Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Bongotruck]

I dont see it about economics much at all. It is so much more about escaping tyranny under these dictators or warlords.

Then USA steps in and takes out one of these dictators and makes things worse. They are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

[young_clinton]

It's third world education and third world culture that destroys everything the West tries to do to help these people. Leave the dictatorships and place and take care of our own interests. The US and the West should have never helped overthrow Kaddafi, Saddam Hussien and the US should have never done anything about the Soviet Afghanistan invasion. Why did we help those people in the first place?

[EastisEast]

The movie Elysium was good. Damned immigrants!

[earthquakez]

[earthquakez]

[quote="happyinhenan"]

[evelynl]

As a Norwegian I must say that I'm surprised that you actually posted this topic. We're not used to people outside caring about such news.

As a Norwegian I do not support the act of deporting immigrants the way the new government has done. They're kicked out kids who have only known living in Norway, or families who have been here for 8 years, or split families where the kids over 18 are kicked out while the rest stay. It is horrible.

To say that the crime rate has dropped with 30% just because of deportation of 824 immigrants is not even a fact. There is no way it is possible to link any drop in crime rate to one single act, and especially not that quickly. And the article does not state which type of crimes that allegedly have dropped.

We are privileged to be able to take in immigrants, and we should do so with an open mind. It really doesn't matter what origin the people have, and categorizing them to be Muslim or gypsies to make it OK to deport them - is not OK.

Of course I don't like the way the level of dirtiness has risen after a lot of gypsies immigrated to Norway and started begging, but that does not give me the right to deny them a chance for a better life. Throwing people out of our way-too-rich country will not make their lives any easier.

I do not support the acts of stereotyping or judging a person just because of his religion. When you post that throwing out Muslims is good, you forget that each person is different. I really dislike it when we forget to think about the person who is affected by all of this, just because of his background. Although some of the arguments posted are relevant, such as letting large groups with a similar background gather might cause problems for other groups. But that's just the point, other groups...we can't expect one group to change if we group against them. Then we're just a whole bunch of groups...

[On the other hand]

[earthquakez]

I think the majority of people here would understand why it's so tough for those people in the Guardian article etc. But the fact remains for around 15 yrs or more, too many people outside first world countries have abused the asylum seeker/refugee provisions of the UN Convention relevant to them.

The correction is taking place now, harsh as it is. The family in the article would not be deported by many of us if we had the power to do so but the article without meaning to raises a tremendous red flag when it refers to the Afghanistan govt telling our governments that they can refuse to accept deported people. The way their govt sources expressed it, they were concerned for the family in question.

Now - every asylum seeker/refugee (and there are even recognised UN refugees who scam the system and indeed have the access to connections that genuine refugees do not have because they are too poor and do not have the social capital in their societies) claims they cannot possibly move elsewhere in their own country to escape persecution, conflict etc. Nearly all of them portray their countries' govts as a big part of the problem.

It doesn't sound like it here. If the Afghani govt is so bad then why is it protesting what it sees as harsh treatment by Norway?

This is similar to the arguments used by the floods of Tamils who went to Australia by boat in a defacto, self selecting immigration 'program' before both major Australian political parties realised they had to put their own citizens first because unauthorised boat arrivals were being fast tracked to medical care, housing etc while there are Australians (like in my own UK) sleeping in drains and parks because they can't afford rent to live in housing.

The Tamils in boats were in regular communication with Tamil communities who had already been given residence in Australia under fairly lax standards that were once normal because of the Labour Party's staffing assessment committees with people who gave asylum for reduced onus of proof. The generous welfare they obtained was often sent back to Sri Lanka to help bring more boats and buy communications equipment.

When Australia closed this avenue, Tamils then decided to challenge the decision by sailing from India. India has an area called Tamil Nadu which is a place of refuge for Tamils who say they are being persecuted in Sri Lanka. It is clear that this was about lifestyle rather than the need to find a safe haven because there was one available.

Many people in the first world who support do it yourself entry by people from the third world into western countries simply do not have the common sense, intelligence or political honesty to research all the facts.

There are a number of safe regions in Afghanistan, in no small part due to the price that British, European and Australian governments have paid in financial aid and military assistance. While Afghani men refuse to fight against militants and the Taliban, those western soldiers have done so and some especially the British ad Australian have lost their lives.

Indonesia is a Muslim country and it accused the former Australian Labour govts of 'putting the sugar on the table' by allowing entry to Australia of boat people who passed through Indonesia on the way, and were given residency and benefits. This impacted Indonesia too as it suddenly had unauthorised people that it never asked for regardless of the fact that many of them were Muslim.

Some of the events that have happened since third and second world unauthorised entrants have become normal in western societies are these - asylum seekers burning down a camp somewhere in Scandinavia because they were not offered specially prepared halal food,
terrorist attacks in the UK, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, France, Australia by Islamic extremists,
very high incidents of sexual assault in the Netherlands by Muslim offenders out of proportion to their population,
Muslim vigilantes in London threatening women who don't dress according to their liking,
sexual grooming of teenagers and children by organised Pakistani and other gangs in other English cities,
and over Easter this year there were four Catholic churches burned down in Melbourne, Australia.
Christian churches in Australia have been very prominent in pressing for asylum seekers and refugees and have given very generously to them especially considering most asylum seekers and refugees for some time now have been Muslim.

Not to mention the thousands of second and third generation asylum seeker/refugee children of Muslim background joining ISIS and encouraging those back in the western countries to bomb, burn and behead the western infidels who gave them free housing, education, healthcare, spending money and refuge from the supposed absolute non-safety of their original countries.

[Plain Meaning]

[Fox]

[bigverne]

[earthquakez]

[Steelrails]

[earthquakez]

[Steelrails]

I'm not disagreeing with everything you're saying, only pointing out that yes, Irish revolutionaries were overseas training and fighting with at least some interest in returning home and using those skills to fight the British. It certainly was complicated as many of the Irish were no great fans of emancipation, hence why they targeted blacks during the draft riots. That's not to say there weren't some Irish who were attracted to the idea of emancipation and viewed it as similar to themselves, however the economic conditions at the time resulted in severe racial terrorism against African-Americans in New York. The Irish in general tended to support the Democratic party, with many favoring the "War Democrats" and others being more staunchly opposed to Lincoln. Also, the South had its own Irish units and prominent generals such as Paddy Cleburne served the Confederacy. They were attracted by the Confederacy's fight for independence against an "oppressive" power. Regardless, the situation was complicated.

I also mentioned the overseas funding the IRA received through the years. The IRA was a designated terrorist organization, with strong sectarian leanings, and would attract money from overseas Irish. Is it directly comparable to Islamic terror? No, but its not wholly different either.

I think comparing modern terrorism with the Irish diaspora is a little bit tenuous because modern terrorism didn't really start until the rise of Communism. In the mid-1800s, communication was vastly different, much of the world was ruled by kings, concepts such as democracy were limited, and technology did not make it easy for some person to set off a bomb or engage in a mass shooting. The public was also much more armed. It would be awfully hard for some Irish revolutionary to walk into a saloon in New York City, pull out a musket and start shooting people. Half the patrons would have derringers and he could only get one shot off before he was subdued. Lugging around a powder keg and 50 lbs. of grape shot and setting a fuse in a crowded market wasn't exactly easy either. People in that time still believed that you could raise an army of 20,000 fanatics, give them muskets and have them charge the enemy and win your independence thanks to Divine Providence. There weren't any Abrams tanks or Apache gunships to make such notions obviously suicidal and necessitating terrorist tactics. You had muskets, cannons, bayonets, and sabres, weapons that were easily acquired by everyone and thus promised a relatively fair fight on the battlefield. Terrorism is often a response to battlefield inequality. Terrorists attempt to use terrorist tactics to win what they could not on the battlefield.

Also, it should be noted that the countries involved in terrorist attacks, namely the United States, Israel, UK, Australia, France, and Spain, all either conducted military operations, including the deployment of soldiers, or at the very least supplied arms and materiel to regimes that were viewed as occupying forces or brutal dictatorships. The United States was not occupying Ireland. The Irish did not view the United States as being an enabler of British occupation. Were they to do so, they might very well have decided to attack targets in the United States.

Now, the issue of Muslim immigration is a whole nother kettle of fish, and there may be some good points. But, I think the comparison of Irish immigrants and Muslim immigrants in support of terror is one that has issues with both the difference between conditions in the mid 19th-early 20th century vs. the late 20th and early 21st century and that Irish immigrants did engage in such acts as financial support for terror (independence?) and fighting with the hope of one day returning and winning independence.