Korean Job Discussion Forums

[TheUrbanMyth]

"But wait" I hear the cry. "What about the NHRCK?"

What about them indeed.

http://yonguksaram.com/the-nhrck-have-made-their-decision-and-atek-are-not-operating-illegally.html

As the blog points out the NHRCK doesn't even want to "get in to" the issue of the drug tests.

As for the CBC's they came down firmly on the side of Immigration on that one.

[Old fat expat]

OK-one article. Does not make it widely rebutted-however:

Lets look at it shall we?

The first point in the article you refer to is about restrictions, i.e. that countries can restrict whom ever they want. True, but the point of Wagner's was that the restriction was not occurring at entry. It was happening after the act of entry, and only to a certain subset of visa holders. So, it was not about restricting foreigners that posed a health concern to the population at large. It was about restricting a particular type of person. Wagner did not argue for unconditional entry, he argued for equal treatment as provided for by the Korean Constitution.

The writer�s next argument is that because Wagner�s home country, the US, requires health records so it is therefore OK for Korea to require the same. Firstly the US does not require health records AFTER entry as does Korea. They are not the same. This argument also overlooks the fact that the US has changed its policies regarding AIDs � the reason cited for the Korean Authorities to require the health tests. Also of note: the world is not the USA. Also note tu quo que is a logical fallacy.

The third argument used in the attempted rebuttal is that the Korean citizen�s rights to public order and welfare need to be protected from English teachers. Aside from the fact (yes FACT) that English teachers commit crimes at a rate that is a sixth of Korean citizen�s rates. So, it is not about protection of the citizens at large, it is about discrimination and control of a subset of people.

It is clear that the writer of the article is convinced that English teachers �have the possibility of doing harm to public safety or persons who have the possibility of doing harm to public health such as drug users or those with legally designated infectious disease.� But this assertion is based on what? Based on being an English teacher?


That is about 1/2 way of the article. Poorly thought out, and little in the way of solid reasoning. Par for the course I suppose.

UM:

[dirving]

Word.

[PatrickGHBusan]

[allovertheplace]

This is silly, its largely an academic article. The point of which are to arise debate.

Hes also a lawyer, makes more money than you, probably has better looking women, and has you talking about him.

Has anyone seen the movie surrogates? In it everyone lives through a surrogate robot-i.e I think its too easy to say stupid arrogant stuff about better qualified individuals then yourself while you get turned on by the wonder girls...weird how that works.

[Unposter]

Basically, the article in the Times is just the Times reporter asking Immigration if they agree with Wagner's contentions and of course they disagree or else they would not be enforcing such rules.

Of course, they are not the ones to make such a decision. It is up to the courts to make such a decision so actually in this instance the point of view of Immigration is not relevant. It is up to the courts and ultimately to the Legislature to decide these matters.

And, that is actually one of the points that Prof. Wagner makes. Immigration started these rules without any legislation from the legislature (or even any order from the President) to establish these rules. As I understand it, Prof. Wagner even questions if Immigration has the authority to establish such rules - only the legislature can establish law.

I have read that there are actually many Korean lawyers who agree with his contentions and they have been helping him take this issue to the court. But, as far as I can tell, and on this particular aspect I know nothing, it just seems to me from how long this has been going on that the courts are either stalling or refuse to hear the case or something I don't know what.

[crescent]

An immigration official's interview in defense of policy, and a vague, mostly unrelated blog entry substantiates the claim of a 'widely discredited' paper? Just where in the blog was Wagner, or his paper even mentioned?

TUM, you hit a new low. You can't hold yourself to the same standards you expect from others on this board?
From now on, when you point your finger at posters who make fabrications, we will all have you in mind.

You've been 'Denised'.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Otus]

Old fat expat wrote:

[crescent]

1. You make a claim that Wagner's paper was WIDELY DISCREDITED. And, others are supposed to link something that proves otherwise?

2. Immigration, defending their policy which was made without legislation (another point from Wagner), misunderstood Wagner's position, and has no affiliation with the Human Rights Commission and therefore cannot discredit him. This point was already made and it is valid.

3. A blog is hearsay. It is an editorial. The scribbles of someone who's facts were not verified. Blogs are not valid citations for academic papers, or legitimate evidence to support a claim. Even more, the blog mentions CRC were fine if ALL teachers are required to do so. I know for a fact that Korean hogwan teachers are NOT REQUIRED to do so. I know this because I am on the hiring committee at my place of work.
Therefore, Wagner has a point, and has not been discredited.

4. On the point of HIV, the NHRICK had no comment. How that discredits Wagner is quite an amazing jump to make.


Now, you and I both know, that if these things were presented to you in lieu of sources, you would have condescendingly shoved them back. The reasons they are not valid have been explained.

And, no, I really don't have that much interest in Wagner, or his reputation. This is another fictitious statement you are making. I'm just making sure you keep the same standards you expect of others.

Now, the term 'widely discredited'. Maybe you need to brush up on your terminology.
Widely: 2. To the full extent; completely.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/widely

So Denise, please show where Wagner's paper was 'to the full extent', or 'completely' discredited.

[mayorgc]

The Korean immigration official didn't actually rebutt Wagner's paper, the official was rebutting an earlier editorial that Wagner wrote.

The Korean official didn't even do a great job of rebutting Wagner's article, he was arguing against issues that weren't even raised in Wagner's original editorial.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[crescent]

I didn't get into this thread until your outlandish claim was made. It was a fabrication. The same kind of fabrication that you have made a point to generalize on, in accusing other users.
Then , you started playing games with words, insisting for those reasons that his work was widely discredited.

When that didn't work, you found an UNRELATED interview, and finally, a blog with no linked documents, details, or facts.

Rather than look for a link that proves aliens exist, i am using common reasoning while you continue to slip and slide.

1. I will make a blog, and link you there, ok?

2. That is not the whole issue, only a small part of it. You have stated you do not support, or give any credit to ATEK, so why use them now?

3. I'm telling you for a fact that ALL teachers in Korea are absolutely, without a doubt, not required to do so. Again, it will be in my blog.

4. Either/or/maybe does not mean widely discredited.

[TheUrbanMyth]

Speaking of Prof. Wagner what are his credentials to make such a claim?


From page 15 of the link I provided above

It would appear that he is not actually a professor but an associate professor.


It would also appear that apart from this report he has published nothing else on immigration law or much else that I can find. What makes him an expert on this then?

And he graduated law school in 2004 and was admitted to the Hawaii Bar about 3 years later (10/2007).

I'm not sure that my first choice for a lawyer to fight for changes would be some little-known, unpublished(?) associate professor of law who's only been at this for a couple of years.

And finally just because he says the law states so and so does not mean that it actually does. One would think the NHRCK would have supported him were that the case.

[crescent]

Yes, Denise. Now attack his credentials. No one said he was an expert, just like you are obviously no teacher of reading comprehension.

Farewell.