This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
ICE has conducted its largest ever raid targeting... Korean automotive workers at a Georgia Hyundai factory?
We don't have all the details, but from what I can glean most of the Koreans were in the country on B1 buisiness visas, which allows the visa holder to attend business meetings and conduct training, but does not allow for "labor". The factory involved is brand new, having opened less than a year ago, which would explain why they needed so many Koreans (Hyundai is a Korean company) to get operations off the ground.
One defense of these kind of raids is that it doesn't do America any good to have foreign companies build factories in the US if they are going to staff those factories with an imported workforce instead of Americans, but it is far from clear that was happening here. I don't doubt that many of these B1 visaholders were "working the line" and as such technically violating the terms of their visas, but that's how foreign investment works. If you build a brand new specialized factory in an area that doesn't have factories of that kind, the local workforce will inherently be inexperienced and unsuitable for the facility. You can't teach people how to run the factory without, well, running the factory.
The big question is what this means for foreign investment in the United States. If you were in charge of a foreign manufacturing corporarion, would you want to build a facility in the United States if there is a good chance your own employees would be arrested for running the company's facilities?
Hyundai Raid Rattles a Hot Spot of Growth in Georgia
The result was demographic replacement.
Oh no, what was presumably a sleepy town is now much less sleepy but also has a sizable ethnically Korean population. Dried seaweed in the newly constructed supermarkets. The horror.
And they don't even shy away from culturally appropriating honest White American names or religion. Who knows, within a decade, they might speak better English than the people who have been living there for generations. What is happening in Pooler, GA is basically White Genocide.
Seriously. Generally, there are a lot of NIMBY laws in the US, so I will presume that the locals did get some say whether they wanted an Korean-owned battery plant in their backyard or not. Industry always has advantages (e.g. all the perks that come with a higher population, like supermarkets, better selection of schools or healthcare) and disadvantages (new people coming to town, higher rents).
To claim a demographic replacement, you would have to show that the demographic group which was previously living there has been net emigrating from Pooler at significant rates: if I mix cookie dough and add 200g of flour to 100g of sugar, I can not describe the outcome as "the sugar has been replaced by the flour", that is just not what "replacement" means.
It is when you're talking about the sugar bowl.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What am I missing here is let's assume they want to import a lot of Koreans and put them to work in a factory. Maybe Americans are dumb and can't work or something. I'm not saying it's true but let's assume every reason you can think of is actually true. Why couldn't they make all those workers legal? With all the fanfare about the project it's certain they could make all the papers in order if they wanted to. ICE couldn't do a thing if you have legal workers with proper documentation. I can see only one reason: illegals are cheaper and easier to control. They wanted easier exploitable workers. If that's true, they need to be punished for this, very hard. If they are feeling "betrayed" by the fact they can't violate the laws of the country they're doing business in, maybe some hard and painful reality check is due.
If they are here legally (and working legally), what is the problem with scrutiny? No scrutiny could have done anything to them, if their status is in order, ICE could check it a thousand times and still couldn't do anything.
Work visas (H-1B and H-2B) are capped. They would be competing with every other company in the country that wants to bring in foreign workers.
Good. That's how it should be. And given how much hype was about that project, they probably would have not much trouble carving out some quota for this - it's several hundreds people, compared to Big Tech companies who get thousands and tens of thousands of slots. They could even make a special allocation, it's Biden admin after all, it's not like they'd say no to anyone. They just din't bother to because why bother if the law is dead anyway and anything goes.
Why? Let's say the US has X amount of specialized talent and thus they can only do Y amount of productivity with in a year. If companies in (or investing in) our country are so productive and there's enough market demand that they want to do >Y creation, then why is it good to cap them artificially?
Now I know, the general response is "because those jobs should go to the locals!" but the thing is, talented local people already have jobs. If they're hard working and capable, then they're mostly already doing their part in achieving Y (or doing something else in another industry) because companies want them.
As any hiring manager knows nowadays, the job pool is mostly incompetents, liars, lazies, addicts, or otherwise unwanted because of a serious flaw. It's the same way that dating apps like Tinder are mostly used by the unpleasant and unwanted, the good ones are already picked through. Of course just like the apps there's often some amount of pickings but they're limited and get scooped up quick of course and we're still overall limited to Y production.
Now maybe that's what we as a society want, jobs programs for the lazy drug addicted idiots being put in roles above their worth, and we're willing to sacrifice efficiency in key industries for it. And maybe it's worth it if we put hard limits on economic growth and only allow Y production no matter how much market demand exists.
But that's a discussion with some hard tradeoffs is it not?
Because importing foreign workers in massive amounts have costs. Assimilation capacity is not infinite. And breaking assimilation processes - and the host culture - has societal costs that everybody is going to pay. Cultures have value, and breaking them has costs. Immigration is not quantity-neutral. One immigrant is not going to cause any significant strain on the system and in general case will contribute to the society and increase general welfare. One million of immigrants, brought synchronously into the country are going to cost non-linearly more, and may cause profound changes in the society, which may not be for the better. That's why you need an "artificial" cap - it's only artificial if you don't consider externalities. The process is not linear and not neutral towards time scales - it's like I asked you to drink 100 gallons of water. If it's over a year, you probably would be healthier for that. If you try to do it all at once, you will die. It's the same water, but not the same rate.
I am not sure that's actually true. Even for the market I have the most experience with - computer programming - looking for a job, if you aren't ok with shitty job that pays peanuts, it is a very frustrating and nerve-racking experience. Having to answer the question "why should we pay you X if we can hire a cheap foreigner for X/2" does not make it any easier. And in my experience, getting cold-hired by a company that does mass outsourcing, without knowing somebody on the inside, is next to impossible now. In most cases, they won't even bother to talk to you. Even if you know you are much better worker, the people who make hiring decisions just don't care. They tell the public they have massive shortage of talent and need thousands of H1Bs, but try to send them your resume, and they won't even bother to read it, it goes straight to the reject pile. Sorry, I don't believe it anymore, I think it's a con. H1Bs are just cheaper and easier to handle, that's all. I can only imagine how much worse it is in places where prices are the only thing you can compete on.
You're saying it as if any of the key industries have a slightest idea about how to measure efficiency. I know for a fact in my industry, nobody has a faintest clue how to do it. It's either "if we hit the deadline - which has been invented arbitrarily based on what some marketer promised to some analyst bigwig because they had one too many cocktails while golfing - then we are golden" or "we're making money? Cool! Let's make even more money!". There's no some "efficiency" science behind it and nobody has a slightest idea how to make it. It's all done by the seat of one's pants, and people that by either luck or talent can pull stuff out of their asses that is better than other get billions and people that are unlucky don't, and that's how it goes. Let's not pretend we have some science behind it, nobody does.
Yes, but not in a way you present it. It's not uniform, as I mentioned. Accepting a small amount of immigrants is almost always going to be net positive, especially if selected by any sane criteria (skin color is definitely not one of the best, but even that could work up to a limit). With increased quantity, costs raise non-linearly and the tradeoffs become more and more hard. There is a wide area where the net is still positive, but this area is not infinite. Eventually it comes to a point where a select few players reap all the benefits and the rest pays massive, sometimes society-breaking externalities. It's not uncommon - a lot of modern politics is based on emphasizing benefits for select few and covering up externalities for the rest - this is one of the prominent examples.
More options
Context Copy link
With the labor force constrained to the people currently living here, when we want to do >Y production, we can bid up the wages for it, or we can figure out ways to produce more efficiently, both of which are strong, socially-positive alternatives to simply capping production. Importing more workers achieves neither.
You have gall, I'll give you that.
The other effect keeping to a fixed pool of labor provides, it seems to me, is that there is less incentive to simply write off the sort of people you evidently hold in such contempt. If we cannot simply export jobs or import cheap foreign labor, we have a vested interest in keeping our people from turning into human waste, and a vested interest in salvaging absolutely any of them that we can. It appears to me that you are rating these people as worthless in order to continue the process by which they lost their worth.
I was recently reading an article about drug problems, and it mentioned the communities that have been blighted by drugs "since the economic upheaval of the 90s". the 90s was when we started buying in to the pitch you're making here. I remember that pitch when it was new, how there would be some disruption but the economic prosperity would lift all boats. I remember small towns with their town squares, full of bustling businesses and broad-based prosperity. I drive through some of those old town squares now; they're uniformly ghost towns, boarded up and crumbling. We were foolish to buy the pitch then. Buying it now requires a special sort of derangement.
Adopting your view necessarily means devaluing our countrymen. If I'm going to devalue my countrymen, I'm going to do it for more fitting reasons than pecuniary interest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It appears Hyundai was doing what previous practice had established to be "legal-ish" enough for federal enforcement purposes...only then the new administration started enforcing the letter of the law, not the cozy de-facto waiver that had been in place previously.
More options
Context Copy link
If ICE has an error rate of 1%, if they check legal workers a thousand times they'll do something the worker won't like 10 times.
And where does this number come from? Given that all records are computerized and South Korea is not some shithole where people are not expected to have documents, 1% error rate would be staggeringly high. I would say one in a million could be, maybe, explained away as a computer glitch or something (though computer glitches don't really work this way, but maybe) but 1% is a horribly high rate of error when all you need to do is to look up a record in the database. Nobody in their sane mind would let a database into production that has lookup error rate of 1%. And these data are duplicated - if you are a legal worker, who signed all necessary forms, and somehow, by some unexplained glitch, your record got erased, you'd still possess your copy of documents, and so would your employer. Who has enough money to hire the best lawyers, it's Hyundai, not some mom-and-pop corner bakery. So even if that error - which can not be as frequent as 1% - happened, it would be easily corrected. And of course, any instance of such error would be immediately published on the frontpage of NYT, WaPo etc. Since I do not observe anything like that on those frontpages - I must conclude it did not happen, and ICE rate of error in this case was effectively zero. I don't claim it is always equal to zero - they are humans and use computers, and those both are always unreliable - but in this particular case, I'd like to see some proof.
Oh, right, forgot about that. Let me change my estimate to 15%. To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer.
Seriously, I don't think an error rate much below 1% for this type of thing is a reasonable estimate.
And errors HAVE occurred. Abrego Garcia got sent to El Salvador despite a ruling saying he shouldn't be. A citizen spent 3 days in immigration detention after a raid. You really think the government is going to have a negligible error rate and never detain the wrong Kim Sung Park?
I notice both you and the article you referring to use a very peculiar way of describing it. They never say he was accused of being an illegal immigrant or sent to detention center for illegal immigrants. They only say he was arrested "during" or "after" raid. And he was working as a security guard at a company employing a lot of illegals, where a huge clash between ICE agents and pro-open-border rioters happened. Want to hear my guess of what happened? He tried to be a big tough man and mess with law enforcement. He got arrested and spent a weekend in a jail downtown LA. Nobody ever thought he is an illegal immigrant - but guess what, being a citizen does not allow you to mess with law enforcement without consequences. At least not that time.
I can not prove this - because the article you quoted, in full agreement with modern journalistic standards, neglected to ask the other side for a comment. Other sources say he was "arrested on suspicion of assault" - but no charges were brought, likely because proving any of it in court would be tough, given the chaotic nature of the riots. It very well could be that they went overboard with detaining him for 3 days without access to attorney (most likely boring reason being it was a weekend) - if so, he has a valid claim against them, and would likely prevail in extracting some compensation (it's LA after all, pretty much every judge there would be his friend) - but it has absolutely nothing to do with ICE errors misidentifying citizens or legal workers as illegals. ICE never claimed he's an illegal. They detained him at the scene of a riot, and they may have acted ham-fistedly doing that - either because they were pissed by something he did, or because they were pissed in general by the riot - and in both cases they were wrong to deny him access to the attorney. I have heard about a number of cases like that over the years. They are infuriating and completely wrong, but they have nothing to do with immigration errors.
There's not really any information available aside from what Retes provided, since ICE hasn't commented at all on it.
A lot of people, when asked for example of when something happened, do not immediately reach for an example where there's no information available whether something happened or not, and present it as their example of something happening. Because if they do it, other people might conclude they really do not have any better examples.
I guess this report from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/cannabis-farm-worker-in-california-dies-day-after-chaotic-federal-immigration-raid.html saying:
is just my hallucination? Or they lied claiming immigration officials told him that? Why, in your opinion, CNBC would lie about something like that, and what is your source for accusing them of lying in this case? How do you know ICE hasn't actually commented even though CNBC claims they did?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are seriously claimin the case of Garcia is the case of legal immigrant who has been mistakenly deported because of data error? Or you just bringing him around because "ICE man bad"? If I were to defend the cause of less ICE enforcement, Garcia is not a good example for you. He's absolutely, without any doubt, an illegal immigrant and a criminal, and unless your goal is to prove "the open borderers would absolutely make no distinction and would demand not to deport anyone, in any case, for any reason, and all their insistence on due process is just a smoke screen to make law enforcement effectively impossible because they just don't want any immigration law enforced at all" - unless that's what you are about to prove, you should really not mention Garcia. He definitely is not an "error", and the only reason he is in the headlines is because Democrat open-borderers made him a showcase for blocking any deportation attempt, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. Their current claim is it's impossible to deport him because the whole Western hemisphere is itching to imprison and torture him. This is just ridiculous.
No, I'm saying he was a case of someone mistakenly deported to El Salvador due to an ICE error. I'm not defending the cause of less ICE enforcement (In an ideal world I'd prefer something less harsh than we have now, but we probably need what we have now as a correction); I'm pointing out that increasing ICE scrutiny on people can cause serious problems for them even if those people are perfectly legal, because the scrutinizers can make errors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From context, it's pretty clearly a guess. However, it lines up with manual data entry error rates for general tasks, so it's probably around correct.
I don't think you can compare the accuracy of database that had to be manually checked at least by three independent sources (the government, the employer and the employee - each one would alert if the name in the work permit, for example, would not match the passport name) to the raw data entry accuracy. Could the typist make an error? Sure. But the error would be corrected way before the ICE raid. And even if it weren't - the employee could easily show the work permit they were issued!
But even easier - if the error rate would be so high, we'd hear by now about legal Korean workers being deported for nothing. Did we hear about that? If not - why not?
I think what happened is that they brought in workers - maybe on legal visas, but without work permits - without bothering with all necessary documentation, because under the previous administration, even people who just walked across the Mexican border without documents were not deported, who would think about deporting actual Korean workers with documents working in highly advertised project? Open borders, baby! Then the administration changed, but the approach to documentation did not. Now, it's time for consequences.
That's probably about right for the application processes. What is it for spot checks, which would (presumably) happen to immigrants with illegal coworkers? Also, it doesn't have to end with deportation. Just fighting through bureaucracy another time is annoying enough to merit mention.
Given that in this case they just came in and deported 300+ people, it's not a "spot check" where you check the papers from random people. They knew this factory uses illegal workers, and they knew exactly who those were. And the reason they knew likely was exactly because all the docs were there, it's not the situation where people sneak over the border and have to be caught when they climb on the river bank - it was an organized effort that was blatantly ignoring immigration law out in the open, because that's how it had been done for the last 4 years. And this raid was a signal it's not how it's done anymore. As Democrats used to say before Trump, nobody is above the law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Legal immigration" is an even more insidious form of demographic replacement. In a couple more generations, the native white population will have virtually no political power.
What "native white population"? USA is formed by people who came from outside the territory, the native population is not "white". Is Trump "native"? Who qualifies as "native"?
You think this is a hard, gotcha question, but it's really very simple.
To ourselves and our posterity covers it plenty well enough.
There was an ethnogenesis in the 18th century, and we descendants are native to this continent. For your questions, the answer is, "do they have ancestors who were included in the preamble of the constitution?" The answer to the two questions are the same.
Indians or other tribes can be native to their own tribe, but they are not native American, because they are not American.
You aren't, that's not what the word "native" means (and awfully bold of you to claim the whole continent, I think Mexicans and Canadians would disagree but screw them, right?). But at least I can see what you mean now. OK, so Trump is not a "white native". Too bad for him I guess, but that's at least some solid foundation to start with. A bit of a problem you'd have is not only Trump ends up out of the game - you'd end up with about 10% of population of purebloods, and the rest of the populations would be mudbloods - descendants of people who immigrated after 1776. Since you are further qualifying it as "white" the percentage is probably even less - you will need to eliminate anyone who had non-white blood - and mixed marriages, while not common, weren't exactly out of the question. Since anybody who came in after 1776 must be deemed irreversibly insidious and affected with inborn desire to plot to overthrow the "white natives", which can not be overcome - I don't think your case is looking good. The "demographic replacement" that you are so afraid of happened long, long ago, and you are not the American people anymore. I don't know how to call this group other than "purebloods" but being such a tiny minority it certainly can not pretend to represent "we the people" as a whole. The best you could hope for is a protected minority status.
And, of course, I am not aware of any intent for the Founders to adopt this stance - that only purebloods are considered true Americans (or "natives"). Otherwise there wouldn't be such thing as "naturalization" which confers the same legal status on an insidious mudblood as previously was available only for purebloods. Why put such things in the Constitution if they thought like you are? There's no reason. Because they did not. They saw it as a political and social project, which anybody who identifies with the goals of the new nation, its laws and its customs, is welcome to join, not some breeding exercise. And they certainly did not think anybody who didn't jump in by the time the United States was formed is forever an insidious enemy of every American.
I didn't claim the whole continent, my forefathers did, and then asserted that claim.
They, and I, are native sons of this land.
You forgot to attach the yes_chad.jpg. Or maybe it's yes_james.jpg.
I don't particularly feel the need to respond to the rest of the flanderization of my post. I'll simply say that progeny doesn't mean pure blood progeny, but if you have 0 ancestors in the british colonies in 1776, or no ancestors in the United States in 1789, when that document was written, then I don't consider you American in any way.
ADOS and the Indian tribes are also native, but they are not American.
You, of course, realize that these two sentences are contradictory. You can not "claim" territory that you are the native of. "Claiming" only applies to territories you previously did not inhabit. Irish never "claimed" Ireland - they just lived there. Chinese never "claimed" China - they are Chinese because they are in China, and had been there since forever. There's no need for "claiming".
And, you seem to have a mighty broad ancestry if your ancestors claimed all the territories of the continent, including Mexico and Canada. The only problem that "claiming" them does not do anything - Mexico and Canada are still there. Are you going to war with them to liberate your ancestral territories anytime soon?
Too bad for you almost every American - or at least vast majority of them, by now - is not American for you. Good thing is nobody cares. America just had elected a non-American president and he's doing a decent job so far, and it will continue going in the same vein, without regard to weird pureblood claims. As I said, your worst case scenario had long past happened, so you need a new one now.
ADOS are definitely not native - they were brought in against their will and this process is well documented. People that were by hilarious mistake named Indians are natives, and if they are not American natives, then what they are natives of I wonder? Narnia?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh cool, you're taking on BurdensomeCount's mantle. I'm not in a place to argue with you right now (and wouldn't if I were) but gosh that's kinda neat.
It's not BC's mantle. Practically no one outside the US makes the distinction between the Pilgrims, the Ellis Islanders and the post-Hart-Cellers. The line is drawn between the Indians (feather), the ADoS and everyone else, aka people chasing the American Dream.
I suppose it would be gracelessly American of me to react in shock at foreigners not recognizing that we have a culture.
More options
Context Copy link
I draw the line between the pre-Clovis people and the feather Indians. Just because they successfully physically removed the indigenous population doesn't mean they get a pass.
None of today’s immigrants even attempt the naturalization test of hunting a mammoth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're going to have to spell that out for me.
Koreans, really? It's demographic replacement by the least fertile demographic in the world?
At any rate, it's not clear to me that addition constitutes replacement.
Weeds in my lawn replace the grass. Weeds in my garden beds replace the flowers and herbs I want to grow.
Wherever there is competition for scarce resources, like living space or sunlight, addition is replacement. You're just playing word games to deny your opponents their highly effective rhetoric (replacement).
I'd argue that you're indulging in word games more than I am - in this case, comparing Koreans to weeds while implying that resources in Georgia are scarce, or that the presence of Koreans reduces prosperity for others. I think this is a misrepresentation of the scenario. Is the state of Georgia like your garden bed? Are the Koreans choking out native Georgians? That's not clear at all.
It's not even clear how race or ethnicity is relevant - if the issue is that Koreans consume more resources, wouldn't it also be a problem if native white or black populations increase? All people consume resources. We just generally don't view this as prohibitive because Georgia possesses ample natural resources (nobody is starving!) and because people produce resources as well.
The metaphor you're making just doesn't make any sense.
I'm comparing people to plants and just like a plant where it's not wanted is a weed, a person where they're not wanted is a foreigner.
They can go back to their garden, where my kind of plant isn't allowed to grow.
The garden is the country or state. Citizens are both the plants and the gardener, just as man is both sculptor and marble.
Foreigners do suppress native birth rates, even more so when they are of another race. They compete for housing and employment, driving the cost of the former up and the wages of the latter down.
I can't force you to see something you're choosing to ignore. It's clear as day to me, as obvious as the nose on your face.
People like their own kind (kind as in kin).
If you want to grow a dandelion bed, then grass is a weed. If you want a lawn, dandelions are weeds. If you want a rose garden, both grass and dandelions are weeds. The problem isn't Koreans, it's grass in my rose garden, or dandelions in my lawn.
Are you a Georgian? I still haven't seen any evidence that Georgians hate Koreans or are opposed to their presence in the state. Why should it be the null hypothesis that Georgians want these people out? Nothing in the top level post quoting the WSJ indicated that natives have any problems with the Koreans, and the Koreans seem to contributing well to the local economy and cultural acclimatising to American ways, including by taking English names. I can find the full article by archiving it and there seems to be positivity there, including by Georgian government officials. Some local union workers have complained, but it also seems like most of these Koreans have come legally, consistent with Georgia's laws.
I mean, this mostly seems like a model minority situation to me. Koreans have mostly come to Georgia via the legal process, which Georgians themselves established via their state government, and those that have come have respected the local culture, worked hard, and tried to fit in.
Now, sure, maybe native Georgians hate them for some reason and want them to go, but you can't just assume that as your starting point. Be careful not to typical-mind here - maybe you don't think Koreans should live alongside Americans, but it is hardly clear that that is a majority opinion in Georgia.
At any rate, some Koreans coming to Georgia to live and work there, if consistent with Georgia's existing laws, cannot be said to constitute 'replacement' in any reasonable sense of the word.
You can't help but put words in my mouth.
The null hypothesis is the preamble of the constitution: we do this for ourselves and our children. Not for Koreans. No hate required.
And the Georgians agreed to these terms, at least until their partners failed to honor the agreement and then conquered Georgia. I don't think what they wanted for themselves has mattered since 1865, and certainly not since 1964.
Regardless, since 1789 states have not been allowed to set their own immigration policies, and so I need not be a Georgian, merely an American.
I can see nothing in the constitution that says that states or communities are not allowed to welcome migrants. I think you're reading a kind of racial bias into it? I know you didn't mention specifically, but I think it is significant that this conversation is about Korean migrants, and not white or black migrants from elsewhere in the US.
It seems to me that you are assuming, on a highly speculative basis, that Georgians are strongly opposed to living alongside Koreans. I see no evidence of that, nor that the democratic will of Georgians is to get rid of this Korean community, Koreans in general, or Asians in even more general.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The least fertile demographic in the world is parsis, I believe. Koreans are like, fourth or fifth- behind some not-technically-a-country groups like manchurians.
More options
Context Copy link
It's spelled out in the article. Foreign food, foreign languages, and foreign customs are becoming dominant in place of the native white population.
Are they really?
In the 2020 census data, Pooler had a population of 25,711, of which Asians made up 6%. Going off the numbers in your excerpt, the Asian population is now up to about 14%; a large increase for sure, but still a minority. Assuming none of the recent arrivals are white, the white population has declined from 54% in 2020 to 45% in 2025, hardly what I'd consider replacement-level demographic change even in the worst-case scenario. This isn't to say that the locals aren't entitled to have their own opinions on their community demographics, or that it could become true demographic replacement in the future, but your assertion here seems mostly baseless.
Also come on, changing one's name is absolutely evidence of assimilation, not perfect evidence nor sufficient evidence, but evidence nonetheless. It sounds like you've taken the Arctotherium-pill writ Asian migration, and while I can't contest the raw stats he highlights I'm still skeptical of the strength of his claims. (Honestly, I don't trust him in general, he comes off as much more cunning and calculated in his rhetoric than other HBDers, who mostly seem quite genuine.)
Yes, they are really.
More than doubling of a population share in five years is absolutely ground-shaking.
In 2000 the area was 87% white. If going from 85% to 45% in twenty five years isn't replacement to you, then you're being dishonest. The demograpgic replacement isn't in the future, it's in the past, and you're pretending it never happened.
I trust Arcto more than you, as I don't think you're being genuine, either. Admit what's obvious, first, and maybe we can go from there.
I didn't bother to check the numbers before 2020, mea culpa. I'll grant you the broader narrative of massive demographic change, though I'll note that until recently the increase in the non-white population seems to have come mostly from homegrown minorities and not imported migrants (so not "foreigners" per se); I suppose that to you the difference is moot. I still don't think that the recent Korean influx specifically was that big a deal, since there's a proximal reason for them to be here and East Asians aren't particularly known for chain-migration.
No excuses or exemptions from me, not anymore. All foreigners, every single one, the women and children and paper citizens included, are unwelcome. No leniency or accommodation for at least twenty years, if not 60 to match the duration of replacement.
There is only two homegrown minorities: africans and indians. If you're talking about Hispanics then they're just as foreign as the Asians.
You and I seem to know different things.
At least you half admitted that the Americans have already been replaced, but it didnt make one whit of difference to you.
Yes, I was talking about blacks re. "homegrown minorities", but some fraction of mestizos are definitely "homegrown" in the same way, at least in Texas and California.
Why not forever? What will have changed by then to merit any tolerance of foreigners, if their presence is so noxious now?
You clearly care about this matter on a visceral level. I don't. So it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The quoted article points out that many of them are adopting American names "to fit in better", like the pastor. Doesn't sound like people who don't want to assimilate.
That's typical of Koreans who aren't intending to assimilate (or stay), so it doesn't really mean anything.
More options
Context Copy link
Assimilation is largely a myth but even if it weren't, changing a name is hardly evidence of it. Do they speak foreign languages, eat foreign food, practice foreign customs?
Most importantly, do they politically agitate in favor of their racial group and dilute the political power of the native white population? Even if there economic benefits to the native population, and that's hardly a given, that doesn't excuse transforming the local community into a non-white area in a generation. The white Americans in this community did not ask to be abused and erased.
Realistically, if you’re hiring for factory hands among the population of south GA, they’re going to be black.
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't match my experience. I've seen a ton of assimilated second-generation Asians, for example - most of them don't even speak the language of their parents (somewhat inconvenient when you need to translate something in Chinese and you know this guy whose parents are definitely from China but turns out he at best knows Chinese at kindergarten level, or less), don't associate exclusively with their ethnic community, don't keep any old customs (maybe except occasional family holidays or such). And of course I know many, many assimilated Jews. And, Trump himself is an assimilated second-generation German - we don't see him speaking German or donning lederhosen on Oktoberfest, do we? (I'm not sure that's what real un-assimilated Germans actually do, but whatever they do, Trump doesn't do that).
It does match my experience. Even when mostly assimilated, foreigners remain very, very foreign in ways you can't always see.
They think and vote and act on juries as if they're foreigners, and once you notice that, a name change becomes meaningless.
Yes, I must admit, I never understood Trump's love for greasy fast food. Those Germans and their Teutonic ways...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Asians form their own ethnic interests groups and overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. These ethnic interest groups agitate to the disadvantage of the native population. When the native population protests they are called racist.
This is how assimilation into Blue America looks like. No such thing as current Democratic party platform is conceivable in Asian countries, it is purely American creation.
More options
Context Copy link
Some do, sure. But there's no such thing as "Asian ethnic interests" - why Vietnamese, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Sikh and Indonesians would have the same interests? I've met many people of different Asian descent, and they had very varied interests - I can't imagine how a single group would be able to represent them.
Do they? Any substantiation of that? I am sure some particular group of, say, Indians may agitate to the disadvantage some particular group of, say, Norwegians (of course, when I say Indian, I mean American person of Indian descent, and so on). But (leaving aside the definition of "native population", which I am sure you will provide me with in the other branch) claiming every Asian group always would advocate a policy that is contrary to the interest of every single "native" group seems to need a very extraordinary proof. At least it is not at all obvious why it would happen, so if you want somebody to believe it it makes sense to try and prove it.
I am pretty sure if you think that every Asian by their mere genetic buildup has interests that are all the same and are always opposed to the interests of all people who are not Asian, that is the textbook definition of racism. In fact, if I needed to define the set of ideas that are based on this assumption, I would think "racism" is the best term that would describe it. I mean, if the race is the sole criteria you are looking at, how else would one call it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You said in place of. What's your evidence for that? I just distinguished between addition and replacement.
I don't have a Wall Street Journal subscription, so I can't read the article itself, but I would be very shocked if the WSJ was pushing a line about demographic replacement - especially since the portions you've quoted sound sympathetic to the Koreans.
Of course the WSJ is sympathetic to the Koreans; it's a liberal and immigration friendly paper. What does that matter? The article states that foreigners are moving in and the population of the natives is going down. I would characterize this as demographic replacement through immigration.
Is the native population declining? Your quotes didn't say that, and as noted I can't read the article.
I think degree matters as well. If a native population goes down by 1% while at the same time some migrants move in, I wouldn't consider that replacement. I think the word 'replacement' suggests a wholesale removal. Is anything like that going on?
If a majority of the population growth is non-native then the native population is proportionally declining. That's what the quote I provided says. It's not 1%, it's much higher.
The naive white population of Georgia didn't ask to be replaced by foreigners. I have found @Dean is quite articulate in explaining the insidiousness of demographic replacement. Maybe he can answer your questions better than I can.
The did ask to replace the native red population of Georgia, though.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, that's why I was probing you a bit about what the lines are, in order to precisify what your concerns actually are. I didn't want to leap to conclusions and assume the worst.
That said, I'm not particularly keen on you outsourcing your opinions to someone else. Dean is a very articulate poster here, but one thing Dean cannot do is tell me what NYTReader thinks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Many people care about their local community and don't want it to change. Whatever the details are regarding the fertility rate of the established white population in the area versus the fertility of the new group is really secondary. The large infusion of new people from a different culture will change things. That is something that many people don't want, and understandably so. They are invested in the way things are, maybe for many generations.
even if they aren't things will change. But white americans don't have very high fertility rates so we can assume that the established white community probably doesn't have such overwhelming fertility rates such that they make the influx of new people irrelevant.
Fine. How about dilution? The existing population, and their community, and their culture will be diluted, which is bad enough. Concentration is just as important a variable in community strength as raw numbers are. At the very least, as the original local population is diluted their collective political power is equivalently diluted. So there is an objective reduction in the power they have over their home.
And dilution becomes more threatening due to the fact that white communities in America are generally pretty weak in terms of cultural vitality. Having a large influx of foreigners who might have more vitality and a stronger sense of community means that the new comers can punch above their weight comparatively. As dilution occurs the threat of actual replacement becomes greater, and the ability to resist it is diminished.
You can prefer dilution and cultural change in exchange for increased economic investment, but many don't. It seems like you're being intentionally avoidant about the concern.
If the concern is cultural change, I think that's valid, and I'm open to a discussion about that.
That is, though, I think a different concern to 'demographic replacement'? I take demographic replacement to suggest an agenda of, well, replacement - that is, not just a community changing through migration and integration of people of new cultural backgrounds, but rather the elimination of the existing population, and new people taking its place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seems to be going on in London, and many small towns in the US with which I am personally familiar.
No idea if it's going on in this specific case, but NYTReader is pointing to the problem in a broader context and suggesting that 'bringing back' business to America is actually a bad thing if it means staffing that business with foreign labor.
Given this, your insistence on picking at micro-scale technicalities occurs to me as pedantic and obnoxious.
OliveTapenade is correct to question the validity of "demographic replacement" of white Americans by Koreans. I mean: trying to catastrophize Costco selling kimchi or a few Korean restraunts opening.
I'm sure the Hyundai plant has Koreans in it. Those (hundreds?) of immigrants aren't "replacing" us.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link