A lawmaker called for stricter visa regulations for native English teachers in a bid to root out sexual violence and harassment of minors.
Rep. Choi Young-hee of the main opposition Democratic Party said that education authorities should better screen E-2 or English teaching visa holders for drug use and past criminal records.
The lawmaker proposed a bill last year that would subject native English teachers to a stricter screening process when they are recruited but the bill is still pending at the National Assembly. She said the bill should be passed as soon as possible.
"With the government's English immersion programs, the demand for native English speakers is increasing, but there is no system to screen out inappropriate teachers and properly manage them," she said.
We first read about Choi's proposed laws last fall, via Gusts of Popular Feeling. They're back in the news now after a teacher suspected of molesting students fled to Japan.
I'm not defending that teacher, and I'm not suggesting---like some have---that looking critically at regulations means I consider the reputation of foreign male English teachers more important than the safety of Korean children. However, as we have come to expect from Choi and reporter Kang Shin-who, there is conflation at work:
Choi pointed out that teachers committing sex crimes have been subject to rather lighter punishment and some of them were able to obtain teaching positions again at other schools or private language institutes, which are called hagwon in Korea.
"The bill is aimed at closing loopholes in current regulations involving E-2 visa holders," she said. "By obliging them to present criminal and drug test results that were issued less than one month from when they apply for teaching positions, schools and hagwon will be able to exclude native English speakers who were caught for taking drugs or sexually harassing children."
Teachers committing sex crimes have indeed been subject to lighter punishment, though these teachers have been Korean. This story from last April comes quickly to mind:
A temporary teacher at a middle school in North Chungcheong Province was arrested for raping and molesting female teenagers, police said Wednesday. He had previously been convicted on seven counts of sexual assault and other crimes.
Police said the contract-based teacher, identified as Min, sexually assaulted an unidentified middle school student in February at a motel in the province. Police said the student was a runaway at the time and the 31-year-old approached her, saying he would rent a motel room to be used as a temporary ``shelter.''
He is also accused of molesting another teenage girl at a karaoke bar the following month, police said.
Police are widening their investigation to find out whether he committed other crimes.
Currently, criminal records of those sentenced to less than three years in prison are removed after five years. As such, schools can't always ascertain the criminal record of would-be teachers.
But more to the point, this from the Korea Times in October:
Teachers committing sexual crimes have been let off with just light punishments, Rep. Choi Young-hee of the Democratic Party said Thursday.
A total of 124 sexual crimes involving elementary and secondary school teachers were reported to the education authorities between 2006 and 2009. Among them, 47 involved prostitution, 43 were sexual harassment and five were rape cases.
However, only eight teachers (6 percent) were given prison sentences, while 31 were not indicted and 28 received suspended sentences.
``It seems that teachers were exempt from punishment through out-of-court settlements with the parents of the victims,'' Rep Choi said.
``Moreover, each city and provincial education offices, which were supposed to strictly punish those teachers, gave only verbal warnings. Only 21 teachers were fired for sexual violence.''
According to data collected by the lawmaker, nearly 60 percent of the assailants were merely warned or reprimanded.
And here's some more conflation of foreign English teachers and sex crimes, with some local papers taking the opportunity to use "brutal sex crimes" and foreigners in the same paragraph.
Choi's proposals are actually talking about increased checks for Korean teachers as well, though you wouldn't know it from an article looking only at foreign ones. One has to wonder what the specific "loopholes in current regulations involving E-2 visa holders" are, considering teachers already submit criminal background checks and are subject to degree verifications, and have been doing so for years. We've read about "loopholes" several times in the past two years, pertaining to ethnic Koreans or English teachers on other visas not subject to the same background checks, though I'm not sure of any specifically relating to E-2 visa holders and sex crimes.
Talk on Dave's ESL Cafe indicates there are some changes to the E-2 visa process on the way, specifically regarding federal background checks from the United States, though there is no consensus yet on what those changes are or when they will take effect. And in the Korea Times today is news of more drug tests aimed at prospective teachers:
The Korean government's move to add new drug tests for an English teaching or E-2 visa is drawing protests from foreign teachers.
From this Thursday, those who want to obtain the visa should receive an additional "cannabinoids" drug tests, which detects marijuana, on top of a "TBPE," the Ministry of Justice said.
55 comments:
Have you noticed that lately Kang Shin Who is not writing articles on his own. Hopefully an editor at the KT decided he needed a little bit of supervision. Heehee! And I would note that the last article you linked to was reasonably balanced, and Greg Dalzel (?) the ATEK chap, got some fair points in there.
As for the new Testing regime adding a cannabinoid test and removing an AIDS test sees the wrong way round considering the potential public health risks of each. (Though that is wholly MY opinion)
Here's hoping the new job toddles off to Immigration before Wednesday for my extension / renewal! (In that I dont want to go to the hospital - not that I have anything to hide).
Stafford, immigration doesn't seem to follow what the government or the national human rights commission says it should...also, SMOE and other programs like EPIK and GEPIK will probably ignore the RECOMMENDATION that HIV tests be stopped....so for newbies and re-signing expats it'll be business as usual for medical checks...
I'm curious how they'll get enough hospitals equipped to do the cannabis testing cause one source I read said there aren't enough hospitals equipped to do the testing....
If the government did try to make a policy where Korean teachers had to be tested for drugs and HIV I think we'd see some massive protests....Korean society isn't ready yet to admit their deified teachers are humans who commit crimes too.
First, I think that, out of respect for the safety of children, all teachers should be required to submit criminal background checks. The problem, however, is that the background checks don't show the propensity toward behavior.
Just because someone has never been caught doesn't mean they haven't done something, and that is one loophole that will never be closed.
Second, it seems like the Korean legal system is the first thing that needs to be revamped if your record is wiped clean after 5 years. In a country where THE VAST MAJORITY of teachers who sexually abuse children receive less than 3 years in jail shouldn't the government do a better job of tracking who those people were in the first place?
Lastly, what are Korean legislators doing spending so much mental energy on the behavior of (less than) 1% of the peninsula's population? And, of all the foreigners here, E-2 Visa holders comprise only a small fraction. Would you vote to re-elect a senator/MP who spent all his/her time regulating the behavior of virtually no one at all? Go get some real work done... maybe teach the cops how to enforce traffic laws in your least-pedestrian-safe nation.
Criminal background checks from the US only certify that the person hasn't committed a crime in that county or state---they could still have a criminal background across state lines. Requiring a federal criminal background check would be more efficacious for US teachers. However, requiring checks for every teacher, not just US teachers would really be a step in the right direction. If a person has a history of sex crimes against anyone there is no way that they should be allowed near children--especially in a position of authority.
Again, any of these changes would not prevent that Neil guy or the (alleged crime) guy that went to Japan from entering the country. These periodic flare ups will not end until Koreans accept that crimes could happen from people that have previously not broken the law.
I'd look at it like this:
It is pretty amazing that there might be Korean schools somewhere that don't perform drug and criminal background checks. That is a pretty high level of incompetence that a place would hire such people without doing something like that. I worked in a goddamned box factory before coming to Korea through a temp agency, and even then I had a criminal screening and had to pee in a cup. If the problem is that people aren't getting checked for those kinds of things, what does that say about the Koreans who hire them?
Besides, they tried to start screening people for all of that kind of stuff anyway. What they need to do is screen anybody who works with children, not just E2 holders, just try to employ some freaking competence in hiring folks.
What they need to do is screen anybody who works with children, not just E2 holders, just try to employ some freaking competence in hiring folks.
That's why I've said from the beginning, years ago, that this is not an Immigration issue. This is a Ministry of Education issue.
The MoE should be the ones requiring teachers to get all these checks. They already do so for PS, regardless of nationality or visa status. They need similar policies for hagwons and camps, again regardless of nationality or visa status.
Immigration should not be involved at all.
And while Korea is asking for CBCs from national databases, can Korea in return make their own national database, to hold our fucking documents so we don't have to submit them year after fucking year. My degrees and transcripts haven't changed in 15 years, yet why have I been forced to "prove" and "verify" these fucking documents more than 20 times already?
Ask for CBCs for new visas (and for transferring jobs, if they must), but, Jejus H. tapdancing Christ, put degrees and transcripts on a goddamn computer and stop asking us for them!
Lastly, what are Korean legislators doing spending so much mental energy on the behavior of (less than) 1% of the peninsula's population?
Setting aside the arguments about whether or not the new visa regulations are desirable or viable, the Korean legislators do spend quite a lot of time thinking about ways to regulate or deregulate the 98% of the population that is ROK citizens.
Well, "thinking" is stretching it a bit.
Lastly, what are Korean legislators doing spending so much mental energy on the behavior of (less than) 1% of the peninsula's population?
Setting aside the arguments about whether or not the new visa regulations are desirable or viable, the Korean legislators do spend quite a lot of time thinking about ways to regulate or deregulate the 98% of the population that is ROK citizens.
The implicit argument here is similar to, say, a state legislator taking time debating whether or not they should pray away a state's financial problems.
There seems so many more important things the Korean government could be cracking down on. A nation with the develop world's highest child mortality rate due to accident seems to be problem perennially ignored in favor of Nazi Germany like tactics to shift blame to a small group of foreigners who, statistically, are 10 times more law abiding than Korean citizens who ostensibly are raised from birth to respect and revere the great han people.
I think the issue of foreign English teachers is simply a hot-button issue that can be counted on to stir up the emotions of Korean citizens. When a Korean lawmaker starts talking about weeding out the bad foreign teachers, I don't see that as being very different from a North American lawmaker talking about being "tough on crime"; it's political pandering, pure and simple.
For the record, I do believe that any country is well within its rights to decide which hoops visitors or immigrants must jump through before crossing its borders. And anyone who's going to be working with children, anywhere, should have to submit to thorough background checks. If these processes are stressful or time-consuming for the applicant, well, that's just part of the price you pay for the opportunity to live and work in another country.
But I agree entirely with Darth Babaganoosh about Korean Immigration keeping records of submitted documents; why should foreign teachers have to repeatedly show the exact same degree and transcripts? Keeping such records would be an easy way to make the whole process a little bit faster and easier.
Since 2002, all foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV and get denied of entry upon being tested positive.
It wasn't until January 2010 that aliens were no longer inadmissible into the U.S., based solely on the ground that they were HIV+. (Even with the lift on the HIV-travel ban, many immigrants can't actually stay in the U.S. due to the high cost of health care.)
Since 2005, foreigners intending to staying in New Zealand longer than 12 (or 3, depending on the case) months must be tested for HIV. (Source: http://hivtravel.org)
I can go on about HIV regulations on foreigners in other English-speaking countries, but the point is that I think Korea is well within its sovereign rights to have separate health requirements for foreigners, especially those in the profession that involves minors, without violating UN laws. (Though I personally think that HIV-travel ban should be lifted in Korea, as well as in other countries for human rights.) I would like to ask, in reverse and in your "rationality" of equality as demonstrated in your bashing of Korea for its health requirement for foreigners, would you (at least males) say that you are all willing to serve in the military for two years as Korean men do? If not, I think that it is illogical to make such equality arguments while you demand "rights" but to be exempted from the requirements/responsibilities of the citizens.
Anyway, I stumbled upon this website and am just shocked by the hostility of all these English teachers. To me, the bottom line is that you all can easily come to Korea to work only with a bachelor's degree. On the other hand, it is very difficult for Koreans with exceptional, not only Korean but also, English language proficiency, and even with a graduate degree (e.g., Master's, Ph.D.) to work in your countries. In other words, all the complaints about Korea being racist or unequal is, ironically, upon the very inequality that allows all of you to live and work in Korea in the first place.
All your arguments re: HIV testing in other countries refer to ENTRY. I have no argument with that.
Korea's HIV testing continue even after one has entered the country, which has been argued to be unconstitutional.
Big difference. No constitutional protections exist before you enter, but they do kick in once you're there.
And therein lies the main argument with Korea. Test all they want BEFORE teachers arrive, but once the teacher is here, it is discriminatory to do so. Presuming of course you believe the Constitution applies to non-Koreans in Korea.
And your point about military service is a silly strawman.
the point is that I think Korea is well within its sovereign rights to have separate health requirements for foreigners
The Korean Constitution disagrees with you. That would constitute discrimination.
"Since 2002, all foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV and get denied of entry upon being tested positive."
No. Not entirely true. Refugees in Canada are not banned if they are tested positive for HIV.
"To me, the bottom line is that you all can easily come to Korea to work only with a bachelor's degree. On the other hand, it is very difficult for Koreans with exceptional, not only Korean but also, English language proficiency, and even with a graduate degree (e.g., Master's, Ph.D.) to work in your countries. "
On the other hand, Canada has an amazingly generous and open refugee program. How many refugees does Korea ever accept?
Also to one can be HIV positive and immigrate via the family class route. The ban isn't as blanket as Asian claims.
Anyway, you'll understand Canada has a public health care citizen. Skills class immigration (the only immigration class that bans hiv positive people) is based on the idea of people being a positive economic contributor. HIV is very expensive to the medical system. It's not based on the idea HIV positive people are going to be spreading it to children, which seems to be the racist motivator of the Korean law.
Hence, the bitterness. ESL teachers are not bitter because the ease of getting an okay temporary job in Korea. They're bitter because the Korean government and media portrays them as more dangerous to the public than Koreans when the data is clear: foreigners commit 10 times less crimes than citizens.
If there was a law that Asians could not, say, own property in the USA, wouldn't you be bitter?
Puffin Watch wrote:
On the other hand, Canada has an amazingly generous and open refugee program. How many refugees does Korea ever accept?
Tens of thousands, depending on how you count the economic refugees with E2 visas. ;)
Darth Babaganoosh writes:
The Korean Constitution disagrees with you. That would constitute discrimination.
The Korean Constitution applies to both Koreans and foreigners (e.g., E-2 visa holders) within its jurisdiction areas, but does so in different manners. It is very clear in the text. (Judging from your response, it is questionable even you actually read the Constitution?!?) Where it specifically applies to Korean citizens, it uses the word "citizen," for instance in Article 39: "All citizens shall have the duty of national defense under the conditions as prescribed by Act." When it applies to all people (i.e., both citizens and immigrants) within its jurisdiction areas, it does not use the word "citizen."
While you may want to frame the HIV case as "discriminatory," it is not unconstitutional for a state to have a different set of rules, requirements, and responsibilities for its citizens and immigrants. That is why Koreans can vote and elect but E-2 visa holders cannot. That is why Korean men are required to serve in the military but E-2 visa holders are not. Korea, as well as many other states, is well within its sovereign rights to "discriminate" as long as it does not violate international laws. It is pretty much the same in other states. Koreans cannot vote in your country while you can (assuming that you are a person of non-Korean citizen).
Thus, your argument that the HIV test requirements for immigrants are unconstitutional because they are not required for Koreans in the same profession is weak. In reverse, Korean teachers are required of other tests and regulations (e.g., syphilis test, thumb print, finger print, family background check) that E-2 visa holders may not. If Korea were to have separate requirements for, let's say, Korean citizens and naturalized Korean citizens, that would be unconstitutional. Korea having separate requirements for Korean citizens and foreign citizens is not.
I personally think that HIV ban should be all lifted in all nations. However, I disagree with your "unconstitutional" argument.
Puffin Watch writes: "Refugees in Canada are not banned if they are tested positive for HIV."
True. There are few exceptions. However, your note simply distracts people from the main argument: Whether it is "discriminatory" (or unconstitutional) that Korea has set HIV test requirements for E-2 visa applicants. So, your response is missing the point of my Canada example (which is to show that as Canada and many other English-speaking states where most of you are from, such HIV tests and regulations on immigrants do exist and in similar rational they also exist in Korea).
And I have to question the intention of your response "Canada has an amazingly generous and open refugee program. How many refugees does Korea ever accept?" I find it a little racist, so forgive me if I respond in a rather sarcastic way. Well, first, Kudos to Canada. Meanwhile, whether Korea decides to have the same openness for the refugee program as Canada is, again, Korea's sovereign rights. Canada has an enormous land from Canada's Imperial past and needs more people to populate it. Korea does not. If Korea had killed a bunch of American natives like Canada (then, British/French) did and acquired that enormous landspace for virtually free, l would be the first advocate to ask Korea to have such a "great" refugee program.
Anyway, in the statement that you responded to in a rather racist way (or maybe you didn't mean it and, if that's the case, I apologize), I was discussing how the "discriminatory" discourse that you share needs to be understood in a broader context.
Puffin Watch writes: They're bitter because the Korean government and media portrays them as more dangerous to the public than Koreans when the data is clear: foreigners commit 10 times less crimes than citizens.
Are you comparing the crime rates for "all" foreigners (including tourists, business people, English teachers, etc.) and "all" Koreans? Or are you comparing the crime rates for E-2 English teachers and Korean English teachers? If it is the first, I think it is a little shaky to apply the data to your reasoning for the bitterness. If it is the second, then your reasoning may be more sound. (I don't know which one you are referring to and I myself do not know the statistics for the second, so I won't directly respond to you on that.)
Unfortunately some E-2 English teachers commit crimes such as drug trades and consumptions, child sexual abuse, rape, etc. What do you want the Korean media to do about such incidents? To be silent? To portray them as positively and thank them for raping children? Of course, the portrayals are negative. It is the same in the U.S. (I think it is actually worse in the U.S., but that is for another discussion.) Look at what happened in regards to SARS, Arizona's SB1070, for instance, or what happened since the 9/11.
And when I watch such news on crimes by E-2 English teachers, my reception is that the news' focus is more about the need for more appropriate policies on the English education system, immigration, etc., rather than about a stereotype that all E-2 English teachers are bad. I mean, do you actually understand Korean? Or are you making that assessment, judging only by the images (e.g., needles, marijuana) but not by your understanding of the actual text?
And in my opinion, E-2 English teachers are overall very positively portrayed in Korea. (Maybe you disagree because you pay more attention to the negative ones?) I mean, for instance, it is very quite common that Koreans want to treat you dinner or coffee for free because you speak English or are a foreigner. If you want to ignore all the favors that you get because you are a foreigner in Korea and instead want to focus solely on the negative aspect, that is unfortunate and I think you are just wasting your time in Korea and what Korea has to offer.
AsianLikeMe,
I don't want to fan an obvious flame, but I find most of your arguments about as solid as house of cards.
I don't know if YOU didn't understand the context of the comments (you said you just found this site) but many of the people here have a long history on these topics.
Review the links on Brian's blog about immigration and visa regulations and you'll discover a wealth of information, on both sides of the fence, including statistics, direct quotes from the constitution and the scholars who study it and the Korean judges who interpret it, along with the comments and opinions of dozens of foreigners and Koreans.
After that, come back and tell us all we're racist and don't know what we're talking about.
In the mean-time, we'll continue to enjoy our little corner of the internet's massive landscape.
Mike writes: "I find most of your arguments about as solid as house of cards."
Okay, that is your assessment. If so, respond point by point and I may be convinced. Instead, you chose to say: "Review... After that, come back... tell... [we] don't know what we're talking about." I'm sorry but that is a little cop-out. In the same manner, I can just choose to say: "Review the literature on white supremacy, Imperialism, postcolonialism... and then come back and tell me that you are not racist." But instead I am actually responding point by point for others to respond, in this case specifically about the HIV ban/test case. And I'm having some courtesy to do so in YOUR language. If you, on the other hand, don't even have anything else to say but you-are-simply-wrong or go-read-and-come-back, why should I take your words that do not demonstrate any sign of ability to engage in debates?
You forgot the part where I mentioned fanning flames.
Does anyone know if this applies to Gyopos too? If it is only E-2's then technically they could be hiring some pedophile from K-Town, but I guess they figure since they eat Kimchi its impossible for them to be pedophiles.
Mike writes: "You forgot the part where I mentioned fanning flames."
Then, you should have been just quiet, or you shouldn't have made such a rude comment like: "I find most of your arguments about as solid as house of cards." I would have been perfectly fine as long as you provided me with some reasoning that supports your claim. Simply put, one cannot say stuff like: "I don't mean to upset you but you are just wrong, and I'm not going to tell you why." It is just self-contradictory.
Please delete that comment (if you truly meant that you didn't want to "fan the flame") and I will be respectful as well and delete the corresponding comments (including this one).
Bucheon Matt writes: "...since they eat Kimchi its impossible for them to be pedophiles."
And this kind of comment is not racist?!?
"Thus, your argument that the HIV test requirements for immigrants are unconstitutional because they are not required for Koreans in the same profession is weak."
Quote where I ever argued the bold part.
And I'm having some courtesy to do so in YOUR language.
You're doing us the COURTESY of using English on an English blog?!? My, how very white of you.
Thought I'd collate my comments into one post. When it's one vs Mongolian hordes it's hard enough to follow the threads:
Unfortunately some E-2 English teachers commit crimes such as drug trades and consumptions, child sexual abuse, rape, etc. What do you want the Korean media to do about such incidents? To be silent?
Surely you can cite a case where an E2 teacher has been convicted of child sexual abuse in Korea (or rape). Take your time.
And I have to question the intention of your response "Canada has an amazingly generous and open refugee program. How many refugees does Korea ever accept?" I find it a little racist, so forgive me if I respond in a rather sarcastic way.
A little racist? I'm speaking of Korean national policy. It is racist on your part to conflate national policy with "race".
I mention the refugee comparison because you compared the ease of E2 teachers getting a job in Korea compared to Koreans getting a job in Canada. Canada has NO control over economic realities of the value of english. But it does have control over humanitarian immigration. Korea's record is quite shameful. Instead of worrying about E2 issues, perhaps you should worry about Korea's humanitarian record. K?
Also I attempted to make no argument regarding HIV testing. I was just pointing out your blanket statement was either misleading or poorly and hastily researched.
I further pointed out intents seem to be different. Barring HIV+ people in Canada are done for economic reasons. Testing non-Koreans within Korea plays to national fears non-Koreans spread disease.
My crime rate stats are compare E2 holders vs the national crime rate for Korea.
Darth Babaganoosh writes: "Quote where I ever argued the bold part."
I wrote, "Korea is well within its sovereign rights to have separate health requirements for foreigners" and you responded, "The Korean Constitution disagrees with you."
And also you wrote, "You're doing us the COURTESY of using English on an English blog?!? My, how very white of you." Mike가 별 상대하기도 귀찮다는 말 투로 말해서 그렇게 말했다. 너도 말하는 것 보니 인종차별주의자구나.
Puffin Watch writes, "Surely you can cite a case where an E2 teacher has been convicted of child sexual abuse. Take your time."
So, you are agreeing with the common sense that negative crimes are reported in the media... uhhh... in a negative way and that they are not reported in Teletubbies style, correct? And are you honestly believing that there is no child sexual abuse by E2 teachers? (Or are you even defending pedophiles?!?!?!) Do a simple Google search with "Korea, English, pedophile":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9_RpNHZ_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgzziN-NOow
http://kr.youtube.com/user/tincauley
Puffin Watch writes, "I'm speaking of Korean national policy. It is racist on your part to conflate national policy with 'race'."
So, if I say: "I [as a non-Westerner] fucking hate America and Canada," I guess that would not be racist because I'm speaking of a nation?!? Fine, whatever you want to call it. Either way, you know you had an intention of making Korea appear inferior to Canada in terms of immigration policies and I find it still post-colonial, Imperialist, unintelligent, etc that you did so in transhistorical way. And like I said, share some Canadian land with Korea, which Canada acquired virtually for free from the genocide of its aboriginal peoples and I will be the very first advocate for Korean "humanitarian" immigration to populate that space. And Korea contributes to the world in a different way than Canada does.
Puffin Watch writes, “My crime rate stats are E2 compare E2 holders vs the national crime rate for Korea."
Wouldn't you agree that comparing E2 teachers and Korean teachers for their crime rates is a better stat? (Teachers are expected of a higher moral standard than average people. That is why it is a more shocking news, for instance, when Amy Bishop [Al.] randomly killed a bunch of people on campus.) And regardless whatever statistic you want to use, Korea is entitled to pay "more" attention to the crimes by E2 teachers because they raise issues such as immigration, cost efficiency of hiring foreign English teachers, etc. And because it involves MINORS!!!
Puffin Watch writes, “Instead of worrying about E2 issues, perhaps you should worry about Korea humanitarian record. K?
What a cop-out response! And in the same manner, I can tell you, "Instead of complaining about your E2 issues, why don't you pay more attention to your... life, perhaps?" (I'm saying this only because you said it FIRST.) Repeat: Korea, or any other state, is entitled to pay attention to immigration issues.
And are you honestly believing that there is no child sexual abuse by E2 teachers? (Or are you even defending pedophiles?!?!?!)
My quote:
Surely you can cite a case where an E2 teacher has been convicted of child sexual abuse in Korea (or rape).
Yes. We all know about Mr. Swirly Face. As far as I know there has never been any evidence he abused any child in Korea. He is certainly paying for the crimes he committed where he committed them.
You have not cited me a case where an E2 teacher has been convicted of such a crime in Korea. That was your claim, no?
Not sure where you get the hair brained idea I'm defending pedos. I think we all agree that anyone who works with minors needs to pass some kind of criminal background check, be they E2 teachers, Korean teachers, or gyopos. Hence the "equal checks for all" campaign initiated by foreigner teachers.
We have, however, seen far too many times Korean politicians and the media claim a high risk and conflate that risk with crimes committed by non-E2 holders or Korean teachers. That is what E2 teachers object to. It's like a newspaper conflating honest Chinese immigrants with the violence committed by vietnamese gang members.
Either way, you know you had an intention of making Korea appear inferior to Canada in terms of immigration policies and I find it still post-colonial, Imperialist, unintelligent,
Yes. Korean policy towards refugees is inferior. It has nothing to do with the genetics of the people. You jumped to that conclusion.
And like I said, share some Canadian land with Korea
The numbers of refugees Canada lets in would not make a dent in Korean population density in any regard. Your premise is flawed.
Wouldn't you agree that comparing E2 teachers and Korean teachers for their crime rates is a better stat?
Yes. If you have those stats, table them. And then give them to the Korean government because it seems to pass policy without regard to actual risk. The only stats anyone has ever made known reveals E2 teachers commit far less crimes than the average Korean citizen.
Repeat: Korea, or any other state, is entitled to pay attention to immigration issues.
Yes. But it should devote limited resources to greater risks. If the Arizona government was devoting great attention to immigrant crime while it ignores the greater domestic crime problem, wouldn't you think politicians were trying to score points, not address risks based on the cold data?
In my view, the Korean government plays to stereotypes and demonizes for political gain, not to maximize limited resources to realize the most protection for Koreans and Korean children.
For example, Korea has the highest child mortality rate in the developed world due to road accidents. Korean children are at far, far greater risk from Korean drivers than E2 teachers. And yet this issue is ignored in favor of politically expedient attempts to demonize the white devil.
So, if I say: "I [as a non-Westerner] fucking hate America and Canada," I guess that would not be racist because I'm speaking of a nation?!?
Right. It wouldn't be racist.
I find it still post-colonial, Imperialist, unintelligent, etc
Frankly you've given me little reason to care about what you think.
I said, share some Canadian land with Korea, which Canada acquired virtually for free from the genocide of its aboriginal peoples
Our history is already written. But Canada recognizes the injustices of the past and has done a lot to redress the ills committed 200 years ago.
By the same token, the chaebols benefited greatly from the Korean government signing away the rights of wwii sex slaves to sue Japan. They benefited in the form of no interest loans from Japan and grew rich. I've seen no movement by the Korean government or people to demand the chaebols pay a dividend to sex slaves.
What compensation has the Korean government paid to the families and businesses ruined by totalitarian Korean governments since WWII and before, say, 1988?
Puffin Watch writes, "You have not cited me a case where an E2 teacher has been convicted of such a crime in Korea."
Again, do a simple Google search:
http://bit.ly/c2lsvN
And good that you are not a pedophile. Your denial of pedophiles (e.g., the "Swirl Face" or whomever that you mentioned) by E2 teachers got me question it.
And yes I agree that people who work with children should be required of background check, whether E2, Koreans, or others.
However, not for the "equality" argument. What it appears that we are disagreeing to is about the point that crimes by E2 teachers raise a different set of issues, again like immigration, cost efficiency, etc., than and that Korea is entitled to have specific immigrant regulations separate from ones for its citizens, just like any other state in the world has separate regulations for its citizens and immigrants. Hence, the term "immigration" policies. It seems that I say yes and that you say neh.
And are we at least agreeing to the common sense that negative crimes by E2 teachers (or even Koreans or people in general) are portrayed in media in negative way? You keep dodging certain points and instead just pick and choose.
Puffin Watch writes, "The numbers of refugees Canada lets in would not make a dent in Korean population density in any regard."
?!?!?! I'm not sure what you are actually responding to here. I asked you a rhetorical statement that if Korea had an enormous land (and by extension all the economic values [e.g., petroleum]) like the one that Canada (again, then British and French) acquired through the genocide of its aboriginal peoples, then I would be the first one to advocate such a "wonderful" refugee program in Korea. Your bragging about Canada's refugee program and telling Korea is inferior for its refugee program is as unintelligent as Bush's daughter telling hard-working Iraqi workers who managed to get out of poverty and made into middle class, "Geez, why aren't you as rich as I am?... I mean, geez... wow." It would be as dumb as Paris Hilton in The Simple Life saying to her host farm family, "Wow... my house is big. Your house is small. Wow... geez. Why can you have many Chijuajuas like I do? Wow... geez. You must be inferior. Geez."
So, I guess it is too much to discuss with you why such a comparison between Canada and Korea is post-colonial and Imperialist, either. Uumm...
And I was initially talking about HIV regulations and then you decided to expand it to refugee comparisons and turn it into a new unrelated discussion whether Korea is better or Canada is better. What is the connection?
Puffton Watch writes, "Yes. If you have those stats, table them. And then give them to the Korean government."
You are the one who was arguing with the inadequate stats in the first place. (I didn't bring them up.) I said, "And regardless whatever statistic you want to use, Korea is entitled to pay 'more' attention to the crimes by E2 teachers because they raise issues such as immigration, cost efficiency of hiring foreign English teachers, etc. And because it involves MINORS!!!"
Puffin Watch writes, "You have not cited me a case where an E2 teacher has been convicted of such a crime in Korea."
Again, do a simple Google search:
http://bit.ly/c2lsvN
You are having a problem reading. The suspect in your article does not appear to have been convicted. Surely, even in Korea one is innocent until proven guilty. If I were unfairly fingered as abusing children I would flee Korea given a chance. I doubt the Korean legal system would be fair, given what I've read. Lone Star. *cough*
enormous land (and by extension all the economic values [e.g., petroleum]) like the one that Canada (again, then British and French) acquired through the genocide of its aboriginal peoples, then I would be the first one to advocate such a "wonderful" refugee program in Korea.
Your claim seems to imply Korea does not have enough land to settle a large number of refugees. However, given Korean birthrates are below replacement level, it would take far more refugees than Canada accepts to over crowd Korea.
If that's not your claim, then you're not explaining it very well. Anyone else got a clue what he's trying to argue here?
http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/korea-beat/-p-10378
In the last 15 years Korea has accepted 116 refugees. Surely it has the wealth and land to accept more?
You are the one who was arguing with the inadequate stats in the first place.
Yes. Korean politicians have revealed no stats to support their claims. The best we can manage is a reported E2 crime rate and the Korean crime rate. My argument is I find it disturbing Koreans are seeking to make policy with stats that ultimately say nothing about the true risk, save for the relative risk compared to the Korean average. These stats are not put in any context and are used to paint a distorted picture of the danger foreigners pose to Koreans. That's racist.
Okay, so far it seems that there have been sues and testimonies but E2 sex offenders keep fleeing Korea, like you would as you said "I would flee Korea given a chance." Thankfully, Korea has passed some bills that require criminal checks (whose policy some of you seem to agree to or some don't) and has denied entrances by E2 applicants. So, you continue believing that there is no child sex abuse by E2 teachers in Korea because there isn't so far no official convict. On the other hand, I will continue believing that child sex crimes by E2 teachers have already happened in Korea and that Korea should tighten its regulations to further prevent future cases.
And this is another reason why Korea may have separate regulations for E2 teachers, because of the very mentality like yours: "I would flee Korea."
Regardless, do you have any objection to my original claim that it is fair that crimes, whether pedophile crimes or drug crimes or others, by E2 teachers are portrayed negatively in the media? Child sex abuse is just one example and you took it out of context and took it to an irrelevant discussion of whether there was a conviction or not.
You keep dodging some questions, take something out of context, and shift its focus to something different. Please drop your low distraction tactics.
Puffin Watch writes, "Your claim seems to imply Korea does not have enough land to settle a large number of refugees."
Your whole refugee discussion came from no where. I was initially discussing how the "inequality" between E2 teachers in Korea and Koreans that many of you are complaining about is paradoxically upon the very inequality between Korea and English-speaking countries from which you are from. Then, out of blue, you decided to bring up the refugee case to make a point how Canada is superior to Korea. What is the connection? Why are we even talking about which country is better here?!?
So, I responded with the implication that it is utterly unintelligent, post-colonial, Imperialist, and even hypocritical to compare the two in such a way. To highlight this, I made a hypothetical comment: If Korea could kill all Canadians and take over Canada, as how Canada did it to its aboriginal people, I would be the first one to advocate the new Korea to accept more refugees (out of guilt).
Korea needs more people, yes. And they decided to do so by accepting immigrants who can invest in Korea, instead by accepting more refugees. Meanwhile, Korea did not do a shameful act of colonization and genocide like Canada did.
Anyway, this is another example of how you use your distraction tactics. And I'm not even sure if you are truly interested in the HIV ban/regulation case in the first place, or if you just need any place where you can rant and talk shit about Korea.
Puffin Watch writes, "These stats are not put in any context and are used to paint a distorted picture of the danger foreigners pose to Koreans. That's racist."
No, no, no. Not according to yourself: They are "speaking of Korean national policy." "It has nothing to do with the genetics of the people."
Sure, it would be better if we could have accurate statistics.
Anyway, from now on, I'm not going to respond unless what you say is relevant to my original argument:
Korea is entitled to a different set of regulations (whether they are about HIV testings, crime records/punishment, etc.) on E2 teachers because they are immigrants who are subject to different rights (e.g., no right to vote) and responsibilities (e.g., no responsibility of military draft) as it is the same for Koreans and any other nationals in E2 teachers' countries.
Okay, so far it seems that there have been sues and testimonies but E2 sex offenders keep fleeing Korea, like you would as you said "I would flee Korea given a chance."
Are you aware of another E2 visa holder accused of a sex crime in Korea that has ran? See. Here's the issue at contention, the error you repeat. Claiming crimes have been committed when they haven't been demonstrated in a court.
Thankfully, Korea has passed some bills that require criminal checks (whose policy some of you seem to agree to or some don't) and has denied entrances by E2 applicants.
Straw man. I'm not aware of any E2 teacher that doesn't agree background checks for all teachers is prudent and reasonable. I'm not sure if you've read much into the nature of the dispute. I thought someone above had explained it to you. You've already demonstrated your research is hasty. So if it has escaped you, let me repeat: the objection is when E2 teachers and not all teachers are required to have such checks or, when in Korea, are tested for HIV in defiance of rights that are supposed to be enjoyed by all humans. It's like saying after Cho murdered all those innocent people at his university, visa students, and only visa students, need to undergo psychological testing.
So, you continue believing that there is no child sex abuse by E2 teachers in Korea because there isn't so far no official convict.
Straw man. I never claimed that. Children are always in danger from sexual predators who seek to gain positions of trust. My reasoning is above and I won't rehearse it here.
On the other hand, I will continue believing that child sex crimes by E2 teachers have already happened in Korea and that Korea should tighten its regulations to further prevent future cases.
The only data we have is Korean citizens who are teachers have been convicted for child sex crimes. Given multiple Koreans have been convicted of such crimes and no E2 teacher, what do you think Korean parliament should be spending its time on, now? Making it appear children are in danger from E2 teachers or the education system fails to take basic steps to protect children from anyone who seeks to be a teacher? In our view, Korean politicians raise the evil foreigner perspective to galvanize public support. Believe it or not, foreigners in Korea don't really want to be unfairly singled out, no more so than an Asian in North America wants to be singled out because some politician thinks only Asians spread SARS.
And this is another reason why Korea may have separate regulations for E2 teachers, because of the very mentality like yours: "I would flee Korea."
Non sequitur fallacy. Not sure how criminal background checks would prevent foreigners from fleeing a crime of which they are accused. Koreans seem to flee their own country too if accused. Remember that woman who claimed she had a Yale degree?
I merely note that it seems prudent given the unfair treatment foreigners get in Korean courts that fleeing would be a viscerally satisfying choice.
As far as I can tell, there exists a good (albeit keystone cop applied) law that prevents any person in Korea leaving if accused of a crime.
Regardless, do you have any objection to my original claim that it is fair that crimes, whether pedophile crimes or drug crimes or others, by E2 teachers are portrayed negatively in the media?
If an E2 teacher is convicted of such a crime, I'm not sure how any news organization could put a positive spin on it. E2 teachers would join Koreans in their revulsion. When those within our fold are convicted of drug crimes, we universally agree they're scum and fools and deserve their jail time. Again, that's not at issue. For the issue, see above. K?
Then, out of blue, you decided to bring up the refugee case to make a point how Canada is superior to Korea. What is the connection? Why are we even talking about which country is better here?!?
Straw man. I suggest Canada's approach to refugees is superior. Canada is not necessarily superior to Korea. You noted Koreans have a harder time finding work in Canada as compared to Canadians finding work in Korea. True. I merely pointed out that's not the whole picture, just as I had to point out your blanket comment about denying entry to HIV+ foreigners had important exceptions. Refugees have an easier time in Canada than Korea. Canada can't control the fact English is of economic advantage. But Canada and Korea can both control humanitarian programs.
If Korea could kill all Canadians and take over Canada, as how Canada did it to its aboriginal people, I would be the first one to advocate the new Korea to accept more refugees (out of guilt).
Like Korea killed 30,000 people on Jeju? C'mon. Recent Korean history is a lot more bloody than recent Canadian history. If you really want to go down that road…
Puffin Watch writes, "These stats are not put in any context and are used to paint a distorted picture of the danger foreigners pose to Koreans. That's racist."
No, no, no. Not according to yourself: They are "speaking of Korean national policy." "It has nothing to do with the genetics of the people."
Sure, it would be better if we could have accurate statistics.
When policy focuses on people of non-Korean blood but then does not apply those rules to non citizens who happen to have Korean blood, that strikes me as the very definition of racist.
Korea needs more people, yes. And they decided to do so by accepting immigrants who can invest in Korea, instead by accepting more refugees.
Again, I note, refugees aren't about trying to increase population. I merely pointed out Korea has room to spare you seemed to claim it didn't. It's solely a humanitarian act, one Korea is shamefully falling down upon. 116 refugees in the last 15 years? Pitiful. Korea needs to shoulder some responsibility here. That is beyond dispute.
Korea is entitled to a different set of regulations (whether they are about HIV testings, crime records/punishment, etc.) on E2 teachers because they are immigrants who are subject to different rights (e.g., no right to vote) and responsibilities (e.g., no responsibility of military draft) as it is the same for Koreans and any other nationals in E2 teachers' countries.
Korea can bar anyone from entering the country it chooses based on nationality. If it said "okay you're Canadian but you look Korean, so you get a pass. You're Canadian and you're white or black so we need you to submit an HIV test" that might be legal but you'll understand people might judge that as racist and unfair. And they might complain about it.
On Korean soil, all humans enjoy certain human rights. For example, just because you're a Korean national in the USA doesn't mean you can be arrested without due process. Certain constitutional protections are enjoyed by all humans on US soil.
HIV testing of E2 teachers on Korean soil was found to have violated human rights Koreans seemingly enshrined in their constitution. That was a central complaint.
Puffin Watch wrote:
When policy focuses on people of non-Korean blood but then does not apply those rules to non citizens who happen to have Korean blood, that strikes me as the very definition of racist.
I'm really not interested in getting into this discussion, where both sides seem to have valid points but are talking past each other, but I thought I'd point out what seems to be an inaccurate impression here.
First, the majority "non-citizens who happen to have Korean blood" are NOT eligible for an F4 visa. Second, the eligibility requirements for the other F-series visas whose holders are often able to skirt the drug-, health-, and crime-related visa policies imposed on E2 visa holders are not dependent on "having Korean blood" and are clearly open to (and enjoyed by) non-Koreans who qualify.
A family-oriented visa policy is being misconstrued as racist.
Puffin Watch, you keep dodging. I already agreed with you that refugee programs are one of the few exceptions to Canada's HIV ban. I'm asking you again, what is the connection between your comparison between Korea and Canada's refugee programs and the inequality of Korea and Canada's demands for language teachers?
I said, the "inequality" (e.g., HIV test, criminal check) in Korea that you are complaining about is paradoxically upon the very inequality that Korea and English-speaking countries have, through English-speaking countries' Imperial past (e.g., genocide, slavery, World Wars) and post-colonial presents.
And here is something that Canada CAN do about the economic value of certain language. Tell Canada to start issuing "E2" visas to Koreans and allow them to come to Canada and teach Korean. After that, you may start, in a little more "equal" way, comparing HIV test/criminal-check requirements on Canadians in Korea and Koreans in Canada.
Basically, my whole point (actually one of the two, but because you keep dodging and conflating, I will see if I can tackle one at a time) is, repeat, that it is very ironic that the very fact that how you can even be "privileged" (rhetorical choice of word) to complain about the "inequality" in Korea is possible only because of the inequality that was established and has been maintained by your countries' shameful past and present whose benefits that you have enjoyed in your own country and are continuing to enjoy in Korea. If you want to respond, respond to that. Otherwise, I will no longer respond to the whole distraction tactics of talking about the refugee program, or what happened in Jeju, etc. Otherwise, whatever you say is as lame as spoiled Nichole Ritchie and Paris Hilton whining about how life is not fair because their host family (perhaps, maids at a Hilton hotel?) in The Simple Life didn't get them an extra cookie at dinner.
I said, the "inequality" (e.g., HIV test, criminal check) in Korea that you are complaining about is paradoxically upon the very inequality that Korea and English-speaking countries have, through English-speaking countries' Imperial past (e.g., genocide, slavery, World Wars) and post-colonial presents.
Your English is very hard to follow here and I can only guess at your argument. Sorry. Rephrase.
And here is something that Canada CAN do abou0t the economic value of certain language. Tell Canada to start issuing "E2" visas to Koreans and allow them to come to Canada and teach Korean.
Whatever for? If there was a demand for Korean teachers not already filled by bilingual Koreans in Canada, then there may be a need for such a visa class. See my comments above about Canada's immigration program being both skills driven and family class. Conversely, there IS a demand for native English speakers. At some point there will be an over supply of Korean citizens who can speak and teach English and then that will be the end of the E2 program.
Basically, my whole point (actually one of the two, but because you keep dodging and conflating, I will see if I can tackle one at a time) is, repeat, that it is very ironic that the very fact that how you can even be "privileged" (rhetorical choice of word) to complain about the "inequality"
Your opinion about whatever privilege Canadians enjoy bears no relation on injustice being perpetrated in Korea. It's the false balance fallacy.
in Korea is possible only because of the inequality that was established and has been maintained by your countries' shameful past and present whose benefits that you have enjoyed in your own country and are continuing to enjoy in Korea.
As noted, that Koreans can pay for E2 teachers is directly traceable to your government's signing away the rights of Koreans to sue the Japanese for war crimes. Let's not compare shameful pasts.
If you want to respond, respond to that. Otherwise, I will no longer respond to the whole distraction tactics of talking about the refugee program, or what happened in Jeju, etc.
Hey, whatever turns you on, buddy.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just really tired of the knee jerk reaction policies that sometimes are implemented and sometimes not.
I've lived here about nine years now and I still have to get my police check from England. Shouldn't I be getting a Korean police check?
Why, oh why, oh why, do immigration kept wanting to see my original degree diploma. This truly is a mystery to me.
I think Korea needs to raise the bar on it's entrance demands for teachers. It's one of the few countries where you can teach English without having any relevant experience or qualifications and still make good money!
Why not make everyone get a recognized TESOL certificate before coming here?
I love my job. I like my life here, but from time to time I don't feel very welcome here and that saddens me.
I don't want to get in to the game of comparing countries. Generally speaking I think my life here is better than it would be in England. I'd just like to be treated a little better here in Korea.
Maybe I've just got to suck it up and take the rough with the smooth?
Puffin Watch, I'm asking you again what is the connection between your comparison between Korea and Canada's refugee programs and the inequality of Korea and Canada via the demand of English created by English-speaking countries' Imperial past and post-colonial present?
Puffin Watch writes, "Whatever for?"
Because you made a false statement that "Canada has NO control over economic realities of the value of english." So, I made a rhetorical statement to point it out, and again you turned it into something else for distraction.
Puffin Watch writes, "Your opinion about whatever privilege Canadians enjoy bears no relation on injustice being perpetrated in Korea."
Right... because the states of E2ers killed, slaved, colonized, and exploited Others has nothing to do with the artificially-created demand of the English language that Korea and many other countries are now subject to and that allowed you to come to Korea in the first place... By the way, are you even correctly understanding what "balance fallacy" is?
Puffin Watch writes, "Koreans can pay for E2 teachers is directly traceable to your government's signing away the rights of Koreans to sue the Japanese for war crimes. Let's not compare shameful pasts."
I have little interest in comparing whether Korea is better or worse than Canada in terms of policies, histories, etc. Hence, the question I have repeatedly asked: "what is the connection between your comparison between Korea and Canada's refugee programs and the inequality of Korea and Canada via the demand of English created by English-speaking countries' Imperial past and post-colonial present?" And so far, you have kept bringing up irrelevant topics that compare Canada and Korea each time and avoided the question. And this is just another distraction tactic.
And don't call me buddy, Ms. Paris Hilton.
Puffin Watch, I'm asking you again what is the connection between your comparison between Korea and Canada's refugee programs and the inequality of Korea and Canada via the demand of English created by English-speaking countries' Imperial past and post-colonial present?
I explained it above. I won't repeat myself. Seriously. Please try reading arguments posted.
Because you made a false statement that "Canada has NO control over economic realities of the value of english." So, I made a rhetorical statement to point it out, and again you turned it into something else for distraction.
Simply claiming my statement is false is no argument. Geez.
Right... because the states of E2ers killed, slaved, colonized, and exploited Others has nothing to do with the artificially-created demand of the English language that Korea and many other countries are now subject to and that allowed you to come to Korea in the first place... By the way, are you even correctly understanding what "balance fallacy" is?
Your argument is silly. Again, it's a false balance fallacy. A balance fallacy is demanding a perspective being given equal weight or importance. And you've added in a nice loaded term: "artificially-created demand". Define that. Demonstrate it’s a fair term.
I have little interest in comparing whether Korea is better or worse than Canada in terms of policies, histories, etc.
And yet you seem to have a lot of interest in arguing a silly false balance fallacy.
Hence, the question I have repeatedly asked: "what is the connection between your comparison between Korea and Canada's refugee programs and the inequality of Korea and Canada via the demand of English created by English-speaking countries' Imperial past and post-colonial present?"
There is no connection whatsoever. If you think there is, that's your claim to argue. If you do argue that claim then you have to avoid the consistency fallacy. If Canada must do x because of y, then Korea must do x because it did a similar y.
And don't call me buddy, Ms. Paris Hilton.
I'll call you whatever I want, buddy.
Puffin Watch writes, "There is no connection whatsoever."
Okay, finally you admitted it (ironically contradicting yourself in the earlier statement: "I explained it above [implying that there is one]. I won't repeat myself"). You and I agree that there is no connection or whatsoever, but you decided to out of blue state that Canada's refugee system is superior to that of Korea. So, that means your distraction tactic had a either racist intention or it means that your analogy is weak or it means something else, which is still bad anyway.
P.S.: "false balance fallacy" is like saying that the balance fallacy is false; therefore, actually it can be true. Your lack of ability to put the phrase correctly in a sentence questions your understanding of it. (And you are still not seeing how incorrectly you are using it.)
You yourself should first check your own English before criticizing someone who is not even a native speaker of English, Okay?
P.P.S.: "artificially-created" means that the demand has been created not because many people are born into English-speaking environments and not because you are forced to learn it through slavery, etc., but because of something else, which I repeatedly enumerated.
P.P.S.: You say, "Simply claiming my statement is false is no argument." I provided you with an example of what Canada can do for "equality" that you are all crying for and then I said that your "statement [that Canada has no control] is false." Does that sound like someone is "simply" stating it? Please, do not lie or make up stuff.
P.P.P.S: "I'll call you whatever I want, buddy." Distraction tactics are not even good enough and you are going to start using name-calling? Keep it on topic, will ya?
Asian, sorry, your arguments and your readability stopped making any kind of sense about 3 posts ago.
The argument is simply this:
1) HIV checks in Korea either have to be applied equally and with logical reasons or not at all. The Korean constitutional court agreed with that. There's zero argument left to be made. I'm right. If you don't agree, you're wrong.
2) E2 class alleged crimes against children (you yourself were unable to find one single conviction in Korea) appear to be driving reactionary policy and reactionary press (well documented in this blog and others). However, from my perspective and the perspective of many other E2 holders, the politicians should be focusing on the actual crimes against children committed by the people actually committing the crimes (ie, Korean citizens). While any nation is within its rights to demand criminal background checks before issuing visas, the intent seems to be to protect children. If Korean teachers and other visa class holders are allowed to teach children and are not being required to have such checks before entering a classroom, then the law appears to many foreigners to unfairly demonize them. Notably, the stats indicate they commit considerably fewer crimes than the national average. To wit, if you randomly pick any E2 visa holder and any Korean citizen, the E2 visa holder is far less likely to commit a crime in Korea. The low rate of crime among E2 holders is rarely reported in Korean media and on the floor of the legislature. The paucity of data regarding elevated sex crimes risk to me means either there is no elevated risk or politicians have simply done no research and instead simply used a cruel stereotype to drive political gain. In either case, E2 holders in Korea don't really want to be unfairly tarred or used for political gain. That is their complaint. You're free to try to understand that complaint at this juncture, buddy.
Your arguments about 200 year old acts of genocide and letting Koreans teach Korean in Canada are huge non sequiturs. They cannot be marshaled to claim "E2 holders have no right to complain!"
Sure, it may not be the best-guided immigration policy but:
1) Citizens and immigrants do not have the same rights and responsibilities. If a Korean traveling to Canada demands Canada to make the HIV test mandatory for ALL Canadians in the name of "Equal checks for all" because he/she got upset to find out that he/she needs to be tested, that would be silly, wouldn't it?
2) F-2, F-4 visas are different visas. Foreigners married to a Korean citizen have a different immigration status and are entitled to different rights, just like a Korean citizen married to an Canadian has a different immigration status and rights from a Korean tourist/worker in Canada.
Spousal visa usually grants its holders with a lot more benefits and rights than other visas. This is not just in Korea. It is almost universal.
Also it is legitimate that foreigners with Korean backgrounds are entitled to different rights than those who don't. That's not because the person has "Korean blood" but because of the person's tie to Korea. If it were a family member of an ex-naturalized Korean with a plenty of, for instance, WHITE blood, he/she would be still exempted from the requirements. As kushibo says, it is a "familial" policy.
I'm just stunned by how racist people who would casually say stuff like, "I guess they figure since they eat Kimchi its [sic] impossible for them to be pedophiles," (and many other shit examples that I saw here) are conveniently forgetting their Imperialist past and trying to use the victim card (while enjoying all the benefits of being a foreigner [e.g., semi-celebrity status, economic capital due to the "great?!" skill of being able to speak the mother tongue] in Korea).
This is as hypocritical as KKK people calling Affirmative Action racist.
Yes, I agree with MIKE.
He is right.
Thank you for sharing..
Online Document Conversion
Convert To Word
production@jvinfosol.com/
@Dave:
I hope that the Korean gov't would do what you suggest and more! I'm not a teacher by profession, but the current system is just silly.
All teachers and other people who work with children should be thoroughly checked, no matter what their nationality is. Same laws and requirements should apply to native and foreign teachers.
@Asianlikeme:
Please, do go away. I just met you, but I'm already tired of your trolling.
Post a Comment