South Korea’s Pro-US ‘Silent Majority’ Strikes Back

I find it interesting that not much has changed from ten years ago, in that the same danger and threats that North Korea poses to South Korea and the United States are the same in 2013 as they were in 2003, which was when this article was written. Even now, despite a shift in leadership and the switching of hands between Kim Jong-il and his son Kim Jong-un, North Korea is still on the same path and has the same ideas as they did ten years ago, in terms of nuclear testing and launching. Obviously, efforts of putting nuclear talks to rest and averting a potential disaster has failed, since these same problems have propped up again even ten years later. What can the United States and South Korea do to avert a nuclear disaster with North Korea without compromising themselves? What can they do to persuade North Korea to not follow through on their threats?

- Timothy Huynh

Section A01

Deporting everyone and anyone?

In response to “Deporting Our Souls and Defending Our Immigrants.” By Bill Ong Hing

In this article, author Bill Ong Hing talks about the different policies towards Asian American immigrants in terms of deportation and crimes. According to a previous law, any immigrant could be deported to their “home country” if they have convicted a felony and are turned over to immigration officials. What is surprising and upsetting is that even someone of permanent residency could be deported for some relatively small crime, such as a possession of drugs. Any minor offense could lead to the person being deported. This person could be living in the United States for ten years and could not speak his or her home language, but he or she would be deported. This breaks up families and does not fix the problems of crimes and gangs. After twenty years, this law is replaced with another one which grants a little more justice. It allows the cancelling of a deportation order as long the deportee follows certain rules and does commit something considered as “aggravated felony”.

What surprised me was the fact that lawful permanent residents could fall to deportation in the past. Even though the law has been changed a bit, it brings little relief because it is still easy for officials to write a crime off as something worse than it actually is. This presents the question, what could the government have done better to amend laws in order to fix homeland crimes, and without aggravating the situation for immigrants?

Xishan (Lucy) Ye

Section A02

Goal: Rid America of Immigrants; No Matter What

A Response to "Deporting Our Souls and Defending Our Immigrants" by Bill Ong Hing
Reply By: Jonathan "Prince" Garcia

The article by Hing proposed the question "What is crime in Asian America mean to you?" at the beginning of the passage. The answer throughout the passage seemed to be complicated. And in a sense, I agree that the concept of crime in Asian America, is indeed, complicated. The goal of the justice system in America, is to rid the country of what they call "undesirables", this includes the Asian minority. Many Asians living in America, like many other minorities, are not citizens. They have entered the nation with the hopes of escaping their dire situations in their homelands. The children of these immigrants are forced to adjust to a new culture; often unaware of the laws, or choosing to ignore the laws, because of their survival mindset. The article gave numerous examples in how even the slightest infraction against the law can ultimately result into deportation of the "criminal." Often times, one can deported even with a strong base of support with their families and friends. The overarching theme I determined from the article, was the inconsistency with the judgments of the immigration courts, as some are offered a second chance at life within the country, while others are not, and the lack of a uniform system to protect these people from inequality and crime. 

So does "Taiwanese" mean anything to you?

     Big surprise! The U.S. has managed to be stupid again. Okay, so here's my take on the Wen Ho Lee case. This is a quintessential example of U.S. ignorance and the "Yellow Peril" phenomenon. Due to rising national unrest of China's economic and military potential to compete against our nation, there was increased paranoia that Chinese Americans could very well be spies sending information back to their motherland. Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese American nuclear scientist, was accused of espionage DESPITE the fact that he was clearly Taiwanese and was incarcerated for nearly a year in solitary confinement. The basis for this accusation was that Lee brought his unfinished work home, thus, allowing him to steal secret information even though his co-workers, who were predominantly white, did the same thing. Because he felt that he did nothing wrong, he did not hire a lawyer to defend his case and was consequently thrown into prison; after he was released, he was compensated for about 1.5 million U.S. dollars with an apology that admitted that his case was addressed with consideration to his ethnic background. The part I find most problematic about this case is that the U.S. subdued this racist catastrophe so that it would not contort into a bigger issue and put a lid on it with some pocket money. This incident was not publicized as well as it should have been, if at all! The U.S. is RACIST okay? The public should know when the rights of people of color are being taken and abused by the government and the fact that this fucked up situation was invisiblized sickens me.

What does this case mean to you as Asian Americans? Why do you think these incidents are invisibilized?

Professor Kurashige On The Yellow Peril & Model Minority Stereotypes Of Asians In The U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOB0VCCEUa4

Deportation too Harsh???

Andy Wang

Section A02

In Response to "Deporting Our Souls and Defending Our Immigrants" by Bill Ong Hing

            According to Bill, immigrants or permanent residents can be deported back to their own country if they are convicted of crimes that are moral turpitude and aggravated felonies. He says it is unjust and I must agree with him. Some people who are deported like Kim Ho Ma, only formed his own gang to protect himself from the other two gangs who were harassing his people. I am pretty sure the police didn't help at all. Also he escaped Cambodia with his mother when he was two years old. How can you deport someone who doesn't even remember his own country. I find that to be truly unjust. You are basically sticking him into a foreign country where he can find a more horrible life. In my opinion there are deportees that should be deported and some who should not. I think immigration officials should look at where they live, what their history is, and then determine whether they should deport them or just let them stay in the US.

            What if, the United States was more lenient on deportation and instead of being harsh? I believe there is consequences on both spectrum. Being too lenient could have an adverse affect. Such as having more criminals which would mean more crime in the United States. Being harsh can cause innocent immigrants and legal US residents to be deported while they have an excuse to commit the crime they have committed.

Under the Microscope

Many years after September 11, when I finally could comprehend what exactly the Patriot Act was, I was not surprised to find that most of the controversy was focused around the infamous provision that allows the government easier access to our personal information and communications.  But the insidious nature of government surveillance never really occurred to me until I read the ASNE memo on the Patriot Act’s effect on newspapers written by Richard M. Schmidt and Kevin M. Goldberg.  While most of the rhetoric against government surveillance has mostly revolved around “government surveillance is bad because we deserve privacy”, Schmidt and Goldberg did a good job on clarifying the concrete damage that government surveillance can do to our freedom of expression.  As Schmidt and Goldberg are quick to point out, the language that the Patriot Act is composed of is extremely vague—which makes it all the more conducive to convenient definitions that can justify the stilling of dissent.  For example, Schmidt and Goldberg cite the example of journalists: by definition, their work is to disseminate information.  One doesn’t have to be terribly imaginative to point out that journalists are indeed passing information to foreign entities, and should thus be wiretapped.  But even the threat surveillance can be oppressive.  Just the mere hint that one is being observed can and do drastically alter our behavior.  We’ve all been in situations where we had to check or alter our words or behavior because we feel that the people around us may not approve.  The same can happen with government surveillance, except the stakes are infinitely higher: instead of a strange look or chastisement, there is potentially investigation or imprisonment, both of which are permanently damaging to one’s life.  Fear is oppression, and so is observation.  While I agree that there certainly are national threats, I have to wonder, is our freedom too large a price to pay for our “safety”?  Perhaps we ARE the enemy ourselves.

-Melody Yee

Section 2

ASA 2

Strength in Numbers

James Kim
ASA 2 Section 2

     My only note on the "Berkeley Free Speech Movement: Paving the way for campus activism" article is that there is always room for progressive action as there is no such thing as a perfect system. In this case, the students of UC Berkeley were silenced when mobilizing to support political causes surrounding the civil rights movement. The university administered police forces to arrest Weinberg because he refused to cooperate with their demands of removing himself and his table from the premises. Several thousand students rallied together and surrounded the vehicle, thus, immobilizing the officer from arresting Weinberg. The fact that these students were able to prevent Weinberg's arrest shows the sheer power of numbers in social justice activism. A greater population equates to a greater level of unrest and a greater demand for change. When everyone is upset, there must be something wrong with the system, NOT us! What we can take from The Free Speech Movement (FSM) is that there is strength in numbers and that this movement should be utilized as a template for future activism in that it abides by the rhetoric of nonviolent protest.

How has activism changed since FSM? For example, what can we say about the Pepper Spray Incident and the problematic way the administration handled the situation? Do we see a pattern in rising police action and greater systemic oppression perpetuated by the university?

Mario Savio on the operation of the machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhFvZRT7Ds0