| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
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. |
Do all foreigners seeking to work in Korea have to take some kind of test?
I am curious. Now, some, understandably, can see after seeing so many stories in the media which makes it seem as if Westerners are drug users? That's how many people felt when the regulations came into effect. Some felt that it was in response to xenophobia. Korea had all these years to come up with such rules. Why not in 2000? I think a fear of foreigners and what foreigners may bring to Korea did play a role in this, Patrick. However, I think it's Korea's national right to conduct such tests. The US and Canada do so, as well. However, many North Americans also object to the tests and complain against such things in North America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
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... |
The whole visa discrimination thing thread has been done...yes?
Patrick...perhaps this is better left alone...your arguments fail on so many levels I am embarrassed for you...really.
Why even mention the Korean PS teachers at all? It only implies that on some level discrimination does exist and somehow this fact should appease people...it doesn't. It only makes it all the more obvious that Korean hogwan teachers don't have to take the tests.
Anyway...just saying...terrible example.
This issue has nothing whatever to do with Korean citizens at all.
It is an immigration issue. Period.
I have no agenda here...and was in no way implying whether the tests were discriminatory or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the problem is how the word descriminatory is being used. I descriminate when i choose a restaraunt to eat at. I descriminate in mu choice of movies to view.
The e2 is a certain type of visa. To obtain an e2 there are certain standards such as a degree from a University or college. This descriminates against those without degrees. So I agree that the testing for HIV is descriminatory but it is common sense. Basically this eliminates those who might become too ill to do the job or become a burden on the health care system. Treatment can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for just one patient.
The CBC is descriminatory also. How dare we violate the rights of pedophiles, rapists murderers to teach in Korea. After all they probably will no committ any crimes and it is our duty to look after those who have made poor choices it is our duty as humans to help lift these poor souls up.
It is a human right to be able to teach in korea. FRee airfare, free apartment, for everyone and no one should have to teach. Work is an infringment on my right to drrink soju and chase Korea girls!! Power to the people. Dong Chims for everyone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Discriminate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Quote: |
You state that some people did not sign the papers of their own free will. You further state they had a job already.
BUT in order to get that job they had to get an E-2 visa first. And in order to get that E-2 visa they had to either submit those signed papers or promise to submit them. So this part of your argument makes no sense. Part of the conditions for the E-2 involve getting a medical check and submitting it. |
...ok...at this point either you lack logical intelligence or are being deliberately obtuse...neither are going to improve this conversation.
Some people were already here...working...with an E2 visa....before the restrictions(requirements) were put into effect...can you grasp that?
If you can't...don't bother responding.
So...they did not have to submit these forms or have to promise to submit them in order to get their E2...they already had one.
When they had to renew their visa, the problems occurred.
When these restrictions were put into place, some people, who already had their visa, felt it was discriminatory...(again...right or wrong.)
Most signed out of fear of losing their job and being deported...not exactly free will...yes?
Immigration said the regulations were mandatory...most believed this.
| Quote: |
As for Andrea Vandom, there are differing stories about her. One story has it that Immigration says it never happened (more on this later). Another story states that she didn't have a job at the time she made this stand. And last I heard, she is no longer currently teaching in Korea.
It would seem that the first story though is fake. What apparently happened is that an official approved her E-2 by mistake. However Immigration did say later that either she would submit the forms or be deported. |
Some one person, at least, fought it...and refused to submit.
This person was employed at the time...and remained employed even after refusing to submit.
Immigration was not completely honest about the incident...this is on record, as this person went to immigration armed with lawyers and reporters when refusing to submit them.
Her visa was processed...without the forms(the reporters present must have been intimidating)... though immigration did later say the official made a mistake and threatened to revoke it and deport her when she went public with the case.
Revocation of the visa and deportation never occurred.
So...it is still a mystery if the requirements are mandatory or not.
| Quote: |
| Next you claim that people don't know the restrictions because the courts have avoided making it clear. Again this is invalid. Until such time as the courts make it clear, it should be obvious that the restrictions are the ones IMMIGRATION has placed on the visa. Since they are the ones to issue the visa they are also the ones who get to decide (absent a dissenting court opinion) what restrictions to place on it as well. And it is very clear what restrictions they have placed as seen by the thousands of E-2 visa holders currently in Korea...something like 20-30 thousand. |
20-30 thousand people being told, and believing, the earth is flat doesn't necessarily make it so. |
[sigh]
When accusing other people of lack of logical thinking skills or being obtuse...it is best not to then turn around and display those flaws in your own argument.
Those requirements were put in place years ago...I am talking about people who applied for a job recently not back in 2008. Period.
Andrea Vandom is no longer teaching in Korea so I don't know how you can confidently state that revocation of the visa and deportation never occurred...maybe it did, maybe it didn't.
It's no mystery at all. Immigration says these are required. They are probably now prepared for the next Vandom style incident...meaning detention and deportation. And with so many people coming through...it's no mystery that somebody could slip through the cracks...ever hear of SOMEONE ELSE successfully evading the restrictions by refusing to submit the papers? I suppose you could give it a shot...do let us know what happened won't you?
As for the 20-30 thousand people believing the earth is flat...what are you on about? I was merely pointing out that if so many people can figure out what the restrictions are and comply with them, it is neither a secret nor a mystery what these restrictions are. People clearly know the restrictions if so many people here can get an E-2.
| Quote: |
| People did not know full well the restrictions...and still don't |
Apparently everyone here on an E-2 has figured them out...and that is who we are talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
What am I on about? lol�you are a real character you are. What are you on?
| Quote: |
| Andrea Vandom is no longer teaching in Korea so I don't know how you can confidently state that revocation of the visa and deportation never occurred...maybe it did, maybe it didn't. |
�maybe it did, maybe it didn�t�really?
From the OP
| Quote: |
"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.'
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. |
Andrea Vandom�s visa was not revoked and she was not deported.
How is it possible to logically deduce this amazingly elusive fact�even though she didn�t submit the forms?
�because the courts are using that very point to reject her petition of human rights violation.
The English language has these interesting words�request and requirement. While they might just be semantics to some�they do have meanings, and in this case important ones.
The �requirements�(restrictions) as you say�well�only appear to be a request according to the Korean court....not required.
Not submitting the forms + not being required to submit the forms = not having visa revoked and not being deported
Not having visa revoked and not being deported = no violation of human rights = denial of petition.
If they had revoked her visa and deported her, there just might have been grounds to enforce the petition...alas...such is not the case.
Unfortunately, it is still not clear if the �requirement� (restrictions) are constitutional or not. It is laid out pretty well in the OP.
Have fun twisting this all out of proportion, too...lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
What am I on about? lol�you are a real character you are. What are you on?
| Quote: |
| Andrea Vandom is no longer teaching in Korea so I don't know how you can confidently state that revocation of the visa and deportation never occurred...maybe it did, maybe it didn't. |
�maybe it did, maybe it didn�t�really?
From the OP
| Quote: |
"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.'
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. |
Andrea Vandom�s visa was not revoked and she was not deported.
How is it possible to logically deduce this amazingly elusive fact�even though she didn�t submit the forms?
�because the courts are using that very point to reject her petition of human rights violation.
The English language has these interesting words�request and requirement. While they might just be semantics to some�they do have meanings, and in this case important ones.
The �requirements�(restrictions) as you say�well�only appear to be a request according to the Korean court....not required.
Not submitting the forms + not being required to submit the forms = not having visa revoked and not being deported
Not having visa revoked and not being deported = no violation of human rights = denial of petition.
If they had revoked her visa and deported her, there just might have been grounds to enforce the petition...alas...such is not the case.
Unfortunately, it is still not clear if the �requirement� (restrictions) are constitutional or not. It is laid out pretty well in the OP.
Have fun twisting this all out of proportion, too...lol |
Regardless of whether the tests are a requirement or not Miss Vandom is no longer a teacher in South Korea and it certainly doesn't sound like she left willingly.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=437554
| Quote: |
| A year later, Vandom's visa was up for renewal. She was in the process of applying to PhD programs in Korea when the Korean Immigration Service asked her for her AIDS and drug test documents, which she did not have. |
I may be going out on a limb here but someone who is applying for a PhD program in the country doesn't sound like someone who is ready to leave of her own free will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
What am I on about? lol�you are a real character you are. What are you on?
| Quote: |
| Andrea Vandom is no longer teaching in Korea so I don't know how you can confidently state that revocation of the visa and deportation never occurred...maybe it did, maybe it didn't. |
�maybe it did, maybe it didn�t�really?
From the OP
| Quote: |
"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.'
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. |
Andrea Vandom�s visa was not revoked and she was not deported.
How is it possible to logically deduce this amazingly elusive fact�even though she didn�t submit the forms?
�because the courts are using that very point to reject her petition of human rights violation.
The English language has these interesting words�request and requirement. While they might just be semantics to some�they do have meanings, and in this case important ones.
The �requirements�(restrictions) as you say�well�only appear to be a request according to the Korean court....not required.
Not submitting the forms + not being required to submit the forms = not having visa revoked and not being deported
Not having visa revoked and not being deported = no violation of human rights = denial of petition.
If they had revoked her visa and deported her, there just might have been grounds to enforce the petition...alas...such is not the case.
Unfortunately, it is still not clear if the �requirement� (restrictions) are constitutional or not. It is laid out pretty well in the OP.
Have fun twisting this all out of proportion, too...lol |
Regardless of whether the tests are a requirement or not Miss Vandom is no longer a teacher in South Korea and it certainly doesn't sound like she left willingly.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=437554
| Quote: |
| A year later, Vandom's visa was up for renewal. She was in the process of applying to PhD programs in Korea when the Korean Immigration Service asked her for her AIDS and drug test documents, which she did not have. |
I may be going out on a limb here but someone who is applying for a PhD program in the country doesn't sound like someone who is ready to leave of her own free will. |
...and yet again you would be wrong.
But hey...you have wild speculations to make and illogical conclusions to jump to...enjoy your circus act.
...or just give it a rest.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
[qu
...and yet again you would be wrong.
|
I have provided links and reached a conclusion based on fact. She was applying for a PhD program in Korea not leaving. She is now gone.
These are verifiable facts.
Either provide a link showing me that I am wrong (as you claim) or it will be clear that the only one speculating is you.
She may have not been deported but something certainly must have gone on for her to abandon her plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
[qu
...and yet again you would be wrong.
|
I have provided links and reached a conclusion based on fact. She was applying for a PhD program in Korea not leaving. She is now gone.
These are verifiable facts.
Either provide a link showing me that I am wrong (as you claim) or it will be clear that the only one speculating is you.
She may have not been deported but something certainly must have gone on for her to abandon her plans. |
She may have not been deported?
An attempt at admitting your errors...or still deflection?
...you are too much.
Take the advice of your little bunny and give it a rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goreality
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
○ A revision of HIV infected people regulations.
- By the regulation, just because of the reason infected to HIV, no rejection will happen when applying for a certificate of visa issuance approval or get their visa status canceled or will not be forced to leave Korea.(from 2010.7.15) |
http://www.hikorea.go.kr/pt/NtcCotnDetailR_en.pt?bbsGbCd=BS10&bbsSeq=2&langCd=EN&ntccttSeq=32
.
Hmm seems like the discrimination has ended with regards to the HIV matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
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... |
The whole visa discrimination thing thread has been done...yes?
Patrick...perhaps this is better left alone...your arguments fail on so many levels I am embarrassed for you...really.
Why even mention the Korean PS teachers at all? It only implies that on some level discrimination does exist and somehow this fact should appease people...it doesn't. It only makes it all the more obvious that Korean hogwan teachers don't have to take the tests.
Anyway...just saying...terrible example.
This issue has nothing whatever to do with Korean citizens at all.
It is an immigration issue. Period.
I have no agenda here...and was in no way implying whether the tests were discriminatory or not. |
Predictable response....
Why mention Korean PS teachers? Because they are often included in this "debate" in the category of "they do not get tested why should we (foreigners)? wa wa wa this is discrimination". The reality is they go through health checks.
Now the testing is done on a portion of E2 visa holders and also covers some F-visa holders who work in kids schools. The key issue is: where they will work. Thats not discrimination nor is it racism.
This is also NOT an immigration issue, it is visa issuance issue for people who will end up working with CHILDREN.
Still, you go ahead and do what you feel you must. You are free to think this is discrimination, racism, ill intended, a human rights violation or heck all of those things combined.
If it bothers you so much, pick up the ball and complain to the concerned and relevant authorities. Go to the UN Commission on Human Rights if intra-Korea agencies are not to your liking.
Up to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
[qu
...and yet again you would be wrong.
|
I have provided links and reached a conclusion based on fact. She was applying for a PhD program in Korea not leaving. She is now gone.
These are verifiable facts.
Either provide a link showing me that I am wrong (as you claim) or it will be clear that the only one speculating is you.
She may have not been deported but something certainly must have gone on for her to abandon her plans. |
She may have not been deported?
An attempt at admitting your errors...or still deflection?
.... |
An attempt at admitting errors?
I never said she was deported in the first place.
In fact in a previous post I clearly said that (in regards to deportation happening) that maybe it did and maybe it didn't.
And I still don't see any proof whatsoever for your stance on this. Nor do I see your stake in this.
Either you willingly agree to work here under "discrimination" or you don't.
In the first case, you signed the papers of your own free will, so complaining about it is pointless. It's like banging your head against a wall. If it hurts, stop it.
In the second it doesn't affect you so you have no personal stake in this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is also NOT an immigration issue, it is visa issuance issue for people who will end up working with CHILDREN. |
...you really nailed it here.
This is also NOT an immigration issue,
Interesting...just what department deals with the issuance of visas?
... it is visa issuance issue for people who will end up working with CHILDREN. [sic]
Is that so?
Then all the people who are/were teaching adults or at universities do/did not fall into this category?
The only predictable thing here is your ability to exaggerate your wisdom on any given subject.
Once again... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is also NOT an immigration issue, it is visa issuance issue for people who will end up working with CHILDREN. |
...you really nailed it here.
This is also NOT an immigration issue,
Interesting...just what department deals with the issuance of visas?
... it is visa issuance issue for people who will end up working with CHILDREN. [sic]
Is that so?
Then all the people who are/were teaching adults or at universities do/did not fall into this category?
The only predictable thing here is your ability to exaggerate your wisdom on any given subject.
Once again... |
Maybe not adults...but foreign university teachers (with the exception of F-visa holders) are E-1 visa holders...not E-2 (again with a few exceptions). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
