On gun regulations

I would like to offer a rebuttal to Mr. Hall’s letter about gun control (Sept 3). 

1. 1.    “Nothing about firearms themselves has changed”.I beg Mr. Hall to reconsider or clarify that statement. Modern weapons with large magazines, rapid firing capacity and armor-piercing bullets, all designed to make killing easier, were not available to private citizens in the 1950’s. 
2. 2.    “The states with the most restrictive gun laws still lead the country in gun violence.”There is actually a strong body of literature published in respectable medical, public health and law journals reporting that stricter state gun policies were associated with a 10-35% decrease rate of firearm homicides, mass shootings, and suicides, even after adjusting for demographic and sociological factors. Specifically, these laws include strengthening universal background check and permit-to-purchase gun and ammunition, and enhancing gun safety design and storage. Conversely, allowing people to carry weapons, and “stand-your-ground” laws are associated with a substantial rise in the incidence of assault with a firearm. Missouri experienced a 25% increase in homicide rate after it repealed laws requiring permits to purchase gun, even as the rate fell nationwide.

We should recognize that no gun laws can guarantee complete safety, but each small step would reduce injuries and deaths. As for missing Norman Rockwell’s idyllic era, let’s remind ourselves that the National Rifle Association then supported the 1934 National Firearms Act that regulated gun ownership with background check and mandatory registration, and gave us more than half a century of shelter from gun violence.

(Submitted Sept 6, published Sept 17, 2019, in the Gazette Times, Corvallis)

On immigration policies

President Trump’s latest stand on immigration is that applicants with good education and wealth are welcome, while those who would need public assistance will be denied a home in our land of opportunities. At first, this sounds all too reasonable. After all, most nations aspire to reap the best crops and leave “trash” for someone else to worry about. Comments that we should take care of our own folks with needs rather than admitting people who demand handouts at the cost of higher taxes to everyone also strikes a common chord.

However, looking a little deeper would expose weak points in the above policies. Skimming the world for what seems to be the best for us to grab, and to benefit from, would create a “brain drain” in other parts of the world, potentially widening the technological and financial gap between countries, and impairing the upward move of masses of people from the “third world” into the rank of developing nations. Persistent poverty and oppression in various corners of the earth will continue to foster regional conflicts and insecurity at the global level, a problem that no border wall can solve.

Another shortsightedness lies in the misunderstanding of the true nature of human beings. Importing “the best” for now does not necessarily guarantee our future social success. Education and wealth are often the result of an inherited aristocracy or a systemic meritocracy, and does not necessarily reflect the moral character and spiritual strength of an individual. Some rich immigrants may come with exaggerated demands for the privileges they expect they should have since they “paid” to get into the US. On the other hand, courage, resilience, and hard work are more often found in those who have endured hardship and have their survival skills put to the test, like to escape persecution or poverty.  These are the qualities that our earlier immigrant forefathers, mothers or grandparents brought to America, lest we forget.  More recently, we have our Sergey Brin (Goggle CEO, whose family immigrated from the USSR to escape Jewish persecution), and Hamdi Ulukaya (a Muslim Kurdish shepherd in his youth, and now CEO of the Chobani Greek yogurt company), just to name a few we can be thankful for. Poor immigrants are prepared to work their way up, to remember their humble roots, and many will pass on their work ethics to their US-born children. Yes, some immigrants will need short-term public assistance to settle in a strange new land. But many studies have confirmed that the majority of immigrants, especially in their second generation, will end up contributing a lot more to society than they draw from. Yes, we should address the needs of our own, less fortunate citizens. But, by wisely cultivating the vast stretches of land across this continent, by better management of our economic and human resources, and by using the creativity we have to solve ever-emerging problems, I believe there is room for being generous to everyone in need.

Selecting immigrants solely on the basis of their potential to improve wealth in the US is essentially a policy that reduces human lives to economic commodities – whose value can be dealt with and traded on open markets for immediate corporate or national gains. It is like looking for sweet business deals with no moral basis. I think we can be, and can do better.

(Submitted on Aug 13, and published in the Gazette Times, Corvallis, OR, August 30, 2019)

On "People of Color"

In his 1963 “I have a Dream” speech, Dr King spoke of a nation where our “children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. Two generations later, his dream seems as elusive to us as it was inspiring then.

For me, nothing epitomizes our racial divide more than the commonly used expression “people of color”. The term is a convenient way of designating ethnic groups that are not of European decent, in other words, the non-Whites. As a lexical corollary, if Whites are not “people of color”, are they “colorless people” then? That would be rather sad.

A more unfortunate and sinister implication of simplifying our racial complexity is that it boxes our view of our world into a bipolar model, with people from European descent at one end, and at the other end, a common waste basket for the rest of humanity, just on the basis of skin color. This allows us to ignore the genetic mix, the diversity of world cultures and values, and the social meritocracy that all ethnic groups contain, even within people of European descent. 

Words matter. Racial issues are more than skin deep. Thinking of our society as just Whites vs. “people of color” frames our mind-set into a distorted vision of America as a bipolar nation of “Us vs. Them”, and takes us farther away from Dr King’s vision of a nation where all are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

(Published in the Gazette Times, Corvallis, July 29, 2019)

On immigration

"At his first campaign rally, Mr. trump pledged to remove “millions” of undocumented immigrants. The frenzied crowd of red hats cheered. 

This time again, Mr. Trump skillfully uses a tactic he knows best: raising fear and anger.  Anger at those “criminals who broke our laws”; fear in the heart of ethnic diasporas whose names and skin colors could make them targets of police profiling.

Now that the fight against abortion and for gun rights is in our stagnant courtrooms, tugged away from the flow and web of human passion, immigration is the perfect offensive weapon for Republicans. Indeed, it is an important issue to address, even if it is not the crisis that it is made to be. Immigration is blamed for many of our problems: job opportunities and pay structure; illicit drug trade and crime; allocation of resources for social services. At a deeper level, immigration touches our cultural and moral emotions, and stirs our racial and tribal anxieties.  Sadly, at the end, what determines election turnout is not facts and rational debates, but darker feelings whipped by social media and campaign slogans. Remember the “Lock Her Up” chants.

There is a definite danger to let Mr. Trump set the tone of the election season. Current presidential Democratic candidates have proposed their own “great ideas”, but few if any have adequately addressed immigration issues. Political rhetorics come and go. All of us Americans need to work toward a long-term solution that is economically fair, logistically sound, and morally just."

(Submitted June 20, 2019; published in the Gazette Times, June 26, 2019)

The New Cold War Arm Race

“Here we go again. Talk of another meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim to avert a nuclear Armageddon. Then a Putin’s proposal for a renewed 6-nation conference. We find ourselves swinging between a skeptical reaction and a hope for a sensible resolution. “Peace envoys” came and went, leaders shook hands for photo-ops then walked away, and the arms race and saber rattling continue.

We are the children and grandchildren of the Cold War. Our two countries, Vietnam and Korea, have experienced the most costly wars of the second half of the 20^thcentury. Generations in our families have died from bullets and bombs, and we survive to hear that it was all for the sake of freedom and democracy, while so many tragic stories remain untold. We have lived where DMZ means demilitarized zones, ironically bordered by barbed wires and dotted with mines, and have been raised to live in fear and distrust of our own people on the other side.  Parts of our countries are still unsafe from unexploded bombs and mines from past wars. And now, we are paying more taxes to build more bombs and missiles. 

We are constantly bombarded by the media and governmental agencies telling us who the good and bad guys are. We have studied the analyses of think-tanks, historians and policy makers; learned, from one side, what the “domino theory” and the strategy of containment was all about; and from another side, that a strong military is needed to combat neo-colonialism and imperialism. But we have also seen our human capital and resources wasted in military hardware when food and schools and better healthcare are sorely needed. 

We believe that the tension in the Korean peninsula can be reduced only if both sides reduce their military arsenals, and that economic competition and prosperity do not have to be linked to military deterrence. We also remember what President Eisenhower said in 1953: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger but are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not just spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its science, the hopes of its children.”

Our small countries will always be seen as parts of a strategic area where China, Russia, and America contest for regional or global supremacy. Communism was the issue then; geopolitical and economic dominance, backed by uncontestable military power is the new world order, but the danger is still the same. Our self-determination and human rights mean very little in this dangerous chess game. For now, neither Vietnam nor any other country can stop China from militarizing the South China Sea. China fears a unified Korea will present a great challenge to its power, as Japan already does. Chairman Kim will continue to keep his nuclear and ballistic arsenal as long as he sees threats coming from the US and its allies.

We’ve heard too often that those who do not learn history are bound to repeat it. We have learned our history too well, but only to feel more frustrated. For as long as there is bad faith and hypocrisy in the hearts of men, and as long as the greed of the military-industrial complex commands the hands of our leaders, we and our children, and your children will continue to bear the effects of the Cold War. Yet, Eisenhower’s words resonate in our minds. So we demand that our world leaders take the first responsible step: stop a new arms race. Now.”

YeonShik Kim and Chinh Le

Submitted May 6, 2019; published in the Gazette Times, May 31, 2019

YoenShik Kim is an OSU Visiting Professor from Kyungpook National University College of Social Sciences, South Korea.