Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Allthechildrenareinsane]

(Note: I already posted this in the Jobs Forum, but I thought I'd post it here too, for what it's worth, since it seems like it's an important decision that potentially could have a big impact on E2 visa holders.)

Via Gusts of Popular Feeling:

http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2011/10/constitutional-court-rules-on-vandom.html

Some excerpts from the above:


"It was over two years ago that the Constitutional Court agreed to accept Andrea Vandom's petition to find mandatory in-country HIV tests for non-Korean non-citizens on E-2 visas unconstitutional. [. . .]

"Two days ago the court gave its decision - the petition was rejected. It should be pointed out, though, that 'the Court has not ruled the tests are "constitutional" - it has rejected the petition.' [. . .]

"Benjamin Wagner's comments on the decision are worth reading:

'At 2PM on Thursday the Court rejected Andrea Vandom's petition because in the Court�s opinion the immigration office didn�t force Andrea Vandom to do the HIV and drug tests "required" by the E-2 visa, they just requested her to do the tests. The Court said that just asking for the tests isn�t enough to constitute an action by the government that would violate the rights of a foreigner in Korea.

'We had hoped the Court would decide the constitutionality of a rule that required foreigners to be tested for AIDS and drugs merely because they were foreigners and give us a clear ruling that such a practice is discriminatory under the Korean Constitution. We didn't get that but there is much that is positive about this case. First, the Court has NOT said that it is constitutional to conduct mandatory in-country HIV and drug tests on foreigners. Second, the Court�s decision cast a great deal of doubt on whether the tests are mandatory. The government's argument was that it had merely asked for Vandom's HIV status and it made no attempt to argue that mandatory rules were in place to force her (i.e., deportation, visa cancellation) to comply. If someone were to refuse a blood test and argue that a self-declaration of HIV status was all that was required, this case would offer support for that position.

'In its decision the Court focused on regulations promulgated on April 3, 2009, which the immigration office calls a "self-health statement" or a "self medical check" [. . .]

'The Court looked at questions 7 and 9, which ask:

7) Have you taken any Narcotic (Drug) or have you ever been addicted to alcohol in the last 5 years?

Yes □ (Narcotic name: ), No □

9) Are OR were you HIV (AIDS) positive?

Yes □, No □

'So for E-2 visa holders who have taken AIDS tests, and repeat AIDS tests � some 80,000 of them over the past four years � the immigration office says (in this case at least) they were just asking for them, not requiring them.

'I discussed this so-called "self-health check" in Feb. 2009 and mentioned how it disingenuously tried to pass off the tests as voluntary measures, pointing out "it appears to be a 'self-check' until you get to the bottom of the page," which reads:

"You MUST make Alien Registration at you District Immigration Office (OR Branch Office) within 90 days after your arrival in Korea. And when you register. You MUST submit your Health Certificate from the hospital which has been designated by the Korean government."

'While examining the questionnaire, the Court, for whatever reason, does not take this binding language ("You MUST submit...") into consideration. And perhaps, according to the Court's opinion, this statement should be interpreted as a mere request since the Court's opinion indicates that it's not clear whether the government would take any action if an E-2 holder refused to comply with a hospital exam and just submitted a self-declaration.

'Nevertheless, before anyone makes the decision to refuse the hospital tests they should be aware that (in 2009 at least) the immigration office has said the following:

※ "Recruitment health exam" MUST include TBPE test (tests for drug abuse) and HIV test (tests for AIDS) results . . .

※Those that list history of drug usage, AIDS, or other disease the law defines as serious contagious disease in their self health verification are not allowed to be issued a visa issuance certificate

※Those that are found to have drug intake, AIDS or other disease the law defines as serious contagious disease in their health examination will have their stay cancelled and be deported.�

'(This dire warning, to my knowledge, is no longer posted on the immigration�s website. I mentioned this in the NHRCK report (p. 8, FN 27) and there�s copy of it here.)

'In 2010 the immigration office stated that persons with HIV will not be rejected for E-2 visas, will not have visa status canceled and "will not be forced to leave Korea." If this is indeed the case then a self-declaration should suffice.

'Yet, keep in mind that Andrea Vandom, who made it known that she was not HIV positive, was threatened with deportation by the immigration authorities on numerous occasions for refusing to provide hospital test results � including this threat in the press:

"After the incident, the immigration office said the approval was a mistake by an official and that it would ask her to submit the necessary documents. The office added that it would deport her if she didn't heed the request."

'The Court did not take these deportation threats into consideration, however, and focused on the so-called "self health check" document. [. . .]

'In January 2010 the ROK announced to the world that it was abandoning HIV restrictions on foreigners and was congratulated for it by the UN [link]. In March of the same year, before the Human Rights Council, the ROK said that �early this year as part of the effort to eliminate all forms of discrimination� the ROK had revised restrictions on �foreigners living with HIV in compliance with UN recommendations.�

'This case should be seen as progress toward confirmation that HIV tests for foreigners on E-2 visas are voluntary. The Korean immigration office should make it clear that those who intend on treating them as such will suffer no adverse consequences.' "

[cert43]

So what the hell does that all mean? More importantly, who cares? It's obviously not a concern that would involve your life directly. I mean,do you even understand what your're writing?

Grow up..she doesn't care..

[calendar]

Ben Wagner needs to go away. i see nothing wrong with those tests and have done them for years. They are not a human rights violation and Mr. Wagner needs to visit North Korea or some other country that practices real human rights violations to get a proper perspective.

There is no impact here, just the possibility of the removal of 2 tests some people do not like and distort to hide their habits and problems. Even though HIV is not contagious do you really think it is wise to be a teacher? If you take drugs, do you really think it is wise to be a teacher?

It sounds like some people want to remain selfish and do what they want regardless of the effect it has on others.

[northway]

[Bibbitybop]

Man, some of you really have bent over for unconstitutional laws and now are upset that a foreigner challenged them?

It's about the law and defending people, in this case foreigners, against prejudicial and unwarranted rules in a country where National Assembly members still state that foreign teachers molest kids and rape women even though there is not one court conviction to cite as evidence.

[chrisinkorea2011]

Contagious means to spread by bodily contact and in that context sex is bodily contact is it not?

As for my personal opinion i dont think people who carry HIV/AIDS should be allowed to travel around in different countries unless they are careful and let it be known that they are infact carrying it. As for teachers being allowed to have it and teach, its really up to the parents. I mean on one side you could say if the teacher was careful then it would be fine because it doesnt affect their personality/teaching right? On the other hand, accidents do happen and what if something happened to where the students were exposed to the blood of the carrier etc. How do the parents feel about that? its really a hard issue

[TheUrbanMyth]

[northway]

[Swampfox10mm]

The Korean courts exist to shift blame away from Korea for its fouls and provide legal grounds for bilking foreigners of their assets. There is no justice for foreigners or the poor here. Have we learned nothing from Lonestar, how PD diary was exempted from all wrongdoing after the beef riots, and how Chaebol bosses get away with beating kids with metal pipes?

[calendar]

[chrisinkorea2011]

[akcrono]

[akcrono]

[chrisinkorea2011]

[northway]