|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| 2. Do a role reversal (like my Korean/Chinese scenario). Do you think Koreans would allow people to take advantage of this loophole in their county? Chaos would erupt. |
Foreigners, including Chinese, already receive special treatment in regards to admissions and tutoring. Some Koreans complain, but the Korean people are not "Up in Arms" about it, despite the repeated attempts to portray them as torch-wielding lynch mobs.
| Quote: |
| 1. State your reason why you are FOR birth tourism. |
In my present position I am rather against the practice. Were I an amoral business leader or government official I might have a different perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JSC
Joined: 07 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:41 pm Post subject: Re: |
|
|
| jeronimoski wrote: |
Requirements for Residence Classification: An independent person must be a bona fide resident of Illinois for one calendar year immediately preceding the first scheduled day of classes for the term for which residency is sought at University of Illinois.
Requirements for Resident Classification: To be eligible for resident tuition in Wisconsin, adult students must be bona fide residents of Wisconsin for at least twelve months preceding the beginning of any semester or session for which the student wishes to enroll.
Requirements for Resident Classification: Students may be classified as Pennsylvania residents for tuition purposes if they have resided in Pennsylvania for at least twelve months before initial enrollment, for other than educational purposes; this constitutes PA domicile. |
Again, you are quoting information without understanding the meaning and without having any experience in how the process works. I have highlighted in bold the key words you seem to be glossing over. You have also quoted one sentence from of a set of detailed guidelines, have taken it out of context, and missed the bigger picture: state colleges scrutinize ALL students to ensure they are truly residents of their state. US-born international students are no exception and treated no differently. As such, they are no more of a financial/economic problem than any other "regular" US-born student, as you claim.
| jeronimoski wrote: |
Those are just a few. And I wrote about a Korean/Chinese scenario. Read an earlier post. It's easy. They go there a year beforehand, live with a relative, work at a job, and there you go. It's possible. |
Possible? Yes. Easy? No. And to believe that an Asian family will waste a year of their time to establish US residency just to save money at an in-state college shows you have little understanding of the type of family that spends $20,000-30,000 to come to the US to have a child in the first place.
Bottom line, I'll say it again: The benefit of lower in-state tuition is based on residency, not US citizenship. Your concern that "[their] parents haven't paid one cent in US taxes, but their child can go to school in the US for cheaper than other international students" does not hold water.
Furthermore, you should read this NY Times article published earlier this year. Essentially, the article says US families are facing a situation where state schools are accepting more and more international students BECAUSE they pay full freight for tuition, leaving fewer seats for their homegrown college-bound children. This is quite a different issue than the one you claim, but it certainly implies that state college officials would not let dubious residency claims slide so easily.
| jeronimoski wrote: |
What ARE you talking about? The parents are using their child and a loophole to take advantage of the system. Sounds like a money child to me, but that's just my opinion. If you don't like my description, then use your own. I don't mind. And I don't really see your point here. Your are directly attacking me and not the point. Why are YOU for birth tourism? List your reasons why you think it's a good idea. |
I have no opinion of your use of the term "moneybag prince/princess". However, I do not understand why you asked for "a statistic that shows that ONLY weathy Korean parents are going the tourist baby route". For what purpose? It seems you already assumed these children were born from wealthy families (plus the articles you linked called them upper-class and wealthy as well). Your request seems to contradict your original characterization.
For the record, I apologize for calling you confused. I can see how that could be construed as an attack. I should have said your request was "confusing". Let me put it this way. You started this thread by saying the sky is blue. After I agree the sky is blue, you then ask for a statistic that shows the sky is always blue. Wait, what? Why? Didn't we agree on this minor point already? Can you understand how this is confusing? Anyways, I don't believe this is really important to the core of either of our points, so I'd rather stay on target.
| jeronimoski wrote: |
| Who said they are breaking the law? I think I said that they are taking advantage of a loophole. As the thread title says, I think the law should be changed. Yes, I think it is dishonest because these people would never allow others to come into THEIR own country and take advantage of the system. My Korean/Chinese scenario points that out. (Read one of my earlier posts.) And who says I'm working in Korea now? And if I am/was, then what is/was my job? Do you know? And how do you know that I'm not paying taxes back home? Or that I've never paid taxes back home? And how is it relevant to the topic at hand? You are just trying to sink low enough to attack me, someone you know nothing about, just to prove your argument. Again, state the reasons why you are FOR birth tourism. |
In the context of this discussion, I am equating your usage of "dishonest" as someone who breaks the law. At this point there's no need to debate the point further as it seems to be an issue of semantics, where we won't come to an agreement.
As for attacking you regarding the tax hypothetical, please reread my post. I did not claim you never paid taxes. I assumed at some point you are or were employed outside of the United States (namely Korea). If that is a false assumption, it really doesn't matter. The point you missed is that many US citizens on this forum "take advantage" of the US tax system whereby they are effectively paying less tax on the same income amount versus a US citizen working on United States soil. It could be argued (analogously to your position) that this is a "loophole" in the US tax system, and citizens living & working in the US would deem it unfair. But no one (including myself) would call that dishonest. It's merely working within the system and taking advantage of every benefit afforded to us.
Simply put: Taking advantage of any loophole or benefit is not dishonest. Whether the loophole or benefit should exist in the first place is a completely different argument.
| jeronimoski wrote: |
Like I said, they are not breaking the law. They are taking advantage of the system. That is why I think the law should change to stop birth tourism. AND I NEVER SAID THE LAW IS BEING BROKEN!!!! Unbelievable. I said the law SHOULD.....BE.....CHANGED. Get that through your head. Please.
And if you want to attack me and use words like 'coherent' and 'confusing', then just PM me.
Now that we have that out of the way.
1. State your reason why you are FOR birth tourism.
2. Do a role reversal (like my Korean/Chinese scenario). Do you think Koreans would allow people to take advantage of this loophole in their county? Chaos would erupt.
3. Why do you think birth tourism is popular? Why do you think people pay the money to do it? Just for excitement and the thrill? I have given reasons. Do you think all of them are wrong? If so, then what are the reasons why they come to the US to have passport babies? If my reasons are SOOOOOO wrong, then please tell me the real reasons.
If you want to attack me and use insulting words, then PM me those and then respond here with your answers and arguments to the point. |
Again, if you feel I have attacked YOU, then I apologize. No need to PM you. I'll say what I want to say in public. I understand your position. However, it is my opinion that several of your reasons are very weak, and I have specifically attacked YOUR ARGUMENT of any financial benefit in regard to in-state college tuition.
Now that we have that out of the way, I'll try to answer your queries as clearly as possible:
1. Reread the first sentence of my first post. I am not FOR birth tourism. The reason for my replies is mainly because your "lower in-state college tuition for US citizens" is simply untrue.
2. Role reversal? No thanks. That's just pulling opinions out of thin air without any basis of proof. I will say this though... like Steelrails mentioned, foreigners in Korea receive benefits that are not available to Korean citizens. Here's another: http://www.koreabusinesscentral.com/page/seoul-global-business-support Sure, it's nowhere near as valuable as US citizenship is, but foreigners in Korea do take advantage of loopholes/benefits all the time. There's no chaos in Korea, and frankly I see no chaos in the US over this birth tourism issue, either.
3. I do not think birth tourism is popular (see quote below). Why do people do it? There are some very real benefits for the foreign families that manage to have a child born in the US. There are some very real costs to US society. BUT I disagree with most of the reasons you listed. If you want me to give my opinion point by point, I can do so in a separate post, as this is long enough and I've probably lost most people already.
In any case, here's a quote from the end of the NBC article YOU linked. I would guess she has MUCH more experience with immigration issues than you or I:
| Angela Kelley, the VP of immigration policy and advocacy for the Center for American Progress wrote: |
Looking at the issue as a whole, according to Kelley, the number of foreign women coming to the United States to give birth is extremely small and there are far bigger immigration problems for Congress to solve.
�Of the top 10 problems facing this country, this isn�t even in the top hundred,� said Kelley, who added that cracking down on birth tourism is not only a waste of time and resources, but also potentially short-sighted. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think there are reasons to consider modifying the 14th amendment. However, using Korean dual citizens as a reason, is clearly fallacious as others have already pointed out.
This reminds me... Bruce Lee was actually born in the USA before his parents returned to Hong Kong.
Frankly, I am little more concerned about cases such as Mexican parents who come to the USA illegally or overstay their visas. Then, in many cases, they are allowed to stay due to their children being American citizens.
Of course, I have nothing against Mexicans and especially not against anyone from Mexico who came to the US legally and have maintained proper legal statuses either as permanent residents or as new US citizens. It is just that I am not a fan of legal grey areas. Everything should be properly documented regardless of the costs.
Actually, I would advocate making a new amendment (which nullifies the 14th amendment) that will declare anyone a citizen who was born in the US and can prove one of his or her parents was also born in the USA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
If a parent was born in the USA (US citizen) then the offspring hold derived US citizenship anyway (14th amendment not necessary) whether they were born in the US or abroad.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
If a parent was born in the USA (US citizen) then the offspring hold derived US citizenship anyway (14th amendment not necessary) whether they were born in the US or abroad.
. |
Currently, that would be true. However, should another amendment with the additional requirement of a parent having been born in the US be passed into law, then eventually there will be cases where it would not necessarily be the case that the parent is an American despite having been born in the US.
For example, consider cases of former Americans (who were born in the US and renounced their US citizenship). Then, if by chance, while visiting family in US, his or her child is born in the US, then that child will be a US citizen without either parent being an American.
Other unusual cases would include children whose parents were only incidentally born in the US. For example, we can imagine a modern day version of Bruce Lee having kids in the US.
Of course, the real intent of such an amendment would be partly to discourage illegal aliens who either intentionally or by circumstance, use their US born children and local immigration sympathies to continue staying in the US. Just to be clear, I am not unsympathetic to such people. It is just that I want everything to be documented and legal in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not as if they are doing it to benefit from universal healthcare...Whoops, you don't have that in the US.
And, let me play the devil's advocate...Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical of you to be critical of them since you are essentially in the same boat: US born citizens who aren't paying taxes in the US? Sure, I know you have to file and I agree that your tax code is so convoluted that filing is a pain in the ass (I do my dad's Canadian income tax over the phone). But, you're adults and they aren't. And, really, how many of you actually owe income tax when you file? If I understand correctly from the discussions I've had with my many American friends, unless you're earning more than a certain amount in Korea--what is it, 80 000$, right? Much more than 99.99% of ESL gigs pay in Korea--you're not paying any taxes in the US, and yet you get to keep your citizenship.
In all seriousness, it's much ado about nothing.
They don't cost a thing to the US government until they move to the US, at which point they will be injecting thousands of dollars each in the economy. And if they are from wealthy families, it's also possible some of them will stay in the US, bringing with them investments and possibly creating jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SMOE NSET
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like I said before, they did it mainly to avoid military duty. However, the Korean government changed the law that even dual-citizens have to do service.
So, you have to give up your Korean citizenship to avoid service now. |
|
| 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
