You felt safe because of their immigration policies. Not letting culturally incompatible people in results in extremely low crime rates.
South Korea does not have a "cultural compatibility test" as a requisite for immigration. But I see your point. It is a disgusting one to make, though.
What is wrong with cultural compatibility? Why shouldn't a country want people who will help, and not want people who won't? Is this not what countries already do by trying to find productive workers instead of future welfare cases? By turning away people who have committed sexual assault or other crimes. By looking for people who say good things about their host country, not who denigrate it.
Neither would be a great thing.
From my reading, you're the one assuming that white protestants are going to do better in these tests and that is racist etc.
Also, like most people, I differentiate between immigration and asylum. Asylum is like taking your neighbor in after their house burns down. Immigration is like inviting them to stay as a roommate. There are very few people I wouldn't extend a helping hand to, but not a lot who I'd want to live with.
Unless it can be proven that the majority of immigrants to Korea or other Asian countries are as destructive as described, and demonstrate the same for European immigrants to other European countries, or even for Asians immigrating to Europe or the US, framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious.
> framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious.
No. It is a general argument because it applies to everyone, everywhere, no matter your skin color or country.
If you had two potential immigrants, identical, and from the same country, would you not pick the one with a solid work history? Would you not pick the one saying "I'm looking forward to a great new life in <Your Country>" as opposed to the one bad-mouthing it? Which one would you assume would get the most value out of being there, someone who hated it, or someone who loved it?
> a thinly veiled and obvious proxy argument against Muslim and Indian immigration into Europe, itself a proxy argument about maintaining white racial and ethnic homogeneity.
No. You obviously just watch the USA news about Europe. For one, the actual racists aren't concerned with Indians. So you're just out of touch. There is racism, but ... it's complex and interwoven and generally more about the countries you traditionally fought against rather than some simplistic color spectrum. The USA is odd in that almost all racial strife comes from the Indian wars and slavery, both populations of which are internal and visible. In Europe you have silliness like Greeks hating Turks and vice versa, but being essentially indistinguishable by others.
But there is a huge "invisible" backlash against unrestricted Muslim refugees. Invisible because it's not the far-right narrative you hear. It's progressive people. For gay marriage, racial equity, etc. And they don't want religion bans or anything, but they do want ideology tests. For instance, there's near 100% support for asking "Do you respect women as the full equal of men, and could you follow the orders of a female police officer?" or such. The recent terrorists would have been blocked by such a screening. There is an obligation to take in refugees, but not to do so blindly. If you do take in a known criminal, perhaps jail them while they await the chance to return to their home country...
Your attitude is insultingly out of touch to, for instance, the victims and families of the UK child sex scandal. It's not a happy fact, but it is a fact, that 97% of those arrested were Pakistani. If you call that racist you crap on the victims, and you crap on all the non-rapists who should have priority over the criminals. Similarly, to pretend that Europe hates Muslims craps on all Muslims (the vast majority) who don't chop off the heads of people they disagree with.
For others' benefit, Britain has three groups from the Indian subcontinent:
* Indian Hindus
* Indian Sikhs
* Indian and Pakistani Muslims
Sikhs and Hindus have been very successful; they are more likely than the average to be part of the British middle class (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-...). Muslims are, by contrast, worse than average in every single social measure despite being, racially speaking, indistinguishable from the other two groups to any outsider (since none knows, or cares, about the myriad of caste differences), much like your example of Greeks and Turks; they are all "Asians" in Britain.
Religion and culture are HUGE parts of a community's behavior and race almost isn't at all. To use the largest and most brutal example, the UK rape gangs are 97% Pakistani. It isn't because of race, but because of religion and culture. A religion that doesn't respect women and a culture that doesn't respect the law.
The two people I know who got banned from FB for pointing this out are a Pakistani expat and a Qatari Arab. It's not a racial thing. They both very persuasively show that it's structural issues in both the country and in Islam that make this almost expected behavior. Much like how the thin-blue-line might seem noble to police but obviously just leads to abuse. So these people trying to criticize their culture to improve it, much like everyone calling out the USA, christians, police, etc, were shut down by the white people who assumed they were being racist - towards themselves... Much doublethink.
When you come along and call out reasonable issues as 'coded racism' you're never going to stop the rape, and at best you're just going to cause racism. "No," they may think, "I didn't say that person was X race, but you are, and you're really defensive about it. Maybe you're on to something." But it almost feels like that's the goal these days. Accelerationists picking fights in everyone else's name, trying to burn down the system at all costs.