Korean Job Discussion Forums

goreality · Joined: 09 Jul 2009

I am also confused by the outcome of the case in regards to it being beneficial for E2 class. Now there is more doubt surrounding the legality and necessity of these checks. The courts basically upheld the HIV checks for E2-class visa holders as best they could without just giving a straight up "that's too bad" ruling.
They couldn't say it was mandatory because then they would have had to address the argument that Korea is upholding an unconstitutional and discriminatory policy with more than a simple "no we aren't, it's not mandatory".
I don't know enough about what the words "discriminatory and unconstitutional" mean to give an informed opinion. Allegedly required by immigration, but court ruled non-mandatory HIV tests for a specific group of foreigners seeking immigration is definitely problematic. Why doesn't the court want to give a clear ruling in either direction?

TheUrbanMyth · Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired

The Cosmic Hum · Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space

TheUrbanMyth · Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired

akcrono · Joined: 11 Mar 2010

The Cosmic Hum · Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space

TheUrbanMyth · Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired

TheUrbanMyth · Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired

chrisinkorea2011 · Joined: 16 Jan 2011

The Cosmic Hum · Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space

TheUrbanMyth · Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired

Adventurer · Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Canada has long had mandatory testing for immigrant applicants when it comes to HIV. It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional in Canada. They're not citizens. What about that? It's the same in the U.S. Has Wagner been able to overturn this in his own country? I am not an expert on HIV. Don't you need very expensive drugs to sustain yourself? Is that still the case? This could be viewed as a violation of someone's human rights. The court should hear it. Korea probably thinks that foreigners who have AIDs may have sex with locals and spread the disease more and that's the thinking in the US an Canada probably. Many Americans and Canadians don't think about that because they didn't have to immigrate to their own countries.

I don't think such tests are optional in Korea as the report seems to say.
Why did the court refuse the petition? I don't get it exactly.

http://www.actupny.org/actions/Immigration.html

The issue is further complicated by the fact that roughly two-thirds of those who would be removed from the U.S. because they are HIV-positive are already living here, waiting to apply for permanent residency or citizenship status. What's more, experts believe that many of these individuals contracted HIV while in this country.

Not surprisingly, the ban on HIV-infected immigrants has negatively impacted the reputation of the U.S. within the international AIDS research community. Most notably, the important biennial International AIDS Conference has not been held in the United States since 1990, in protest against the U.S. immigration policy, and will not return until the ban is lifted.

Since September 11, 2001, immigration policy has toughened considerably, and the ban on HIV-infected immigrants is unlikely to change in the near future. Indeed, immigration experts who study this issue say that the mood created by the terrorist attacks has left immigrants much more vulnerable-and HIV-positive immigrants especially vulnerable, particularly during a period of continued economic uncertainty. In the meantime, HIV-infected people, who already face a daily struggle with their illness, will continue to face a significant obstacle in securing legal immigrant status.

In addition to the United States, only Armenia, Brunei, China,
Iraq, South Korea, Moldavia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia
practice this particular form of discrimination.

I believe also Canada.

The Cosmic Hum · Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space

PatrickGHBusan · Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:18 am Post subject:

This ruling pretty much closes the "case" now doesn't it?

This test was never discriminatory in the prejudical sense, it was never racist nor ill intended. It was aimed at a group of people in a specific visa category who will teach and be in contact with children. Thats called a public health measure.

Why not citizens? Well Korean PS teachers have to take health checks to get their jobs too....

Adventurer was discussing something else however: immigration. That category has even more restrictions and considers health case costs as part of the process. Admitting a HIV positive immigrant or an immigrant with a serious disease is typically not looked positively on by Immigration for the simple reason of health cost and societal costs.

Now personally I have NO problem with the HIV test that is administered and sadly there is a lot of missinformation being spread out there, some by people trying to make a point or to push an agenda of theirs.

Such is life.

As for Mrs Vandom

http://www.koreaherald.com/lifestyle/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20090605000078

Now her story is interesting but there are some gems in the article that show a degree of contradiction or missunderstanding of the situation on her part.