We’ve heard about The Association for Teachers of English in Korea before; I just got an e-mail from Tony Hellmann.
If you’re here on an E-2 (Foreign English Teacher’s) Visa, this is very, very relevant to you, and while The Hub of Sparkle is a forum for communication, and holds no official positions of its own, this IS an important message to convey to E2 Visa holders in Korea.
The Association for Teachers of English in Korea is now announcing the launch of a campaign against discriminatory visa requirements to coincide with the filing of a related report at the National Human Rights Commission of Korea yesterday.
According to the filer of the report with the Human Rights Commission, law professor Benjamin Wagner of Kyunghee University, says that current foreign language instructor (E-2) visa rules, which require a criminal background check, drug tests and an HIV test, should be revised as they clearly discriminate on the basis of national origin. Non-citizen teachers are required to submit to these checks, but non-citizen ethnic Koreans, foreigners married to Koreans, and Korean citizens are not.
The letter links to the inteview mentioned earlier at The Hub Of Sparkle, and published at The Marmot’s Hole, where Law Professor Benjamin Wagner explains some fundamental flaws with the E-2 Visa Regulations as they are now.
The letter goes on to explain ATEK’s “Equal Checks for All Campaign”
“ATEK cares deeply about the protection of Korea’s children,” he added. “Measures such as drug testing, which are designed to ensure that only the highest quality teachers work in Korea, should be supported, but when such measures are applied only to some groups of teachers and not others, their ability to protect children is compromised. ATEK supports a single standard applied to all who teach children – for the protection of all children.”
In order to show the Korean government that E-2 Visa holders are not satisfied with current E-2 standards, the Equal Checks For All campaign has this to say:
The Human Rights Commission has an English language site with an online complaint form. They investigate all complaints filed and the United Nations Committee on the Ending of All Forms of Racial Discrimination monitors the number of complaints. Large numbers of complaints will show the UN that there is a problem here. The Korean government routinely tells the UN that foreigners are satisfied with the requirements, because there are never any complaints! We urge all teachers to exercise the rights granted them under the Korean constitution, and fill out the online form. It takes only five minutes and the Commission does not share your name or identifying information with any other government agencies. Your complaint is anonymously investigated.
ATEK urges all teachers to exercise their Korean constitutionally-guaranteed rights and file an online complaint with the National Human Rights Commission of Korea.
ATEK has prepared instructions for filling out the form, and some suggested things you can say. You can find the instructions on our website. Please be a part of the first time the non-citizen teaching community has come together to make our voices heard. Make yours heard too.
Meanwhile, he had this to say for any bloggers who have been following this issue:
This is the first time the ESL community in Korea has had a coordinated opportunity to seek redress of grievances from the government. It really will be up to the teachers to decide whether or not they are ready to speak with a unified voice. I hope you will help me get the word out, so that as many teachers as possible become aware and have the opportunity to choose whether to act or not. If this campaign fails, let it fail because teachers decided not to act, not because they didn’t know. Please help me.
So, to sum up ATEK’s position as I understand it after reading the interview and the message, ATEK is not against background checks; however, it IS against background checks being imposed on one group of people teaching kids, without the same standard being applied to ALL who work in close contact with kids. IF that standard singles out one group, implying that they are a higher crime risk than any of the others applying to teach English to kids, especially without irrefutable statistical proof backing up said regulations, we are dealing with a case of discrimination which violates international agreements to which Korea is a party.
At the same time, ATEK issued a press release, mostly restating the points above, which led to this article in the Korea Times.
05/02/2009 at 2:47 pm Permalink
Hmm… I’m still wary about giving out my personal information in that complaint form… Maybe I should stop being so paranoid…
05/02/2009 at 3:49 pm Permalink
OOooo the tip of the “discrimation” ice berg. Are there not more “discriminations” faced against E2 Visa holders?
05/02/2009 at 3:50 pm Permalink
I would like to complain about putting someone in a windowless dwelling. That is just cruelty.
05/02/2009 at 3:57 pm Permalink
You should also point out that Korean citizens are not required to get visas in order to work. Therefore the requirement that non-citizens have to get visas in order to work is clearly discriminatory.
It’s also discriminatory that non-citizens can live in Korea without being required to do mandatory military service, like all males are required to do (or to get a waiver for). I think we should end that free ride once and for all. In the name of non-discrimination.
05/02/2009 at 4:03 pm Permalink
The background check for foreigners is such a complete joke and a real indication, IMO, that the Korean immigration officials are incompetent (at least the higher-ups). Sure, it sounds tough — don’t have STD’s, don’t have a criminal background, etc., but the implementation is a farce. Speaking as an American, here was my medical background check — a form with check-boxes asking questions like “Are you a drug addict?” and “Do you have a history of mental illness?” Hey, guess what! I passed that one with flying colors!
The criminal background check is just as easy, just a little more expensive. Go to a local sheriff’s office with some form of ID. Ask them to write you a notarized letter saying you don’t have a criminal conviction in that specific jurisdiction. Pay ten dollars. Mail it off to your state capitol with another check for ten dollars to get an apostille. Done. If you do have a criminal conviction in a given county, just hop in your car and go to another one.
I like the direction ATEK is going in — it’s not that us lowly E-2 folks want the standards done away with, but we want them enforced fairly and across the board. That said, I’m starting to get the feeling that the Korean government doesn’t actually want strong, equally enforced standards, since they’d soon run out of scapegoats for all of their country’s problems.
Yes, I’m being serious.
05/02/2009 at 5:36 pm Permalink
This is good in that an organization is trying to stand up to negative stereotypes perpetuated in the press, but I want to play devil’s a little bit. Suppose Korean immigration adapts some of these suggestions and requires people with F status visas to get drug and HIV screens. Now I’m not talking about teachers, but rather grandmothers and grandfathers who escaped North Korean bombs to go live in places like Denmark or Canada. I’m sure these people wouldn’t be too pleased if they had to take a drug or H.I.V. test when they come home one last time before they die.
On the other hand what about P.O.S.s like Crown J? Through the various grape vines of communication, I’m sure some F4 holder might come to Korea in order to study, and have a relative who owns a hagwon, and they pick up a nice part time job for a while. How does somebody get this person screened? Sure you could legislate some kind of teacher screening thing that requires anybody in the education field to get a standardized drug/HIV test, but there are way too many opportunities for a Crown J. to slip through the cracks.
I have to say though that I support what ATEK is doing from the perspective that it is fighting back against the press and the general deomonization of foreigners. I hope that the larger goal of this type of campaign is to open up further dialogue. We do need a good counter punch to the Lou Dobbses of Korea.
06/02/2009 at 12:12 am Permalink
I’m feeling a little pessimistic about this, but at the same time, I’m glad to see that they’re at least going to attempt to do something.
06/02/2009 at 2:29 am Permalink
3gyupsal (and Kushibo)
I think you misunderstand what ATEK is asking for. They want all foreigners applying for teaching jobs to be treated equally. If people applying for teaching visas (E1 and E2) have to submit criminal record tests and health/drug tests, then people who already have (or are eligible to get) F-2 or F-4 visas who want to teach in Korea should have to submit them as well before they can get teaching jobs. According to this foreign students studying in Korea on a D-2 visa can work as English teachers, but they also have to submit criminal records to do so.
I agree that keeping track of F4 visa holders would likely be difficult (as they control residency but not employment), and not as easy as controlling holders of E1 and E2 visas (which link residency and employment), but some effort should be made to do so. ATEK has, I think, has framed the issue well.
Kushibo, seeing as the military only started allowing mixed-race Koreans to serve (voluntarily) a few years ago (after Hines Ward’s visit), I doubt they’d be ready for such an influx of non-Koreans. Still, if you expanded on the idea, it might make for an interesting (if flawed) tourist promotion: “Enjoy the pristine beauty of the DMZ’s inadvertent nature preserve… for 26 months.”
06/02/2009 at 10:24 pm Permalink
I hear atek loud and clear that it is just for people applying for teaching jobs. Does anybody know the visa status of the people who came over on Lee Myung Bak’s Korean heritage public school teaching program, or if they had to do a drug test? They are college kids after all. (Not that all college kids are on drugs, but it is a time to experiment.)
07/02/2009 at 9:31 pm Permalink
If ATEK is demanding all Foreign Teachers are treated the same, regardless of visa type then their claim does have merit. However the different visa types are by their very definition different in nature and scope. A Teacher on an E-2 visa is a Guest Worker here for a year or two (on average). A person on a F-series visa is usually a long term RESIDENT in Korea and as such as a very different status in the legal sense. This can be compared to a Foreign worker in Canada and Permanent Resident working in Canada. They have different rights and privileges linked to their status.
I am completely for Criminal Records Checks and Health Checks for all Teachers who will be in contact with Children. But the Criminal Records check should be done one time and not required again unless the Teacher left Korea for a significant amount of time.
But you have to look at things from Korea’s side too. Most (not all) Foreign Teachers on an E-2 are here very short-term and are guest workers. They should not expect to have the same rights and priviliges as a resident or citizen of Korea. That to me is not a Human Rights issue at all (that word gets over used in the case of Teachers in Korea in my humble opinion). As a former ESL\EFL educator in Korea I respect what ATEK is trying to do. I just think they chose a very odd road to trek for their very first battle.
Finally, as a College Teacher and parent I can say that I fully support Criminal Records Checks, Health Checks and Drug Tests for Teachers who will be involved with children. These tests may not be bulletproof but they might act as a deterent to some people who do have a drug problem or a serious and contagous disease or a criminal record from applying for a work visa in Korea.
All the best to ATEK in this but I think they may have just angered a large segment of the people they wish to represent or work for: Foreign Teachers who happen to be on a F-series visa would not look too kindly on this initiative but more to the point on the repercussions of this initiative.
Better battles in my opinion should be fought on issues like the Labor Board and Hakwon regulation. Focusing on how Korea selects its teachers will be a tough battle and one that might have unforseen consequences. Afterall, no one but Koreans should be telling Korea how to run its education system.
08/02/2009 at 8:29 am Permalink
Does anybody know the visa status of the people who came over on Lee Myung Bak’s Korean heritage public school teaching program, or if they had to do a drug test? They are college kids after all. (Not that all college kids are on drugs, but it is a time to experiment.)
I do not know the particulars of that program, but I would imagine it would be open to those who are able to get F4 visas without changing any laws. Most ethnic Koreans outside Asia are eligible for an F4, but not all. You have to be a former ROK citizen (i.e., citizen of South Korea after 1948) or the descendant of a former ROK citizen. There are also considerations for ethnic Koreans whose overseas ancestors registered with the Korean Provisional Government during the Japanese occupation.
An important word there is former citizens. If you were born in the United States, for example, but none of your Korean immigrant ancestors (e.g., parents or grandparents) gave up their ROK citizenship, then you are NOT eligible for an F4 visa. You must apply for the other series of visas (e.g., E2, E1, E7, D7, etc.) just like any other ROK non-citizen. That happens to be a sizable percentage of kyopo in the West (ten or twenty percent maybe). Meanwhile, kyopo from countries like China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia, etc., are not eligible at all because their forebears were never ROK citizens.
08/02/2009 at 11:10 am Permalink
Too many issues seem to be confused here.
1) There is a Ministry of Education issue. This should affect ALL teachers (Korean or foreign, E2 or F2 or whatever). If you teach children you should be checked. Period. This is already MoE policy in public schools. Korean teachers get checked, E2s get checked, F2s/F5s get checked. If you want to work in public school, you get checked. But this is because it is MoE policy, not Immigration. If MoE extended this policy to include hagwons, I would be in support of it. After all, it is in the interest of fairness and in the interest of “protecting the children”.
2) There is Family visa issue. As pointed out many times, not all F’ers (hehehe) are teachers. Most are mail order brides. If Immigration expanded their policy to include F’ers when they may not even have a job, I would have to be against it. It’s a Family visa, not a work visa.
3) There is an Immigration issue. This is currently being addressed by Congress now. They proposed a bill that requires all WORK visa applicants to be checked. Therefore, this would not only be limited to teachers, but to all workers (DDD, entertainment, etc). As this would not affect F-series visas, I would probably not disagree with this either. The policy is being applied uniformly across the board for all work visas. Isn’t that “Equal Checks for All”, what ATEK is arguing?
Unless I missed something, 1, 2, and 3 do not contradict each other and should fit ATEK’s fight against discrimination. Teachers are checked across the board (even Koreans), foreign workers are checked (even non-teachers, including the Chinese Koreans), and F’ers are not affected (unless they teach).
Where is the problem?
08/02/2009 at 12:12 pm Permalink
“But you have to look at things from Korea’s side too. Most (not all) Foreign Teachers on an E-2 are here very short-term and are guest workers. They should not expect to have the same rights and privileges as a resident or citizen of Korea.”
I pay Korean income taxes just like any native Korean would. Maybe this is me being overly American, but I’d think that would count for something.
“issues like the Labor Board and Hakwon regulation”
This is a good point. Speaking as someone whose “reputable” hagwon went bankrupt under mysterious circumstances, it’s clear that a lot of foreigner frustration comes directly from the Keystone Kop approach Korea has taken to early-age English instruction. A profit motive definitely got the ball rolling in terms of hagwon opening up, but right now the situation is pretty ridiculous (many native Koreans I’ve met actually believe this more strongly than I do). Twenty hagwon in a given neighborhood competing for business is not the best way to reach the goal of fast-tracking Korean students towards English literacy. Then again, I’m happy to take the better pay I get at a hagwon as opposed to a public school, but this would be as good a time as any for the Korean Education board to think through a few things about the system they’ve put in place.
Profit motive (i.e., the hagwon system as it stands) is not the best system under which to educate people (and I realize this is terribly un-American of me to say
).
08/02/2009 at 12:26 pm Permalink
Fan Death Avenger, you make some very good points. Some work responsibilities have prevented me from doing so, but I hope to blog about this later on. Is this really discrimination at work? Maybe not, and if it isn’t, then ATEK is abusing the National Human Rights Commission of Korea and taking away the probably overworked staff from real efforts to help people who really need it and have no other recourse.
In particular, if you’re one of the many people who has never lifted a finger to help resettled North Korean defectors, North Korean refugees stuck in China, or 3-D workers in South Korea, but you are bothering the NHRCK about drug testing and background checks, you border on being scum.
Yeah, my track record at Korea Sparkle means I’ll probably apologize for this statement later, but that’s the way I feel, and Fan Death Avenger inspired me to say it.
I pay Korean income taxes just like any native Korean would. Maybe this is me being overly American, but I’d think that would count for something.
It should and it does count for something (you’re part of the Korean health insurance scheme, you ride Korea’s public transportation, etc.), but Christopher’s point is valid: Even in America, people working on student visas, working holiday, or anything other than a green card or full citizenship do NOT get treated the same as American residents and citizens.
08/02/2009 at 2:31 pm Permalink
“In particular, if you’re one of the many people who has never lifted a finger to help resettled North Korean defectors, North Korean refugees stuck in China, or 3-D workers in South Korea, but you are bothering the NHRCK about drug testing and background checks, you border on being scum.”
Because the governments of modern societies can only focus on one issue at a time, EVAR!!!
C’mon man, that’s lame. ATEK is obviously not trying to diminish the plight of people who are facing life or death issues. They’re just trying to draw attention to the fact that there are some inconsistencies and “blind spots” when it comes to Korean immigration law. And I have yet to see one person argue that there shouldn’t be high standards with regards to drug and background testing (I certainly haven’t), just that the standards should be applied in a reasonably uniform way that would hopefully lessen the “blame the dirty wayguk-in” mentality that the Korean media feeds on.
And if the Korean government is such a precious little lotus blossom that could never possibly address the reasonable concerns of English teachers, they should probably admit that they’ve got some serious management problems, no?
08/02/2009 at 6:38 pm Permalink
I am glad to see more and more people voicing their concerns. I for one am really glad that E2ers are being tested for drugs and I want background checks for those E2ers around children. I know I am not alone in this, Christopher has said similar things. Its good to see cooler heads prevailing. And yes the rules should apply to everyone.
I just don’t think that background checks and drug tests are a human right issue. I know of lots of companies that require both and if you don’t like to work in those companies, or have a drug problem, you can get a job somewhere else. Tying up the Human Rights office with complaints just doesn’t seem like a good idea.
Maybe its time some of us who are concerned about this issue to form an association of our own.
08/02/2009 at 7:54 pm Permalink
What happened to my reply to Jaim?
08/02/2009 at 11:17 pm Permalink
Good debate once again and I am duly impressed with the civility being shown here as opposed to what one can read on some of the online discussion forums.
I like the point being made about paying taxes. We do pay taxes here but an E-2 visa holder is still only a guest worker and that has legal implications. The taxes an E-2 pays have the following benefits (as outlined by someone else in a far better way): Health coverage, public services (Public Transit).
F-series visa are residents. There is a significant difference here and it is no Human Rights issue. I take exception with the use of the Human Rights angle. I find is somewhat insulting that Foreign Teachers in Korea (those that did and those that support the move) file a Human Rights complaint about their situation. If anyone in Korea should complain in such a way it is the DDD workers. ATEK would far better serve the Foreign teaching community by tackling the issue of Labor Board access and effectiveness and Hakwon regulation.
I will state it again: I am all for across the board testing of all teachers involved with kids. This is normal and a warranted procedure. I was an E-2 Teacher and then a F-series teacher when I was in Korea. I would not object to testing and records checks.
People really need to stop and try to understand that Foreign worker, resident and citizens are not the same thing when it comes to rights. ATEK should also consider the following when it actually forms and starts recruiting members: who will make it up its membership?
Will ATEK, after supporting this Human Rights complaint be as thoughrough when selecting its members? Will the association make sure its membership does not engage in illegal activities like private tutoring (not a big offense but a work visa violation nonetheless).
Will E-2 Teachers accept giving up private tutoring? It would be quite hypocritical for a person to file a Human Rights complaint for testing while they are themselves breaking the law and basically defrauding the Korean government through undeclared income and violation of their work visa.
It is interesting that topic has not been broached by ATEK. I know this is a different issue but it is related to the whole situation nonetheless. One cannot cry foul on one side and break the law on the other.
09/02/2009 at 5:21 am Permalink
Let’s try this again, back at home with my original IP address…
Because the governments of modern societies can only focus on one issue at a time, EVAR!!!
No, because they’re privileged little hypocrites.
They’re just trying to draw attention to the fact that there are some inconsistencies and “blind spots” when it comes to Korean immigration law.
With what ruling-party or opposition National Assembly members have ATEK spoken? What have been the result of those attempts to draw attention to this “blind spot”? What media outlets have they spoken with and what have been the results?
That law-talking guy from Kyunghee says that “these regulations clearly discriminate on the basis of national origin,” but this is based on a misleading assessment. First, not all American Canadian, British, New Zealander, Australian, Irish, or South African citizens are required to submit to these; they are profession-based, not nationality-based.
Second, the notion that non-citizen ethnic Koreans, foreigners married to Koreans, and Korean citizens are not” required to submit is also false, since not all ethnic Koreans from those same countries are eligible for an F-series visas.
I agree that there is merit to expanding these requirements, but I’m currently disinclined to see this as a human rights abuse.
And I have yet to see one person argue that there shouldn’t be high standards with regards to drug and background testing (I certainly haven’t), just that the standards should be applied in a reasonably uniform way that would hopefully lessen the “blame the dirty wayguk-in” mentality that the Korean media feeds on.
It would take me a little bit of time to fish around for them, but I’ve seen plenty of people in various K-blog comments sections argue from the position that marijuana is pretty harmless and that the Korean government is overreacting to a non-problem.
And if the Korean government is such a precious little lotus blossom that could never possibly address the reasonable concerns of English teachers, they should probably admit that they’ve got some serious management problems, no?
Yes, there is a management problem: organizations on the do-gooder side of the public sphere, as well as related NGOs, are typically understaffed and underfunded. Responding to the complaints by people who think it’s a human rights abuse that they as an E2 have to get a drug test, STD check, when criminal background check and an E1 or F4 or F2 does not represent an opportunity cost for that organization or government agency. Answering those complaints means something else has to be delayed or dismissed, so that they can handle the complaints of the precious little lotus blossoms that have no f-in’ clue what human rights abuses really are.
09/02/2009 at 5:27 am Permalink
Me not speak English well morning this day.
Responding to complaints by people who think it’s a human rights abuse that they as an E2 have to get a drug test, STD check, and criminal background check, when an E1 or F4 or F2 does not, represents an opportunity cost for that organization or government agency.
09/02/2009 at 1:17 pm Permalink
“It would take me a little bit of time to fish around for them, but I’ve seen plenty of people in various K-blog comments sections argue from the position that marijuana is pretty harmless and that the Korean government is overreacting to a non-problem.”
Which means what exactly? Some foreign teachers have opinions about drug laws? But still submitted to testing to come and teach here? Shorter Kushibo: I got nuthin’.
“Answering those complaints means something else has to be delayed or dismissed, so that they can handle the complaints of the precious little lotus blossoms that have no f-in’ clue what human rights abuses really are.”
You’re laboring under two delusions here. 1) That Korean immigration has a stellar track-record with regards to helping out North Korean defectors (it doesn’t, and neither do the South Korean people in general). 2) That ATEK is somehow clogging up the phone and e-mail network of said government agencies. You realize this isn’t the case, correct? It’s an advocacy group for foreigners (with which I’m not affiliated, I should make clear) that is trying to bring some attention to the fact that the laws have some loopholes and inconsistencies, if not outright contradictions.
In my personal case, I came to Korea on an E-2 to teach and found out five months later my hagwon was going bankrupt due to criminal conduct on the party of my Korean sponsor and his family. Conceivably, I could have been stranded here as an illegal resident due to the incompetence/criminal dealings of my Korean visa sponsor. While this is a rare event (although not unheard of) I was in a position where I really needed some information regarding my visa status and my options. I contacted the Korean immigration office and received a number of conflicting pieces of advice.
It all worked out in the end thanks to my own efforts, but I can assure you that a group that simply wants a more transparent and easy to use immigration office isn’t “whining,” and it’s not going to ensure that the next batch of North Korean defectors are treated any more miserably by South Koreans and the South Korean government than they already are. Again, if you have such little faith in the ability of a government agency to multi-task, your problem should be with them, not with foreigners who simply want some a little extra sanity and fairness in the visa process.
“Responding to complaints by people who think it’s a human rights abuse that they as an E2 have to get a drug test, STD check, and criminal background check, when an E1 or F4 or F2 does not, represents an opportunity cost for that organization or government agency.”
For the nth time, who here, specifically, has argued that the drug testing should be dropped? That’s right, nobody.
09/02/2009 at 1:46 pm Permalink
Its good to see more and more people are in favor of drug testing.
09/02/2009 at 2:04 pm Permalink
“For the nth time, who here, specifically, has argued that the drug testing should be dropped? That’s right, nobody.”
Tony Hellmann is trying to get the drug testing dropped.
“Hopefully the drug and HIV screens will get dropped. ”
ttp://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=1953323
09/02/2009 at 2:14 pm Permalink
Which means what exactly? Some foreign teachers have opinions about drug laws? But still submitted to testing to come and teach here? Shorter Kushibo: I got nuthin’.
No, it means that there really are plenty of people who don’t agree with stringent standards regarding drug testing, but I don’t have the time to go and make a list for you.
Yes, I recognize that that is not you, Jaim, and if I had to guess, I’d assume it’s not most people teaching in Korea. But given that support for drug legalization and past recreational marijuana use are statistically significant back in most E2 eligible home countries, I doubt it’s a tiny percentage of people either.
“Answering those complaints means something else has to be delayed or dismissed, so that they can handle the complaints of the precious little lotus blossoms that have no f-in’ clue what human rights abuses really are.”
You’re laboring under two delusions here. 1) That Korean immigration has a stellar track-record with regards to helping out North Korean defectors (it doesn’t, and neither do the South Korean people in general).
Does Korean Immigration handle North Korean defectors? I thought it was the Unification Ministry (but I could be wrong). And considering that the last two presidencies each have had more defectors to process than all their predecessors combined, I don’t know if I’m in a position to say much about that.
My bigger concern is the refugees who are in hiding by the tens or hundreds of thousands in China who can’t get in and live in fear of being sent back to North Korea. That’s a human rights issue pertaining to Korea, though it is a complicated one.
Back in South Korea, more direct human rights violations concerns would revolve around manual laborers, low-income citizens losing their homes and their jobs, and overseas brides who may be abused, among other issues.
2) That ATEK is somehow clogging up the phone and e-mail network of said government agencies. You realize this isn’t the case, correct?
You’re delusional if you think that’s my delusion. I’m talking about ATEK clogging up the business of the Korea National Human Rights Commission with this nonsense that forcing E2 visa holders to pee into a cup and get background checks from their hometown local government is human rights abuse.
By getting as many foreigners as possible to “submit an quick, anonymous complaint to the National Human Rights Commission,” they are bogging down the people who work their and preventing them from doing the important work they need to focus on.
It’s an advocacy group for foreigners (with which I’m not affiliated, I should make clear) that is trying to bring some attention to the fact that the laws have some loopholes and inconsistencies, if not outright contradictions.
Fine, then. Bring attention to it. But do it in appropriate ways, not some b.s. human rights violation nonsense.
In my personal case, …
It all worked out in the end thanks to my own efforts, but I can assure you that a group that simply wants a more transparent and easy to use immigration office isn’t “whining,”
I don’t disagree with you, Jaim. I think a group like ATEK is necessary. But I am not arguing against their existence; I am saying they are misconstruing this as a human rights abuse and they in turn are abusing on already overworked and understaffed entity in order to make their lame point.
There are better ways to “raise awareness,” among them lobbying members of the National Assembly, something about which I have heard nothing (I would be very pleasantly surprised to hear that they are working on that, too).
and it’s not going to ensure that the next batch of North Korean defectors are treated any more miserably by South Koreans and the South Korean government than they already are. Again, if you have such little faith in the ability of a government agency to multi-task, your problem should be with them, not with foreigners who simply want some a little extra sanity and fairness in the visa process.
I don’t think you’re quite understanding what I’m saying. ATEK is telling people to flood the Human Rights Commission with complaints about E2′s having to pee into a cup and violate their medical privacy (which is also b.s., since in Korea the government is the medical insurer, so such information would ultimately not be private anyway).
the Human Rights Commission is the unwitting target of ATEK. It doesn’t matter if KOTRA has a nice building, the Supreme Court has judicial clerks sitting around twiddling their thumbs, and the Ministry of Gender Equality doesn’t know how to spend the grants they just got…. It is the Human Rights Commission and only the Human Rights Commission that will have to deal with the mountain of paperwork ATEK would have foreign residents subject them to.
The Human Rights Commission will have to divert labor and resources to that mountain of paperwork, and that means other things will be delayed or dismissed at the Human Rights Commission. It’s not an issue of being able to multitask at all.
For the nth time, who here, specifically, has argued that the drug testing should be dropped? That’s right, nobody.
Who here? Well that narrows it down. I don’t think I’ve read anyone here saying that. When I mentioned reading that a number of times in the K-blogs, I was referring to other places.
But you know what, you’ve convinced me. My skepticism is unfounded and ATEK should scream “human rights abuse!” at the top of their lungs. In fact, this has inspired me to make a little money on the side with my ATEK solidarity t-shirt. Get yours today!
09/02/2009 at 2:17 pm Permalink
I worked as a substitute teacher back home, and had to get fingerprinted and a criminal check done. I used that check for my current employment at a public school. The E2 requirment for a criminal and drug test is reasonable if your employer is a public school. I have been required to submit a drug test for a job I had in a box factory as well. I am not sure if I agree with the requirement for an AIDS test since that seems like a violation of privacy, and having AIDS isn’t really illegal in any country. You could say that having AIDS in Korea is a public health issue, but once again I think that a person with AIDS would probably do their research in order to see if the government health care plan here would take care of their medications. I seriously doubt that.
I’m not sure if I agree that hagwons be required to fall into this law, but I think that it is in the Hagwon’s best interest to require such things since ideally the hagwon as an enterprise should be about trying to do the best for their students.
09/02/2009 at 2:21 pm Permalink
Tony Hellmann is trying to get the drug testing dropped.
Thanks for that.
I support legalization of marijuana in the United States. Presently, I think that would be a bad move in Korea, but regardless of my opinions on pot in the ROK, South Korean citizens (of which I am not one) resoundingly oppose the idea.
And if South Koreans want to enforce that by having massive drug testing (which South Korean nationals are also subject to, to a high degree) then that is the business of the South Korean government and their constituents.
I would not wish to take away a non-citizen’s right to say they think Korea’s anti-drug fervor is borderline hysteria, since that’s their right to free speech. But I would exercise my right to free speech as well and vigorously argue the other side.
As conditions in Korea stand now, I think that all people who work with children should be drug tested, and I have no problem if E2 visa holders are one of the first groups for whom that policy is implemented. ROK citizens and long-time ROK residents have a record that is easily accessed by the authorities in Korea; not so with E2 visa applicants who come over and expect to live and work in the ROK.
09/02/2009 at 2:41 pm Permalink
If I was King for a Day, here’s what I ‘d like to see: The same amount of scrutiny placed on individual hagwon as on E-2 visa applicants (who come here as guests of the Korean government, I’d remind kushibo).
As I’ve said before though, the drug and criminal checks are assinine. You literally check a box on a form that says “I am not a drug addict” and “I don’t have AIDS” then you get screened once you’re already in Korea. For a Japanese visa, you actually have to go to an American doctor and get a notarized letter from her saying you don’t have AIDS after she does your blood work. You know, an honest-to-gosh actual test. As I’ve also mentioned, the criminal background check is almost as easy to bypass if you’ve got something to hide. It just costs ten dollars or so.
So here I am, a drug- and AIDS- and criminal history free wayguk saram who played by all the rules, never missed a day of work, and had to put up with a number of lies on the part of my former employer with regards to my contract (basically, I was paid less than promised even before his father bankrupted the school). And a few short weeks ago I threatened with the possibility of living here as an illegal alien, effectively stranded by my employer.
So you’ll excuse me if I don’t in part sympathize with a group like ATEK, and find laughable the anti-foreigner hysterics of our own Wondergirl. There are some problems with the whole EFL system here, no doubt. And 90% of those problems are the products of a Korean system that is, frankly, ass-backwards when it comes to almost everything.
But of course, the notion that the Korean system needs to be thought through a bit just doesn’t jibe with the cheap and easy rhetoric of “Oh, those dirty pot-smoking AIDS-ridden foreigners!” God forbid a Korean could ever be to blame about anything with regards to breaking my contract and screwing me out of a significant amount of money that I earned through my own hard work.
But you’ll excuse me, I’m off to snort heroin and kick some ajuma down stairwells. I can’t help myself! Please Wondergirl, stop me before I strike again!
09/02/2009 at 2:57 pm Permalink
Jaim, I don’t really disagree with anything you wrote there, except for the part about kicking an ajumma down the stairs. Please don’t do that.
Hagwons need to be placed under greater scrutiny. But you know what? Lots of Koreans have been clamoring for that for years. The worries about drug-toking and molesting foreign teachers are just one concern among a myriad of problems, including bad acts by Korean teachers.
09/02/2009 at 3:27 pm Permalink
Jaim I am not clear why you are directing those comments towards me? Why are you saying I am anti-foreigner?
09/02/2009 at 4:50 pm Permalink
Let’s continue this conversation without words like hysterical or delusional, thanks.
09/02/2009 at 4:54 pm Permalink
Let’s continue this conversation without words like hysterical or delusional, thanks.
Is histrionics okay? I was going to write that word in an earlier comment, and I’d like to reserve the right to use it later.
09/02/2009 at 4:59 pm Permalink
It depends on whether it’s being used to describe, say, media coverage of a certain population group, the behaviour of groups (for example, politicians or protestors) or directed at individual commenters involved in this discussion. The etiquette guidelines are pretty clear about ad hominem comments.
09/02/2009 at 6:04 pm Permalink
It depends on whether it’s … directed at individual commenters involved in this discussion. The etiquette guidelines are pretty clear about ad hominem comments.
D’oh!
Can’t I use it once and then apologize later?