|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| jazzmaster wrote: |
| Now you've moved away from the whole of North Korea coming to live in South Korea |
We're talking about the influx of 27 million refugees through reunification and them becoming S. Korean citizens overnight ala East Germany. Not them packing up and driving through the DMZ like the Beverly Hillbillies.
| Quote: |
| I seem to recall Saenuri riding an anti-American wave to get them into office. |
You recalled wrong. Saenuri has always backed the ROK-US alliance.
| Quote: |
| Nothing you've said changes the fact that the very policies you referred to as "xenophobic" are the result of the majority of Korean voters agreeing with them. Immigration isn't a major topic in Korea because the immigration policy is already "xenophobic" |
Xenophobia is not solely in their policies. It is also found in the motivations of the people running and voting for those parties. Anti-immigration is those far-right parties raison d'etre. It is not the raison d'etre of any Korean party. That is significant.
| Quote: |
| It's time to face the facts about everything else. |
You haven't faced any facts. You don't even grasp Saenuri's stance and you've mistaken the forest for the trees. Yes, Saenuri might share a few similarities with far-right parties. It also has MASSIVE differences. They are the party that has signed free trade agreements, supports the continued presence of foreign troops on its soil and has relatively more liberal policies in regards to immigration and English. The far right also does some things that Saenuri here does not want to do. The far right wants to ban veils and minarets, and is opposed to international coalition efforts for peace and security. They also tend not to support the social programs and environmental regulation that Saenuri would do. Those differences are what makes it distinctly different. You tried to shoehorn Korean politics into a traditional western left-right dichotomy, but that simply doesn't work here. A car and bicycle both have wheels and make you go somewhere, that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Same with Korean political parties and far-right Euro parties.
Also, there are people who vote on this forum. I know Captain Corea has mentioned voting before, for Hanara, Saenuri's predecessor, is he a xenophobe? I believe TJ votes as well, possibly for Minju as I seem to recall him and CC going at it over politics, though I could be mistaken. Are they voting for xenophobia and rabid far-right nationalism? Or are they voting for schools, taxes, and health care? |
Get your facts straight:
| Quote: |
| The FN is a classic extreme right-wing party, similar to Britain's BNP, campaigning on a ticket of national preference, law and order, and anti-immigration. |
And since you like looong posts:
| Quote: |
Immigration:
-A reduction in legal immigration to France from the current 200,000 a year to 10,000.
-A ban on automatic immigration rights to join a spouse or family member residing legally in France.
-An end to the European Schengen Area, which gives free cross-border movement, and reinstatement of border checks.
-A toughening of the requirements to get French citizenship, which the FN says should not be automatic, while insisting that applicants demonstrate a strong commitment to France and its language.
-Zero tolerance of illegal immigration and an end to illegal immigrants’ rights to remain in France if they have been in the country for a given period.
-Priority to be given to French citizens over foreigners for jobs and for social housing.
-Banning dual nationality for non-Europeans, which would particularly affect citizens of former French colonies in Africa.
Justice and security:
-The justice department to be given a 25% increase in funding.
-The creation of 40,000 new prison places.
-The deportation of foreign criminals once new treaties have been negotiated with their countries so that sentences can be served abroad.
-A referendum to give the French public the choice between reinstating full-life terms or the death penalty.
-Police to have “legitimate defence” when using their firearms or using force against suspects.
-Doubling the number of police officers in France’s anti-crime squads.
-Giving police greater power to tap phones and Internet communications.
Culture and the French language:
-Maintained support for France’s cultural exceptionalism, which favours the French audio-visual industry against foreign (mostly US) competition.
-Aggressive promotion of the French language internationally to restore French influence abroad. “Language and power go hand in hand,” reads the party’s manifesto.
-Fighting against the growing ubiquity of English in international standards and filing of patents.
-Overturning laws restricting Internet use, such as legislation against file sharing.
Family:
-Family benefits, including child support, to be only available to French families (or where at least one parent is French).
-Guaranteeing the freedom of women to have abortions.
-Promotion of traditional family values, especially in terms of parenthood. The FN would overturn laws allowing gay marriage and adoption, believing that existing legislation for civil partnerships (PACS) is perfectly adequate.
Europe:
-The FN would seek to re-negotiate all EU treaties in order to claw back national sovereignty.
-Take back full control of the country’s frontiers.
-Establish primacy of national laws over European laws.
-Leave the Euro.
-Create a French agricultural policy and leave the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for which France is, in fact, a net beneficiary.
Foreign policy:
-While rejecting an increasingly harmonious European Union, the FN would like to see the creation of a Pan-European Union of Sovereign States, to include Russia and Switzerland, but specifically not Turkey.
-The creation of a trilateral alliance between France, Germany and Russia.
-The renegotiation of all economic relationships with former colonies (particularly in Africa) in order to force these countries to reduce immigration towards France.
-Help French firms invest in Africa in order to counter growing Chinese, Indian and Latin American influence there.
-Investment to make France a maritime power, in both the private and public sectors, to include new submarines and a second aircraft carrier.
-Promotion of France’s nuclear capability as “the ultimate deterrent”.
Industry, employment and taxation:
-Huge investment in re-industrialisation of France which would be overtly protectionist and counter to the EU’s free trade ethos.
-A toughening of import duties to protect French manufacturers.
-Support, including tax breaks, to small and medium-sized business.
-Simplification of the tax code with an income tax ceiling of 46% for the highest earners, coupled with a decrease in employment tax.
-A reduction of VAT to 5.5 percent for essential goods, and an increase beyond the current percent nor non-essential luxury products.
|
So not their raison d'etre. (Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.)
And still with the BS about immigration from the North. One, it ain't happening anytime soon and two, those are Koreans, not foreigners, so an entirely different kettle of fish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Anti-immigration is those far-right parties raison d'etre. It is not the raison d'etre of any Korean party. That is significant. |
Steelrails, I don't think that is exactly true. Yes, in popular media it's not necessarily uncommon to see these parties reductively caricatured as nothing but "anti-immigration," but that's so that their broader platforms (which are generally both complex and, on a point-by-point basis, contain a lot which would appeal to the common citizen) can be summarily dismissed as "racist" by people who want to control the terms of public political debate. There are some differences, of course, but those are largely geopolitical in character. For example, yes, South Korea hosts American troops, but were it not for the fact that it's got a hostile neighbor directly to its north with whom conflict could plausibly flare up in a very short time frame, those troops would not be tolerated. That South Korea has managed to temper its nationalistic inclinations with some degree of pragmatism does them credit, but it doesn't mean those nationalistic incliantions aren't there, nor that they don't determine policy in a number of other fields. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, I don't think that is exactly true. Yes, in popular media it's not necessarily uncommon to see these parties reductively caricatured as nothing but "anti-immigration," but that's so that their broader platforms (which are generally both complex and, on a point-by-point basis, contain a lot which would appeal to the common citizen) can be summarily dismissed as "racist" by people who want to control the terms of public political debate. There are some differences, of course, but those are largely geopolitical in character. For example, yes, South Korea hosts American troops, but were it not for the fact that it's got a hostile neighbor directly to its north with whom conflict could plausibly flare up in a very short time frame, those troops would not be tolerated. That South Korea has managed to temper its nationalistic inclinations with some degree of pragmatism does them credit, but it doesn't mean those nationalistic incliantions aren't there, nor that they don't determine policy in a number of other fields. |
Well, I do think that sometimes the media does try to paint the Eurosceptic parties as racist and its inappropriate. UKIP springs to mind as they have sought very much to distance themselves from the more xenophobic right-wing parties out there, based on what I've seen. For them, issues of sovereign control of the economy are as much a part of their platform as any immigration issue. On the other hand you have parties, such as Geert Wilders' party that were either directly formed as a response to immigration issues or made immigration the center of their party's platform. I think its always important to look at what is at the core of the party's platform and what most motivates people to vote for that party.
While they may adopt a platform on other issues, such as health care or education or taxes, we have to examine whether those are primary or secondary motivations. Typically, voters would generally line up with one of the more mainstream parties if they were particularly concerned about taxes or social services. They would likely find a greater number of people who shared their views and better networks to promote their view. Even in parliamentary systems you might simply have a faction within a party that differed on a key issue or in more divergent political arenas, 2 mainline parties each to the left or right or perhaps a prominent 3rd party that would seek to have its voice heard by being part of a coalition government.
In the end, it seems that some sort of anti-immigration and/or Euroscepticism viewpoint is their dominant motivation for supporting those parties.
As for Korea, it is this very same motivation that would force me not to lump Saenuri in with some sort of far-right anti-immigration party, even though they may have some positions in common. People support that party for reasons other than immigration. There may be an element of anti-Communist nationalism, but that also involves a close alliance with the US and a willingness to support Korea's participation in multinational coalition operations overseas. If the party were to revamp its immigration policy there might be some grumbling from some sectors, but its doubtful people would desert it en masse.
| atwood wrote: |
| And still with the BS about immigration from the North. One, it ain't happening anytime soon and two, those are Koreans, not foreigners, so an entirely different kettle of fish. |
"Why prepare for reunification? That ain't happening anytime soon." - Some guy in West Berlin, 1987.
You never know how history will go. I was rather young at the time, but I do seem to recall the whole collapse of Communism proceeding at a pace that no one expected. People thought that the dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya would be around for another 25 years. One guy setting himself on fire changed all of that.
As far as them not being foreigners, their language is different in substance as the lexicon used by each is vastly different. Their culture is different. Their music is different. Their whole economic system and concepts of labor and the workplace are different. They might not be foreign, but they certainly aren't native either. There are many similarities, its not light-years apart, but there is enough there that it is a significant social and cultural challenge. It's akin to someone growing up in Jim Crow vs. now. That is going to have a profound impact on them. It will require MASSIVE expenditures of resources to deal with.
Last edited by Steelrails on Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, I don't think that is exactly true. Yes, in popular media it's not necessarily uncommon to see these parties reductively caricatured as nothing but "anti-immigration," but that's so that their broader platforms (which are generally both complex and, on a point-by-point basis, contain a lot which would appeal to the common citizen) can be summarily dismissed as "racist" by people who want to control the terms of public political debate. There are some differences, of course, but those are largely geopolitical in character. For example, yes, South Korea hosts American troops, but were it not for the fact that it's got a hostile neighbor directly to its north with whom conflict could plausibly flare up in a very short time frame, those troops would not be tolerated. That South Korea has managed to temper its nationalistic inclinations with some degree of pragmatism does them credit, but it doesn't mean those nationalistic incliantions aren't there, nor that they don't determine policy in a number of other fields. |
Well, I do think that sometimes the media does try to paint the Eurosceptic parties as racist and its inappropriate. UKIP springs to mind as they have sought very much to distance themselves from the more xenophobic right-wing parties out there, based on what I've seen. For them, issues of sovereign control of the economy are as much a part of their platform as any immigration issue. On the other hand you have parties, such as Geert Wilders' party that were either directly formed as a response to immigration issues or made immigration the center of their party's platform. I think its always important to look at what is at the core of the party's platform and what most motivates people to vote for that party.
While they may adopt a platform on other issues, such as health care or education or taxes, we have to examine whether those are primary or secondary motivations. Typically, voters would generally line up with one of the more mainstream parties if they were particularly concerned about taxes or social services. They would likely find a greater number of people who shared their views and better networks to promote their view. Even in parliamentary systems you might simply have a faction within a party that differed on a key issue or in more divergent political arenas, 2 mainline parties each to the left or right or perhaps a prominent 3rd party that would seek to have its voice heard by being part of a coalition government.
In the end, it seems that some sort of anti-immigration and/or Euroscepticism viewpoint is their dominant motivation for supporting those parties.
As for Korea, it is this very same motivation that would force me not to lump Saenuri in with some sort of far-right anti-immigration party, even though they may have some positions in common. People support that party for reasons other than immigration. There may be an element of anti-Communist nationalism, but that also involves a close alliance with the US and a willingness to support Korea's participation in multinational coalition operations overseas. If the party were to revamp its immigration policy there might be some grumbling from some sectors, but its doubtful people would desert it en masse.
| jazzmaster wrote: |
| And still with the BS about immigration from the North. One, it ain't happening anytime soon and two, those are Koreans, not foreigners, so an entirely different kettle of fish. |
"Why prepare for reunification? That ain't happening anytime soon." - Some guy in West Berlin, 1987.
You never know how history will go. I was rather young at the time, but I do seem to recall the whole collapse of Communism proceeding at a pace that no one expected. People thought that the dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya would be around for another 25 years. One guy setting himself on fire changed all of that.
As far as them not being foreigners, their language is different in substance as the lexicon used by each is vastly different. Their culture is different. Their music is different. Their whole economic system and concepts of labor and the workplace are different. They might not be foreign, but they certainly aren't native either. There are many similarities, its not light-years apart, but there is enough there that it is a significant social and cultural challenge. It's akin to someone growing up in Jim Crow vs. now. That is going to have a profound impact on them. It will require MASSIVE expenditures of resources to deal with. |
You're just making it up as you go, aren't you? Kind of like the sewol folks you defended so vehemently.
As for the differences you list, none of that stands in the way of making them, in the eyes of business owners, ideal employees. Cheap labor that speaks the same language fits right in.
The Korean government's not going to spend MASSIVE amounts; that's one of the main reasons reunification ain't happening anytime soon.
Last edited by atwood on Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GJoeM
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| People thought that the dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya would be around for another 25 years. One guy setting himself on fire changed all of that. |
Good grief man, why don't you read the newspapers and THINK before you post?
Egypt is STILL run by brutal dictators supported by the West. Same in Tunisia. And in Libya, one leader was overthrown by Western forces -- only to be replaced by WORSE, more dictatorial forces -- ultra conservative Salafi-Wahabi militias and outlaw gangs, some funded by Gulf dictators like the Saudis and Bahrain elites, all of whom are on the West's side, and all of whom have the morality and conduct of ISIS.
Tunisia is surely the best of the awful countries you mention, and some believe it has a degree of stability and has been praised for it, but a stable , balanced and free civil society it ain't. Yes, their electorial process has been praised, but you can still be shot by militias or jailed if you say the wrong thing about the powerful on a blog. Read Human Right's Watch report --
http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/06/tunisia-blogger-convicted-military-court
You really have no clue Steelrails.
One guy setting himself on fire changed all of that? Yes, only if you watch FOX news and CNN....Which is likely what you watch...
I don't know why I bother. I wonder why you get off on spouting such ill informed nonsense, and then getting shown up with every post you write.
Last edited by GJoeM on Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazzmaster
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, I don't think that is exactly true. Yes, in popular media it's not necessarily uncommon to see these parties reductively caricatured as nothing but "anti-immigration," but that's so that their broader platforms (which are generally both complex and, on a point-by-point basis, contain a lot which would appeal to the common citizen) can be summarily dismissed as "racist" by people who want to control the terms of public political debate. There are some differences, of course, but those are largely geopolitical in character. For example, yes, South Korea hosts American troops, but were it not for the fact that it's got a hostile neighbor directly to its north with whom conflict could plausibly flare up in a very short time frame, those troops would not be tolerated. That South Korea has managed to temper its nationalistic inclinations with some degree of pragmatism does them credit, but it doesn't mean those nationalistic incliantions aren't there, nor that they don't determine policy in a number of other fields. |
Well, I do think that sometimes the media does try to paint the Eurosceptic parties as racist and its inappropriate. UKIP springs to mind as they have sought very much to distance themselves from the more xenophobic right-wing parties out there, based on what I've seen. For them, issues of sovereign control of the economy are as much a part of their platform as any immigration issue. On the other hand you have parties, such as Geert Wilders' party that were either directly formed as a response to immigration issues or made immigration the center of their party's platform. I think its always important to look at what is at the core of the party's platform and what most motivates people to vote for that party.
While they may adopt a platform on other issues, such as health care or education or taxes, we have to examine whether those are primary or secondary motivations. Typically, voters would generally line up with one of the more mainstream parties if they were particularly concerned about taxes or social services. They would likely find a greater number of people who shared their views and better networks to promote their view. Even in parliamentary systems you might simply have a faction within a party that differed on a key issue or in more divergent political arenas, 2 mainline parties each to the left or right or perhaps a prominent 3rd party that would seek to have its voice heard by being part of a coalition government.
In the end, it seems that some sort of anti-immigration and/or Euroscepticism viewpoint is their dominant motivation for supporting those parties.
As for Korea, it is this very same motivation that would force me not to lump Saenuri in with some sort of far-right anti-immigration party, even though they may have some positions in common. People support that party for reasons other than immigration. There may be an element of anti-Communist nationalism, but that also involves a close alliance with the US and a willingness to support Korea's participation in multinational coalition operations overseas. If the party were to revamp its immigration policy there might be some grumbling from some sectors, but its doubtful people would desert it en masse.
| INCORRECT wrote: |
| And still with the BS about immigration from the North. One, it ain't happening anytime soon and two, those are Koreans, not foreigners, so an entirely different kettle of fish. |
"Why prepare for reunification? That ain't happening anytime soon." - Some guy in West Berlin, 1987.
You never know how history will go. I was rather young at the time, but I do seem to recall the whole collapse of Communism proceeding at a pace that no one expected. People thought that the dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya would be around for another 25 years. One guy setting himself on fire changed all of that.
As far as them not being foreigners, their language is different in substance as the lexicon used by each is vastly different. Their culture is different. Their music is different. Their whole economic system and concepts of labor and the workplace are different. They might not be foreign, but they certainly aren't native either. There are many similarities, its not light-years apart, but there is enough there that it is a significant social and cultural challenge. It's akin to someone growing up in Jim Crow vs. now. That is going to have a profound impact on them. It will require MASSIVE expenditures of resources to deal with. |
I don't mind you posting your mendacious fecal scrawl all over this message board, but at least get the quotes right. You're attributing a quote to me that I did not write. Now go back and fix it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
On the other hand you have parties, such as Geert Wilders' party that were either directly formed as a response to immigration issues or made immigration the center of their party's platform. I think its always important to look at what is at the core of the party's platform and what most motivates people to vote for that party.
While they may adopt a platform on other issues, such as health care or education or taxes, we have to examine whether those are primary or secondary motivations. Typically, voters would generally line up with one of the more mainstream parties if they were particularly concerned about taxes or social services. They would likely find a greater number of people who shared their views and better networks to promote their view. Even in parliamentary systems you might simply have a faction within a party that differed on a key issue or in more divergent political arenas, 2 mainline parties each to the left or right or perhaps a prominent 3rd party that would seek to have its voice heard by being part of a coalition government.
In the end, it seems that some sort of anti-immigration and/or Euroscepticism viewpoint is their dominant motivation for supporting those parties. |
A lot of American women vote primarily based on the issue of abortion. Does that mean that one can define the Democrats as the "abortion party," and the Republicans as the "anti-abortion party?" I don't think so, and I think that implies we can safely put voter motivation aside with regards to party analysis. Voters vote as they do for any number of reasons, but they act more as limiters on a political platform than as shapers of it; what the voting base will let you get away with sets the boundaries of your platform, but that still leaves a lot of room for party discretion once elected, and party discretion is going to be the factor which determines how a party's accession to power translates into results. This principle also works within your favor regarding Korea, because if Korea were ever confronted with the degree of immigration which has been pushed on European nations, many voters would make immigration a strong motivator of their voting patterns.
So that leaves us with the parties themselves. But let's be clear: no party is merely "Euroskeptic" or "anti-immigration." They may incidentally be either of those things, but it's the reason for their opposition and its underlying logic which defines them. Geert Wilder's Party for Freedom, for example, is not simply anti-immigration, but has a internally consistent platform which happens to necessitate immigration restrictions, a platform which in turn is a manifestation of a certain world view.
| Quote: |
The Party for Freedom combines economic liberalism with a conservative programme on immigration and culture. The party seeks tax cuts (��16 billion in the 2006 election programme), de-centralisation, abolition of the minimum wage, and limiting child benefits and government subsidies. Regarding immigration and culture, the party believes that the Judeo-Christian and humanist traditions should be taken as the dominant culture in the Netherlands, and that immigrants should adapt accordingly. The party wants a halt to immigration especially from non-Western countries. It is hostile towards the EU, is against future EU enlargement to Muslim-majority countries like Turkey and opposes a dominant presence of Islam in the Netherlands.[52] The party is also opposed to dual citizenship (see below).
...
Other noteworthy policies that Wilders mentions in his party program:[69]
Harsh punishment of violence against Jews and the LGBT community, which particularly comes from the Islamic corner (p. 13)
Recording ethnicity for all Dutch citizens. (p. 11)
Prohibition of Islamic and kosher slaughter (p. 55) (However Wilders has stated that opposition to kosher slaughter was not part of his party’s agenda and that support for the ban had been withdrawn)[70]
Limitation of coffee shops within a radius of no less than 1 kilometer from schools (p. 11)
Active repatriation of criminals of foreign citizenship and Dutch nationals originating from the Netherlands Antilles (p. 11)
Deportation of criminals having foreign nationality or multiple citizenship back to their country of origin, after a prison sentence (p. 13)
Restrictions on immigrant labour from new EU member states and Islamic countries (p. 15)
Removal of resources from anti-climate change programs, development aid and immigration services (p. 17)
Abolition of the Senate (p. 19)
Shutting down of all Islamic schools (p. 15)
Ban on Islamic "gender apartheid" (p. 15)
General Pension (AOW) age must remain 65 (p. 21)
Governmental communication to be exclusively in Dutch or Frisian (p. 35)
Dutch language proficiency and a 10-year Dutch residency and work experience requirement for welfare assistance (p. 15)
Constitutional protection of the dominance of the Judeo-Christian and humanistic culture of the Netherlands (p. 35)
Choosing to defend the essential elements of Dutch culture: freedom of the LGBT community, as well as assured equality of men and women which Islam may challenge (p. 33)
Repeal of anti-smoking legislation in bars (p. 39)
Investment in more nuclear power plants and clean coal plants to reduce dependency on imported oil and because coal is cheaper (p. 47)
Withdrawal from the European Union.
Return to the guilder (old Dutch currency) and cease use of the euro.
Allow for easy entry without visa of persons with western EU passports (absolutely no entry for Polish, Bulgarians, Romanians and Gypsies)
Abolition of the European Parliament and no cooperation in any EU activity.
Ask the EU to remove the "Dutch" star in the European flag.
Repeal flight tax or carbon dioxide tax.
Binding referendum on subjects like the EU and a multicultural society.
No more tax money to "(political) left" organizations.
Keeping track of the ethnicity of people who have committed crimes.
Select policemen on "decisiveness."
Binding assimilation contracts for immigrants.
Taxes on the Islamic headscarf and prohibition of the Koran.
Ban on headscarves in any public function.
Support "African-Dutch", as it is Dutch heritage.
Opposition to Turkey's membership in NATO and remaining in NATO because it is crucial.
Halt all support and "propaganda" for Palestine and Palestinians.
No more windmills and funding for durability or CO2 reduction; no more "fiscal greening".
|
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the party's vision for the country, the platform makes sense based on the desired result. If you want to preserve your nation's culture, of course you're going to have to severely limit the importation of foreigners, especially from cultures which are very different. If your goal is to eliminate social programs without driving your working class into abject poverty, of course preventing people from poor Eastern European countries and third world immigrants from participating in your domestic labor market makes sense, because you need to keep the value of labor high. I'm not saying anyone needs to support parties like this, but reducing them to merely "anti-immigrant" seems more like a tactic than an analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GJoeM wrote: |
| Quote: |
| People thought that the dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya would be around for another 25 years. One guy setting himself on fire changed all of that. |
Good grief man, why don't you read the newspapers and THINK before you post?
Egypt is STILL run by brutal dictators supported by the West. Same in Tunisia. And in Libya, one leader was overthrown by Western forces -- only to be replaced by WORSE, more dictatorial forces -- ultra conservative Salafi-Wahabi militias and outlaw gangs, some funded by Gulf dictators like the Saudis and Bahrain elites, all of whom are on the West's side, and all of whom have the morality and conduct of ISIS.
Tunisia is surely the best of the awful countries you mention, and some believe it has a degree of stability and has been praised for it, but a stable , balanced and free civil society it ain't. Yes, their electorial process has been praised, but you can still be shot by militias or jailed if you say the wrong thing about the powerful on a blog. Read Human Right's Watch report --
http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/06/tunisia-blogger-convicted-military-court
You really have no clue Steelrails.
One guy setting himself on fire changed all of that? Yes, only if you watch FOX news and CNN....Which is likely what you watch...
I don't know why I bother. I wonder why you get off on spouting such ill informed nonsense, and then getting shown up with every post you write. |
The point was that there was regime change and the potential for something to happen. His point was that such change is not likely to happen soon and that little should be done to prepare and that should be no reason for the government to limit resources to other refugees from other countries.
And also, in those cases, did it not result in refugees and people fleeing?
| atwood wrote: |
| As for the differences you list, none of that stands in the way of making them, in the eyes of business owners, ideal employees. Cheap labor that speaks the same language fits right in. The Korean government's not going to spend MASSIVE amounts; that's one of the main reasons reunification ain't happening anytime soon. |
That doesn't mean that the Korean government won't have a massive social situation to deal with. The Korean government may not WANT to spend massive amounts, but if there is a collapse and rapid reunification becomes necessary, then they will have to spend that money. Are you seriously suggesting that the Korean government would just yawn and spend a few measly pennies in the event of some kind of collapse and reunification?
| jazzmaster wrote: |
| I don't mind you posting your mendacious fecal scrawl all over this message board, but at least get the quotes right. You're attributing a quote to me that I did not write. Now go back and fix it. |
Woops. Started to think about responding to you, but responded to atwood. My mistake. It will be fixed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| A lot of American women vote primarily based on the issue of abortion. Does that mean that one can define the Democrats as the "abortion party," and the Republicans as the "anti-abortion party?" I don't think so, and I think that implies we can safely put voter motivation aside with regards to party analysis. Voters vote as they do for any number of reasons, but they act more as limiters on a political platform than as shapers of it; what the voting base will let you get away with sets the boundaries of your platform, but that still leaves a lot of room for party discretion once elected, and party discretion is going to be the factor which determines how a party's accession to power translates into results. This principle also works within your favor regarding Korea, because if Korea were ever confronted with the degree of immigration which has been pushed on European nations, many voters would make immigration a strong motivator of their voting patterns. |
Well, I think that is likely true in the case of established political parties. However, I would suggest that insurgent "fringe" parties are often driven much more by what their voters want, rather than what their voters seek to limit them in doing. Were this to be true, then there should have been cause for the voters to work within the established parties, I hate to say it, but somewhat like the Tea Party. I think far-right, as well as say a left-wing party like Syriza were elected with a specific purposes in mind. In the case of Syriza this was anti-austerity. Now, Golden Dawn was also anti-austerity, and as you mentioned, those "limitations" likely caused voters who were anti-austerity to choose one or the other. If I am to understand your point correctly. Also, if I am to understand you correctly, would you say that the major parties in Korea are not anti-immigration parties? Also, would you classify any right-wing party in Europe as an anti-immigration party? Are there any criteria for so doing that may be applied?
| Quote: |
| So that leaves us with the parties themselves. But let's be clear: no party is merely "Euroskeptic" or "anti-immigration." They may incidentally be either of those things, but it's the reason for their opposition and its underlying logic which defines them. Geert Wilder's Party for Freedom, for example, is not simply anti-immigration, but has a internally consistent platform which happens to necessitate immigration restrictions, a platform which in turn is a manifestation of a certain world view. |
I think it varies from party to party. As I mentioned before, while UKIP also supports some restrictions on immigration, I would not classify them as an anti-immigration party for precisely the reasons you mention. There seems to be much more to their platform and much of that is as you said, a byproduct of established political philosophy or world view. Again, similar to the Tea Party and this probably applies to some of the other "far-right/nationalist" parties out there. However, in other cases I think its clear that such parties are a direct response to immigration specifically and draw their base from voters who are motivated to change that policy and have coalesced into a party or taken over a party specifically to bring about change in that issue.
Anyways, your posts and debate here have been excellent as always. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coltronator
Joined: 04 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
This argument seems actually just be a misunderstanding. I think we all have a different perception of the political situation in certain places or the stances of certain parties. It is probably one of those situations where if you broke it all down piece by piece and took labels off we would each agree with the other person on about 75% of everything.
Kind of like how people who are "against Obamacare" on average think 90% of the individual items in the bill are positive when not told they are what makes Obamacare Obamacare by removing the labels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| A lot of American women vote primarily based on the issue of abortion. Does that mean that one can define the Democrats as the "abortion party," and the Republicans as the "anti-abortion party?" I don't think so, and I think that implies we can safely put voter motivation aside with regards to party analysis. Voters vote as they do for any number of reasons, but they act more as limiters on a political platform than as shapers of it; what the voting base will let you get away with sets the boundaries of your platform, but that still leaves a lot of room for party discretion once elected, and party discretion is going to be the factor which determines how a party's accession to power translates into results. This principle also works within your favor regarding Korea, because if Korea were ever confronted with the degree of immigration which has been pushed on European nations, many voters would make immigration a strong motivator of their voting patterns. |
Well, I think that is likely true in the case of established political parties. However, I would suggest that insurgent "fringe" parties are often driven much more by what their voters want, rather than what their voters seek to limit them in doing. Were this to be true, then there should have been cause for the voters to work within the established parties, I hate to say it, but somewhat like the Tea Party. I think far-right, as well as say a left-wing party like Syriza were elected with a specific purposes in mind. In the case of Syriza this was anti-austerity. Now, Golden Dawn was also anti-austerity, and as you mentioned, those "limitations" likely caused voters who were anti-austerity to choose one or the other. If I am to understand your point correctly. Also, if I am to understand you correctly, would you say that the major parties in Korea are not anti-immigration parties? Also, would you classify any right-wing party in Europe as an anti-immigration party? Are there any criteria for so doing that may be applied?
| Quote: |
| So that leaves us with the parties themselves. But let's be clear: no party is merely "Euroskeptic" or "anti-immigration." They may incidentally be either of those things, but it's the reason for their opposition and its underlying logic which defines them. Geert Wilder's Party for Freedom, for example, is not simply anti-immigration, but has a internally consistent platform which happens to necessitate immigration restrictions, a platform which in turn is a manifestation of a certain world view. |
I think it varies from party to party. As I mentioned before, while UKIP also supports some restrictions on immigration, I would not classify them as an anti-immigration party for precisely the reasons you mention. There seems to be much more to their platform and much of that is as you said, a byproduct of established political philosophy or world view. Again, similar to the Tea Party and this probably applies to some of the other "far-right/nationalist" parties out there. However, in other cases I think its clear that such parties are a direct response to immigration specifically and draw their base from voters who are motivated to change that policy and have coalesced into a party or taken over a party specifically to bring about change in that issue.
Anyways, your posts and debate here have been excellent as always. |
Please name these "other cases' or admit that you were wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Also, if I am to understand you correctly, would you say that the major parties in Korea are not anti-immigration parties? Also, would you classify any right-wing party in Europe as an anti-immigration party? Are there any criteria for so doing that may be applied? |
I don't think it makes sense to categorize any party is an "anti-immigration" party without qualification, including parties in Korea. Rather, I'm suggesting that the political parties about which you are talking have platforms which incidentally necessitate the restriction of immigration to some degree or another. No one is just against immigration for the Hell of it, they're against it for a variety of reasons, ranging from ethno-nationalism to cultural preservation to economic stability. Given that, it makes more sense to talk about the underlying reason than the incidental policy, especially since the kinds of restrictions necessitated by each are quite different. And remember, even moderate, mainstream parties in the West support some restrictions on immigration; outside of extremely libertarian/anarchist thought, the debate is about how immigration should be restricted, not as to whether immigration should be restricted or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cave Dweller
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True. For instance, the Canadian government could lower their target of immigrants in one year from 250,000 to 200,000 and be labeled as 'anti-immigrant.'
The current Korean system is the most open to immigration right now than it has ever been in its history. I don't credit that to the Kovernment. I think it's just a sign of the times.
| Fox wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Also, if I am to understand you correctly, would you say that the major parties in Korea are not anti-immigration parties? Also, would you classify any right-wing party in Europe as an anti-immigration party? Are there any criteria for so doing that may be applied? |
I don't think it makes sense to categorize any party is an "anti-immigration" party without qualification, including parties in Korea. Rather, I'm suggesting that the political parties about which you are talking have platforms which incidentally necessitate the restriction of immigration to some degree or another. No one is just against immigration for the Hell of it, they're against it for a variety of reasons, ranging from ethno-nationalism to cultural preservation to economic stability. Given that, it makes more sense to talk about the underlying reason than the incidental policy, especially since the kinds of restrictions necessitated by each are quite different. And remember, even moderate, mainstream parties in the West support some restrictions on immigration; outside of extremely libertarian/anarchist thought, the debate is about how immigration should be restricted, not as to whether immigration should be restricted or not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cave Dweller wrote: |
True. For instance, the Canadian government could lower their target of immigrants in one year from 250,000 to 200,000 and be labeled as 'anti-immigrant.'
The current Korean system is the most open to immigration right now than it has ever been in its history. I don't credit that to the Kovernment. I think it's just a sign of the times.
| Fox wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Also, if I am to understand you correctly, would you say that the major parties in Korea are not anti-immigration parties? Also, would you classify any right-wing party in Europe as an anti-immigration party? Are there any criteria for so doing that may be applied? |
I don't think it makes sense to categorize any party is an "anti-immigration" party without qualification, including parties in Korea. Rather, I'm suggesting that the political parties about which you are talking have platforms which incidentally necessitate the restriction of immigration to some degree or another. No one is just against immigration for the Hell of it, they're against it for a variety of reasons, ranging from ethno-nationalism to cultural preservation to economic stability. Given that, it makes more sense to talk about the underlying reason than the incidental policy, especially since the kinds of restrictions necessitated by each are quite different. And remember, even moderate, mainstream parties in the West support some restrictions on immigration; outside of extremely libertarian/anarchist thought, the debate is about how immigration should be restricted, not as to whether immigration should be restricted or not. |
|
I think you have to give the government credit. They know Korea Inc. needs cheap labor and immigration is the best source of that.
The government has instituted programs to help immigrants, which in a country where social services are comparatively limited, is saying something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
