> Perhaps they could allow mass immigration to fix it but that would destroy the culture.

This is the racist part. The majority is always worried about how awful everything would be if they were to become the minority. Usually it's because they treat minorities like shit, and they'll worried that they'll suddenly be treated that way too.

Why would that possibly destroy their culture? Are the cultures of all minorities always destroyed? Why would that be? Is it because of racist assholes?

It's an incredibly weak argument when you think about it. The South Korean culture doesn't have to go anywhere: there will be the same number of Korean pop stars and artists and chefs as there was before, it's just that there will also be others coexisting with them in the same country. Somehow this is a huge threat? They're worried about their culture being "watered down" by lesser cultures? These are racism-adjacent fears, similar to their pure blood being mixed with the lesser races. If you're worried that the South Korean youth will get so much exposure to other cultures that they somehow drop or forget the Korean culture, that just feels like weird gatekeeping and more "mixed blood" concerns to me.

Is there a limit on how much culture can exist? If so, it's surely based on population. We're not talking about the South Korean population declining more due to immigration; it's already declining. If their culture is in danger, it's surely due to that, rather than some sneaky danger of all those dirty immigrants. How is it not based in racism? We're just talking about more culture overall.

Not to mention the fact that most culture spreads over communication channels, not physical bodies. Those terrifying 8 billion non-Koreans who are threatening to destroy Korea's culture are already influencing Korea's culture. Would it really make that big of a difference if they were physically within its borders?

i think racist is a projection.

example: I'm a new Zealander.

i don't want Americans immigrating in large quantities to New Zealand, because they have cultural values that change the nature of the society, in ways that i don't want it to change.

And i don't consider American a 'race', but more an agglomeration pf people with some general preferences, shared experience and even material characteristics ($$$) that will have negative impacts.

Now, if i could filter, as a voter, to 'allow in Americans that share my values and that would minimize change on axes that matter to me', i would accept immigration of Americans.

but, as a voter, i cannot do that. So instead i vote to keep immigration restrictive. that does not mean I consider Americans inferior, not that i hold that they are meaningfully different from me in any way except culture.

it's not racism. but instead a generalization that we are forced to apply as individuals.

does that change your perspective on this?