to prefer to wait for serious problems to manifest themselves. I tend to think it’s better to solve or at least arrest problems before they get worse.
Gads. Really, just mind blowingly…gads.
Nah, just deny them water. Whoops, wait a moment, there won’t be any water anyway. Fait accompli.
JW, you ought watch Soilent Green. Bon appetit.
1) Why is water per gallon still dirt cheap in california? From a couple websites I looked at, it seems to be less than 0.00 cents per gallon.
2) It may be better for the country to seek greater efficiency in water usage alongside continued immigration rather than same efficiency and no immigration. Matter fact, considering all the other benefits of immigration like a sustaining population rate, I think most reasonable people would choose the former option.
Wait a fucking minute. Gas, oil, and electricity is MUCH more expensive than water, and you don’t see anyone making no argument saying that we should restrict immigration on their account. Sneaky motherfuckers you people are, getting me all confused and shit.
As a former sailor, I take exception to your characterization of runaway Federal spending (half of every dollar spent this year will be borrowed, much of it from wretched Chinese peasants) as being like a “drunken sailor on shore leave”. That’s insulting.
Drunken sailors, when they’re out of money, stop spending.
Plus sailors spend their money on essentials like whores and booze. The Federal government just wastes it.
Sorry, Brendon. It’s made its way into today’s popular English vernacular.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spend%20like%20a%20drunken%20sailor%20on%20shore%20leave
Robert’s suggestion, that spending money on large-scale entitlement programs is akin to the way that sailors spend when drunk, could be viewed as something of compliment to the altruistic nature of drunken sailors.
Look people…its real simple.
The modern descendants of those who basically got tons of free land in the 1800s, ala the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889, or slaughtered the Natives and confined the rest to reservations gets to make the rules and decide who gets in and what not, OK? And that’s that.
Don’t worry, he’s probably an obese type 2 diabetic with already advanced endothealic syndrome. He’ll be gone soon anyway. Let’s just hope it’s before the new health plan kicks in and the rest of us have to pay for his lifetime life support.
Hey Robert, is it legal on this board to wish for someone’s premature death? I think I deserve an apology from grandpa.
BTW, I’ve begun to lose weight by running every day and eating nothing but rice and 콩자반. Asshole.
LOL; must have hit a nerve. And if you want an apology, come and get it, tough guy – oh wait, tough guys don’t ask other people to defend their non-existent honor for them.
Sorry, I didn’t exactly plan my life around being a tough guy. You go on lifting those weights gramps, cuz I for one do not hope that your wife is bereft of a husband for too long due to your premature death.
ROTFLMAO; I didn’t think so. BTW don’t let all that envy and resentment aggravate your ulcer – I don’t want to have indirectly to pay for your perpetual supply of H2 blockers and proton pump inhibitors either.
Lol… see what wikipedia has done to everyday internet conversations?
et voila! Netizen Kim and family are in.
New rules are needed.
Endothealic syndroms? Now you are just making up words. Do you mean atherosclerosis?
Sorry to confound you, Bum, but I learned about such stuff from a book by Louie Ignarro, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1998, and from some follow-up conversations I was able to have with him courtesy of my wife, who does some commercial work with him from time to time.
ink:
I did make a transposition. Endothealic dysfunction is one of three elements that Ignarro includes in his category of Sedentary-Inflammatory Syndrome. The other two are obesity and diabetes. As i understand it, endothealia includes atherosclerosis but covers a wider array of problems with the lining of the blood vessels that are often sloppily subsumed under the heading of atherosclerosis by what Ignarro considers the misconceived overemphasis of the medical establishment on symptoms rather than underlying causes of disease, many of which he attributes to fundamental nutritional deficiencies and unbalances.
And thus his endosements with herbalife……
I wonder why as an advisor on their “scientific board” he didn’t recommend running any randomly control trials so people like me could feel comfortable prescribing herbal supplements.
I wikied him.
Not trying to be overly smarmy but calling sedantry-inflammatory- syndrome a syndromes doesn’t make it so. They need to be recognised by the body of medical practitioners. Although based on his research and prestige he is more than qualified to try, it hasn’t been recognised more accepted terms are metabolic syndrome x.
And thanks for sending me on that wiki expidition. One day when I am being grilled by a cardiologist that will come in useful.
he uses that term too; but has coined the new one simply, I think, as a sort of common language aid to understanding – the medical profession is way behind their professional cousins in rendering their unnecessarily obscure technical jargon into plain English.
Isn’t (one of the) the biggest problem(s) with herbal supplements the difficulty of controlling dosage? I don’t think Ignarro is a proponent of “herbals” per se, i.e., naturally-occurring elements in naturally-occurring form, so much as supplementation with naturally-occurring elements directly derived from natural sources and processed to ensure purity and standardization of strength. His real interest is in the significance of nutirion. I’m no expert – which doesn’t stop me from experimenting with some of this stuff on myself on the basis of the best info I can obtain — but my impression is that in fact there is an awful lot of data out there about such supplements. At least one such supplement marketed by herbalife, e.g., in fact, is based on the research on nitric oxide for which he got the Nobel. There also is a wealth of data available about the essential and “non-essential” amino acids (and about the synthetic analogues thereof, i.e., steroids and pro-hormones). Of course, there are also a lot of claims made for various substances for which there is at best anecdotal data available. In my experience, doctors generally are as poorly informed about such information as most everyone else and so have no authority to speak thereon and certainly shouldn’t enjoy as as gatekeepers.
In response to TK, I think the illegal Koreans should not only be fined but they should also be told you cannot receive any immigration paperwork until they file at the US Embassy in Korea. They should wait two hours in the line that wraps around the entire building surrounded by riot police just like every other Korean immigrant.
Plus they will not be eligible to receive a proper visa until they pay the fine and if they remain in the US and continue to violate immigration laws than the fine should increase. There would be no need for deportations because illegals would voluntarily go back to their home countries to get their visa status in the proper manner.
However, this all should be incorporated with improvements in the BCIS in regards to the paperwork process and the horrid customer service which makes the TSA folks at the airport seem pleasant in comparison.
I have absolutely no objection to that GI. In fact, 100 out of 100 illegal immigrants will immediately take that option if they can get amnesty out of that.
Remember, a huge problem is that if you EVER overstayed your visa, you cannot come to America at all for the next 10 years, not even as a tourist. This incentivizes illegal immigrants who would have otherwise left America to stay.
Simply deport illegal immigrants?
That is the most facist statement I’ve heard in a long while!
Life is about compromises. While following the rules should be the principle, life is full of gray areas, where the intent of the rule should be considered more carefully than the literal enforcement of the rules. USA has become the great nation it is today because of its vision, generosity, and focus on human rights. That is what still makes the country “the land of opportunites” for many immigrants; legal or illegal. What is up with the petty, small minded comments of lost jobs and lost academic positions? Is this what has become of “legal” US citizens? Promote the rules, improve the rules but never be enslaved by the rules. They are the means to an end, not an end to themselves. Think of the families, the individuals that will suffer personally by bline enforcement of the rules. With high unemployment rates (10% last time I checked) and the aftermath of the financial meltdown, I can imagine that the emotions are running high and the search for scape goats is a human reflex. But please reflect on the fact that many comments I’ve seen here today are the very issues you criticize Koreans for. There is a bad aroma of xenophobia, us vs. them, blame-the-outsider reflex going on right here.
Uh-oh, have I just joined tK in front of the firing squad?
I never said Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, I always say Jesus Tapdancing Christ, something I got from South Park.
Thomas Friendman wrote in The World is Flat: ”
We should pin a green card to any foreign student who comes here and gets a Ph.D.”
And that’s something I can get behind. I wouldn’t go so far as to extend that to students who earn Master’s, but I’d think about it. He talks about ”
our ability to cream off the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world remains one of our great competitive advantages” and that’s something we really need, in a time where America isn’t so great, and there aren’t many reasons to leave home countriese for it. Students from immigrant families are among the top achievers in science, as Friedman’s latest column talks about, and the rest of us have a lot to learn from them. It’s impossible for any American to be too anti-immigration without sounding ridiculous.
Nobody worth listening to is anti-immigration, but there’s good reason to be against illegal immigration, and it’s a little condescending to act like Americans are the ones with the problems if they don’t like it. Americans don’t like competing with illegal immigrants in their own countries, and they’re certainly within their rights to not want to.
Oh, and just to respond to “there is so much empty space in this country it’s not even funny.” Well, we don’t really need illegal immigrants to eat up that space, “developers” are doing a fine enough job. More and more that empty space is found in cities, while fields and forests in the suburbs are being bulldozed for stripmalls, office parks, and parking lots that will sit half vacant because there are six identical ones up and down the road.
I wonder if the Korean’s attitude might change if he had to worry about his life on the same roads as this: http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=434945 as it is an everyday event in the lower Rio Grande Valley. I’d also like to point out the over half of the murders committed in Hidalgo County, Texas this year have been committed by illegal aliens.
Even with the high unemployment rate, things are much worse south of the border, and an amnesty now will only lead to more and more headed north because now they know amnesty will become common place every decade or so.
And now I can’t even go to my local Wal-mart anymore because we have illegal aliens engaged in kidnapping and execution-style killings in front of it: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/style-36488-charged-survives.html
By the way, did the U.S. all of a sudden stop its “legal” immigration of over 1 million people a year (Robin–that adds up to a billion over the next 1000 years, but I don’t know where the jobs will come from with 10% unemployment)? And are any other countries as open to this type of large-scale immigration as the U.S. actually is?
John, I sincerely doubt that those things happen EVERY day. At any rate, the 105 Freeway near where I used to live LA has a car chase nearly every two weeks, and I have been close proximity to them a few times — they are pretty orderly affairs. You just pull over for a bit.
More immigration (legal OR illegal) in a given area generally decreases crime rate. Given the broader trend, to the extent there is an exception to that trend it would be wiser to look at causes other than immigration.
John, you don’t seriously believe that America will have 10% unemployment for the next THOUSAND years?? At any rate, with liberal immigration policy, people can come and, more importantly, GO AWAY when jobs become scarce in America. As it is now, because the penalty for overstaying visa is so harsh that people who would have left are staying. It makes no sense.
America has around 307 million people and take in a little more than 1 million each year. Canada as 33 million people and take in around 250,000 people each year. Proportionally much bigger, but hardly a hell on earth.
Geez, illegals come to our country to do the dirty work for us, and all you people can say is, get the fuck out. Have some goddamn decency for goodness sake.
Sure. How about, “Get the fuck out, and take your anchor babies with you”?
Wouldn’t want to break up families after all.
Actually, Robert, I would be interested to read you explicitly say should be done with children of illegal immigrants who were either born in the US or brought their at a young age, when all they know is life in the US.
Korean, it is happening everyday of the week down in the “Rio Grande” Valley, although it is a toss up as to whether it will be illegals or drugs.
You can read about it here from one of the local TV stations: http://www.krgv.com/default.aspx
Right now, everyone is on edge and worried about a bunch of escaped criminals from a Mexican prison across from Brownsville coming across the border: http://www.krgv.com/news/local/story/Search-Continues-for-Mexican-Escapees/-tDNuBBsVUKTJB3oYSeCiA.cspx
I’ll bite: Let their parents assume responsibility for them, like parents everywhere else in the world.
This already happens. Parents can and do uproot their children and move them to another country.
U.S. population in 1970: 203 million
U.S. population in 2010 (est.): 308 million
The rate over the past 40 years is more than twice what you assert. You using “new math”?
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing.html
Of course, not all that is the result of immigration, but it’s the overall increase, fueled by unchecked immigration and the excessive breeding rate of immigrants, that’s relevant.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 2 trackbacks }