|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="asylum seeker"]
| Tony (ATEK) wrote: |
| howie2424 wrote: |
| So ATEK purports to speak for those of us teaching English here. What about us F2s? Are we included in this group? And if so, what the hell are they doing supporting a human rights complaint aimed at making our lives more difficult? |
Nope, we never said that we speak for you.
|
Really? It sures sounds like you did.
| Quote: |
| An association for 20,000 foreign English teachers said Wednesday they will fight against discrimination in Korea, indicating they will step up their crusade against proposed legislation requiring them to submit drug tests and criminal background checks. However, Ministry of Justice downplayed the action. |
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/02/117_38955.html
Please stop this. You do not speak for all of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
madoka
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
To reiterate, there seems to be two separate issues here.
1. All teachers (Korean or non-Korean, F2, F4, E2, male or female) should be required to have a criminal background check and whatever else is deemed necessary to protect students. Anything less would be discriminatory and could compromise the well-being of students.
2. Not all visa holders should have to jump through the same hoops. If you are a F2 or F4 who works at a corporation, then they shouldn't have to undergo the same screening process as teachers.
I think a lot of the argument is because people are trying to combine the two different issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Col.Brandon
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Korea Times is notorious for misquoting people. Hell, they even got Professor Wagner's name wrong... Wanger - must be Freudian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
To Those On F-Series Visas:
You will not be required to submit a criminal background check every year.
I recently renewed my E-2 visa, and the immigration officer told me that I only have to do it once.* And that's for an E-2 visa, so you can stop whine-whine-whining, because your privileges are secure.
* Unless of course, Immigration decides to change the rules, without warning, yet again. |
That's nice, but those of us who have dealt with Immigration know only to well that what one office does, the next may not do. Heck different people at the SAME office have given me different answers.[1]
Besides which didn't Immigration clearly state that the CBC was only good for six months anyway? Sounds like you got someone who didn't read or understand the new rules.[2] |
Numbers are mine.
1. Undoubtedly true. How you are treated depends largely upon which officer you are talking to, how good or bad of a day they've been having, etc. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. Laws have to be laws, not mild suggestions that are up to the discretion of individuals.
2. It's not that your criminal background check is "only good for six months." Your check has to be done within six months of renewal. If, for example, you were renewing for January 2009, your check would have had to been done in July 2008 or later.
I think it's ridiculous. Someone who's been living in Korea for ten years has to get a six-month-or-younger background check. But that's Korean immigration for you.
Anyway, it's you who doesn't understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| madoka wrote: |
To reiterate, there seems to be two separate issues here.
1. All teachers (Korean or non-Korean, F2, F4, E2, male or female) should be required to have a criminal background check and whatever else is deemed necessary to protect students. Anything less would be discriminatory and could compromise the well-being of students.
2. Not all visa holders should have to jump through the same hoops. If you are a F2 or F4 who works at a corporation, then they shouldn't have to undergo the same screening process as teachers.
I think a lot of the argument is because people are trying to combine the two different issues. |
Pretty much sums up what I've been thinking and saying.
1. This is an educational issue. All teachers should be checked, and as such it should be an MoE policy. This already applies to PS, but should be expanded to hagwons and such. Anywhere children are being taught, ALL teachers should be checked regardless of citizenship, nationality or visa status.
2. This is an Immigration issue. The Korean Congress is addressing this right now with a bill that requires all WORK VISAS to have checks as well now. Because F4/F2/F5 are not WORK visas, they are exempt from the checks. E1, E7, DDD visas, entertainment visas, etc are all work visas and will (according to the bill proposed) be affected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
To Those On F-Series Visas:
You will not be required to submit a criminal background check every year.
I recently renewed my E-2 visa, and the immigration officer told me that I only have to do it once.* And that's for an E-2 visa, so you can stop whine-whine-whining, because your privileges are secure.
* Unless of course, Immigration decides to change the rules, without warning, yet again. |
That's nice, but those of us who have dealt with Immigration know only to well that what one office does, the next may not do. Heck different people at the SAME office have given me different answers.[1]
Besides which didn't Immigration clearly state that the CBC was only good for six months anyway? Sounds like you got someone who didn't read or understand the new rules.[2] |
Numbers are mine.
1. Undoubtedly true. How you are treated depends largely upon which officer you are talking to, how good or bad of a day they've been having, etc. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. Laws have to be laws, not mild suggestions that are up to the discretion of individuals.
2. It's not that your criminal background check is "only good for six months." Your check has to be done within six months of renewal. If, for example, you were renewing for January 2009, your check would have had to been done in July 2008 or later.
I think it's ridiculous. Someone who's been living in Korea for ten years has to get a six-month-or-younger background check. But that's Korean immigration for you.
Anyway, it's you who doesn't understand. |
So you more or less agree with me...and then say I don't understand.
And as to the CBC this is what I was told by Immigration that a CBC given to them is only valid for six months from date of issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
To Those On F-Series Visas:
You will not be required to submit a criminal background check every year.
I recently renewed my E-2 visa, and the immigration officer told me that I only have to do it once.* And that's for an E-2 visa, so you can stop whine-whine-whining, because your privileges are secure.
* Unless of course, Immigration decides to change the rules, without warning, yet again. |
That's nice, but those of us who have dealt with Immigration know only to well that what one office does, the next may not do. Heck different people at the SAME office have given me different answers.[1]
Besides which didn't Immigration clearly state that the CBC was only good for six months anyway? Sounds like you got someone who didn't read or understand the new rules.[2] |
Numbers are mine.
1. Undoubtedly true. How you are treated depends largely upon which officer you are talking to, how good or bad of a day they've been having, etc. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. Laws have to be laws, not mild suggestions that are up to the discretion of individuals.
2. It's not that your criminal background check is "only good for six months." Your check has to be done within six months of renewal. If, for example, you were renewing for January 2009, your check would have had to been done in July 2008 or later.
I think it's ridiculous. Someone who's been living in Korea for ten years has to get a six-month-or-younger background check. But that's Korean immigration for you.
Anyway, it's you who doesn't understand. |
So you more or less agree with me...and then say I don't understand.
And as to the CBC this is what I was told by Immigration that a CBC given to them is only valid for six months from date of issue. |
My first post in this exchange was exclusively about the fact that criminal record checks need to be done only once, even for E-2 visa holders.
| Then TheUrban Myth wrote: |
| Besides which didn't Immigration clearly state that the CBC was only good for six months anyway? Sounds like you got someone who didn't read or understand the new rules. |
Why would you write this except as a rebuttal?
And if it's not a rebuttal, then it's a total non sequitur. What does the time limit have to do with the fact that it's only needed once? Nothing.
So either you were wrong, and are not trying to re-frame what you said originally in order to save face, or your response was irrelevant. Which is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
[My first post in this exchange was exclusively about the fact that criminal record checks need to be done only once, even for E-2 visa holders.
According to ttompatz that is not accurate. http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=138862&highlight=immigration+CBC
| Then TheUrban Myth wrote: |
| Besides which didn't Immigration clearly state that the CBC was only good for six months anyway? Sounds like you got someone who didn't read or understand the new rules. |
Why would you write this except as a rebuttal?
And if it's not a rebuttal, then it's a total non sequitur. What does the time limit have to do with the fact that it's only needed once? Nothing.
If it's older than six months and you are on a NEW visa you will need to submit a new one according to the link.
So either you were wrong, and are not trying to re-frame what you said originally in order to save face, or your response was irrelevant. Which is it? |
According to ttompatz (whose advice I have always found accurate and informative) if you RENEW your visa with the same employer you will not need to submit a new CBC.
However if you have a new visa with a new employer he states that you will need to submit a new one.
As for the agreement I was refering to (A) the remark about Immigration officers not having a consistent policy. And (B) that the CBC has a six month or younger policy.
(my reponses are in bold) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, let me get this straight ...
Someone on an E-2 visa who changes jobs every single year has to submit a new criminal record check every year.
And from that, we can conclude that everyone on F-series visas might be forced to submit criminal record checks every year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buymybook
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Location: Telluride
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
OK, let me get this straight ...
Someone on an E-2 visa who changes jobs every single year has to submit a new criminal record check every year.
And from that, we can conclude that everyone on F-series visas might be forced to submit criminal record checks every year. |
Yes, you've got it! Many Koreans don't respect their own laws and rules/regulations are even easier to ignore. The Korean Immigration Service employees blab all kinds of stuff to us concerning their rules/regulations but if they don't all follow them accordingly nothing is done because the inconsistency is for FOREIGNERS to figure out, not them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
OK, let me get this straight ...
Someone on an E-2 visa who changes jobs every single year has to submit a new criminal record check every year.
And from that, we can conclude that everyone on F-series visas might be forced to submit criminal record checks every year. |
Speaking of F-series visas there's one guy with a F-5 who apparently had to submit the FBI background check twice
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=1951177&highlight=#1951177 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony (ATEK)
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Tony (ATEK) wrote: |
| howie2424 wrote: |
| So ATEK purports to speak for those of us teaching English here. What about us F2s? Are we included in this group? And if so, what the hell are they doing supporting a human rights complaint aimed at making our lives more difficult? |
Nope, we never said that we speak for you.
|
| Quote: |
| An association for 20,000 foreign English teachers said Wednesday they will fight against discrimination in Korea, indicating they will step up their crusade against proposed legislation requiring them to submit drug tests and criminal background checks. However, Ministry of Justice downplayed the action. |
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/02/117_38955.html
Really? It sures sounds like you did. |
Did you hear that come out of my mouth? No. You read it in the Korea Times.
When the reporter called me, he asked me how many members we had, and I said "Zero. We haven't launched yet. We expect to launch in a couple weeks and then we'll have lots of members. But right now, we have none." He wasn't satisfied with my answer. He said "Come on, you have to give me something better than that for my story." I said "I don't have anything better. We are a founding board of 5, currently, and that's it." So he decided to play fast and loose with the grammar. If you notice, the paper reads "association for 20,000 teachers" instead of "association of 20,000 teachers."
The first thing I did when I saw this was curse.
On the bright side, I learned that the K-reporters don't just do it to me. I saw another article that said the Human Rights Commission decided to start the Equal Checks for All Campaign! That made me laugh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony (ATEK) wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Tony (ATEK) wrote: |
| howie2424 wrote: |
| So ATEK purports to speak for those of us teaching English here. What about us F2s? Are we included in this group? And if so, what the hell are they doing supporting a human rights complaint aimed at making our lives more difficult? |
Nope, we never said that we speak for you.
|
| Quote: |
| An association for 20,000 foreign English teachers said Wednesday they will fight against discrimination in Korea, indicating they will step up their crusade against proposed legislation requiring them to submit drug tests and criminal background checks. However, Ministry of Justice downplayed the action. |
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/02/117_38955.html
Really? It sures sounds like you did. |
Did you hear that come out of my mouth? No. You read it in the Korea Times.
When the reporter called me, he asked me how many members we had, and I said "Zero. We haven't launched yet. We expect to launch in a couple weeks and then we'll have lots of members. But right now, we have none." He wasn't satisfied with my answer. He said "Come on, you have to give me something better than that for my story." I said "I don't have anything better. We are a founding board of 5, currently, and that's it." So he decided to play fast and loose with the grammar. If you notice, the paper reads "association for 20,000 teachers" instead of "association of 20,000 teachers."
The first thing I did when I saw this was curse.
On the bright side, I learned that the K-reporters don't just do it to me. I saw another article that said the Human Rights Commission decided to start the Equal Checks for All Campaign! That made me laugh. |
If it upset you that much, the second thing it should have made you do is write a letter to them correcting their wrong impressions.
Then again, I suppose that an association that supposedly represents 20,000 teachers does look a lot better then 5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony (ATEK)
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
If it upset you that much, the second thing it should have made you do is write a letter to them correcting their wrong impressions. |
We complained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
