|
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 |
buymybook
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Location: Telluride
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| T-J wrote: |
| buymybook wrote: |
"Crimes by foreigners reported to the Prosecutors' Office surged by 265 percent over the past five years since 2003. Drug-related offences by foreigners reached 976, compared with 9,888 for Korean nationals. The crime rate based on the total foreigners here outstrips that of Korean nationals based on the total population by four fold. Under the circumstances, it is inevitable for the Korean government to take firm measures against such a disturbing trend."
This obviously concerns Mr. Lee so I'd guess a very big envelope(s) of Won will be give to the Human Right Commission. This guy is not credible at all. I guess when Anma's(Prostitution houses) are allowed to operate freely and openly even after the so-called "crackdowns," while being only a few buildings down from courthouses(There is a big one at Guii-dong/Eastern District Courthouse, I'd suppose that isn't the only one in S.Korea so close and convenient for Judges/Lawyers/Cops/Ministry of Justice Officials like Lee Bok-nam himself?) then yeah, not many crimes by Koreans are reported.
The guy is so full of it, 265% my rearend. Crimes reported doesn't mean anything, they could so easily claim that without showing the reports but not so easy would be convictions.
WHERE ARE THE CONVICTIONS MR. LEE, BOK-NAM?
Drug related offences? Mr. Lee Bok-nam, why do you drug test E-2 visa holders for drugs that we've NEVER been proven to use in S. Korea? I'd like Mr. Lee, Bok-nam to explain why his/Immigration rules are so stupid? |
Careful, you are crossing some legal lines you don't want to cross in Korea. |
Go file a criminal complaint, whatever you're talking about? 
Oh yeah, there is one a few building down from the Western District Courthouse too. It is called "Nice Anma." This is probably an example of a "criminal report against a foreigner..."
Hello Police officer, My name is Mr. Kim and I'm calling from my cell phone in my car.
Police Officer: Yes, Mr. Kim what can I do for you?
Mr. Kim: My stereo was stolen from my car and the window was broken too!
Police Officer: So, why are you calling me?
Mr. Kim: Because I think a foreigner did it!
Police Officer: Okay, we'll be right there.
Mr. Kim: Hey Miss Lee(Secretary) chalk up another crime report committed by a foreigner.
Miss Lee: Okay! 
Police Officer: Yes! 
I forgot about the 17 crimes "TheChickenLover" claims ATEK and E-2 Visa holders(so-called "fraudulent petitions" filed with Human Rights Commission) committed as well. Hey "TheChickenLover" my complaint isn't fraudulent because it was accepted by the HRC. They will either agree or disagree with it, that doesn't make it "fraudulent" or me and the other 100+ who filed criminals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Synn057
Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Location: Here and There..... Metaphysically of course
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well... as long as this debate excludes the D and other E categories... then we are fine.
Interesting though how when the economics of the labor market works against a country (ie... highly technical staff), the country will be willing to accept a company's word about the employee. When the economics are in their favor (ie.... teachers), they will use immigration to do the job of the company.
You think LG or Samsung expats go through this stuff? The companies basically sign off on this for the government. The same theory should apply for foreign teachers.
Rather than use immigration, simply make the visa sponsors sign certify the teachers they bring in. While we are at it though, this means regulate the private schools. If this is about protecting children, then the same regulations should apply to locals as well.
__Synn
**For the most part I am just trying to get my 25 posts so I can PM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Synn057 wrote: |
| simply make the visa sponsors sign certify the teachers they bring in. |
Technically, they already do. To sponsor a foreigner for a work visa (any work visa), the company agrees to be responsible for them and also promise to get the foreigner out of the country when the sponsorship is ended (ie. not dump them on the streets of Korea without money). Of course, with all such things in Korea, enforcement is a problem; the schools are simply not held responsible for the teachers they didn't properly vet. FFS, is only been the last couple years where schools have been (semi-)consistently punished for hiring illegal teachers at all, nevermind legal teachers off their leash.
| Quote: |
| While we are at it though, this means regulate the private schools. If this is about protecting children, then the same regulations should apply to locals as well. |
That's what I've always said. That is why the MoE should be making such policies, and not Immigration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumple
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Lee's entire argument is predicated on a fallacy: that the drug screen and HIV tests are entry requirements. They aren't: you don't have to take them in order to enter. You have to take them in order to stay, after you've entered. And the reason that Immi is changing its policy is because it recognizes that it is on shaky constitutional ground. Their rationale states that they want "a better basis in law" for the checks, or something like that.
That Article 212 that Mr. Lee cites has to do with what applicants have to do in order to come into the USA, not what people who have already entered have to do in order to stay. That's a different ball of wax entirely.
You all are being told a truth, then a half-truth, then a lie, and you can't see where the one stops and the other starts:
TRUTH: Countries have a right to make their own visa entry requirements.
HALF-TRUTH: The E-2 visa requirements as currently enforced are entry requirements (the truth is that they are requirements, the lie being that they are ENTRY requirements)
LIE: The current system is not unconstitutional and does not violate international agreements which Korea has made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumple
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Synn057 wrote: |
You think LG or Samsung expats go through this stuff? The companies basically sign off on this for the government. The same theory should apply for foreign teachers.
|
That's changing, dude. The legislation under consideration extends Kimmi's authority to require E-2 style checks to ALL foreigners on work visas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marlow
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| TheChickenLover wrote: |
Nothing is going to change because of Wagner's report. If my complaint is held to its position. Then Wagner's and ATEK's days may very well be indeed numbered in the ROK.
Time will tell, but so far it's looking very good for the F-class visa holders. |
Then maybe it's time someone (who knows, maybe me) started filing complaints with the MoE, and getting THEM to make all teachers get checked. MoJ guy said Koreans are supposed to be checked under the law, and are supposed to not teach anymore if guilty of a sex crime. Obviously, there is a serious enforcement issue here, if true. "Equal Checks for All" is better served at the MoE level than the MoJ level. It should be an MoE policy in the first place.
Those F'ers who are not teachers would not be affected by such a policy, but all teachers would (and should) be. |
I agree. If the MoE did this then EVERYONE teaching would be checked, whether a Korean citizen, an E2 holder, an F visa class person, even down to a diplomat's older child or an army wife. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buymybook
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Location: Telluride
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rumple wrote: |
Mr. Lee's entire argument is predicated on a fallacy: that the drug screen and HIV tests are entry requirements. They aren't: you don't have to take them in order to enter. You have to take them in order to stay, after you've entered. And the reason that Immi is changing its policy is because it recognizes that it is on shaky constitutional ground. Their rationale states that they want "a better basis in law" for the checks, or something like that.
That Article 212 that Mr. Lee cites has to do with what applicants have to do in order to come into the USA, not what people who have already entered have to do in order to stay. That's a different ball of wax entirely.
You all are being told a truth, then a half-truth, then a lie, and you can't see where the one stops and the other starts:
TRUTH: Countries have a right to make their own visa entry requirements.
HALF-TRUTH: The E-2 visa requirements as currently enforced are entry requirements (the truth is that they are requirements, the lie being that they are ENTRY requirements)
LIE: The current system is not unconstitutional and does not violate international agreements which Korea has made. |
Yes, and below are two other LIES
"The crime rate based on the total foreigners here outstrips that of Korean nationals based on the total population by four fold."
Mr. Lee doesn't really base the crime rate on "reports" rather than convictions does he? And "four fold" has got to be a bunch of bull.
"Under the circumstances, it is inevitable for the Korean government to take firm measures against such a disturbing trend."
An Immigration Official at a Seoul Town Hall meeting practically admitted(and I think it's popular belief) that the reason for the "firm measures"/new rules are because of the media/reactions to Christopher Paul Neil NOT because of "criminal reports." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pocariboy73
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marlow wrote: |
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| TheChickenLover wrote: |
Nothing is going to change because of Wagner's report. If my complaint is held to its position. Then Wagner's and ATEK's days may very well be indeed numbered in the ROK.
Time will tell, but so far it's looking very good for the F-class visa holders. |
Then maybe it's time someone (who knows, maybe me) started filing complaints with the MoE, and getting THEM to make all teachers get checked. MoJ guy said Koreans are supposed to be checked under the law, and are supposed to not teach anymore if guilty of a sex crime. Obviously, there is a serious enforcement issue here, if true. "Equal Checks for All" is better served at the MoE level than the MoJ level. It should be an MoE policy in the first place.
Those F'ers who are not teachers would not be affected by such a policy, but all teachers would (and should) be. |
I agree. If the MoE did this then EVERYONE teaching would be checked, whether a Korean citizen, an E2 holder, an F visa class person, even down to a diplomat's older child or an army wife. |
Yah, let's all petition for more rules, regulations, and checks. Don't some of you guys have anything better to do with your time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
polonius
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
I believe you've lost perspective in this conversation. Bibbitybop stated that those on the other side of the issue have done nothing but bitch and complain. Chicken corrected him.
There are several times I've seen people push facts that are clearly not true and then despite being called on it still failed to provide proof.
Are you claiming that ATEK never advocated changing the rules for F series visas? |
I am claiming that I never believed that ATEK's attempts would be successful. I didn't believe that there would be any ramifications to F series holders. Did they want change to happen? Sure. Did they want F series to go threw checks? I am sure they did.
I simply don't believe that the MOJ or whomever they filed their grievances with would take the complaints launched by a group of foreigners seriously enough to change them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buymybook
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Location: Telluride
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheChickenLover wrote: |
| Translation: Nothing is going to change because of Wagner's report. If my complaint is held to its position. Then Wagner's and ATEK's days may very well be indeed numbered in the ROK. |
If your complaint is taken seriously, that will be a big "IF" to put it lightly.
Isn't this the first time you have claimed that B. Wagner could be deported/"days numbered in the ROK?"
You are correct about one thing, "nothing will change based on B. Wagner's report." Rather, they could change because of his report and the 100 + "petitions" filed by E-2 visa holders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bibbitybop
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Location: Seoul
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Dent
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Location: Kochu whirld
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rumple wrote: |
Mr. Lee's entire argument is predicated on a fallacy: that the drug screen and HIV tests are entry requirements. They aren't: you don't have to take them in order to enter. You have to take them in order to stay, after you've entered. And the reason that Immi is changing its policy is because it recognizes that it is on shaky constitutional ground. Their rationale states that they want "a better basis in law" for the checks, or something like that.
That Article 212 that Mr. Lee cites has to do with what applicants have to do in order to come into the USA, not what people who have already entered have to do in order to stay. That's a different ball of wax entirely.
You all are being told a truth, then a half-truth, then a lie, and you can't see where the one stops and the other starts:
TRUTH: Countries have a right to make their own visa entry requirements.
HALF-TRUTH: The E-2 visa requirements as currently enforced are entry requirements (the truth is that they are requirements, the lie being that they are ENTRY requirements)
LIE: The current system is not unconstitutional and does not violate international agreements which Korea has made. |
The best and most "to the point" post on this thread so far.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Synn057
Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Location: Here and There..... Metaphysically of course
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rumple wrote: |
| Synn057 wrote: |
You think LG or Samsung expats go through this stuff? The companies basically sign off on this for the government. The same theory should apply for foreign teachers.
|
That's changing, dude. The legislation under consideration extends Kimmi's authority to require E-2 style checks to ALL foreigners on work visas. |
If that's the case, then the legislation is bound to fail. Companies around the world fight any new hindrance on their ability to recruit and bring in new talent. Especially when Samsung is touting their new "globalized" initiative.
I bet they will just compromise and decide to start anally probing E-2 holders. They figure the F series holders already get that "attention" at home
One step closer to PM ability!
__Synn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buymybook
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Location: Telluride
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pocariboy73 wrote: |
| buymybook wrote: |
"Crimes by foreigners reported to the Prosecutors' Office surged by 265 percent over the past five years since 2003. Drug-related offences by foreigners reached 976, compared with 9,888 for Korean nationals. The crime rate based on the total foreigners here outstrips that of Korean nationals based on the total population by four fold. Under the circumstances, it is inevitable for the Korean government to take firm measures against such a disturbing trend."
This obviously concerns Mr. Lee so I'd guess a very big envelope(s) of Won will be give to the Human Right Commission. This guy is not credible at all. I guess when Anma's(Prostitution houses) are allowed to operate freely and openly even after the so-called "crackdowns," while being only a few buildings down from courthouses(There is a big one at Guii-dong/Eastern District Courthouse, I'd suppose that isn't the only one in S.Korea so close and convenient for Judges/Lawyers/Cops/Ministry of Justice Officials like Lee Bok-nam himself?) then yeah, not many crimes by Koreans are reported.
The guy is so full of it, 265% my rearend. Crimes reported doesn't mean anything, they could so easily claim that without showing the reports but not so easy would be convictions.
WHERE ARE THE CONVICTIONS MR. LEE, BOK-NAM?
Drug related offences? Mr. Lee Bok-nam, why do you drug test E-2 visa holders for drugs that we've NEVER been proven to use in S. Korea? I'd like Mr. Lee, Bok-nam to explain why his/Immigration rules are so stupid? |
Buymybook,
Why don't you forward your eloquent and well thoughout complaint to Mr. Lee, Bok-nam? I'm sure he'd be interested in hearing your complaint, possibly even meeting you personally for a lovely discussion about
Korean libel laws 
Have fun... |
Hey "pocariboy73"
Since you and other f series visa holders don't question/take what Mr. Lee writes and etch it in stone/accept it as fact, maybe you should send Mr. Lee the information below which supports my argument. Many more Korean crimes are reported than what Mr. Lee says, but there are much less arrests not to mention convictions. I wonder where Mr. Lee dug up his stats?...
From the ROKDROP(Thanks Bibbitybop)
"Exposing the Myth of Foreigner Crime in Korea
in: Crime & Punishment, Ex-pat Files
The above title is not something you will see headlining a Korean newspaper anytime soon, however when you compile the statistics it is true:
Five types of serious crimes _ murder, robbery, rape, theft and assault _ are on a steady rise in South Korea, while the ratio of arrests to those crimes is on a decline, the Korean National Police Agency said Monday.
The total number of those crimes committed nationwide rose from 455,840 in 2004 to 487,847 in 2005 and 489,575 in 2006, said the agency. [Korea Times]
After reading this article about rising Korean crime rates I decided to crunch the numbers and compare the ratio of total serious criminal offenses committed by Koreans to the ratio of total serious crime committed by foreigners in Korea. When a total population of 49 million South Korean citizens is divided by the total number of serious crimes of 489,575 the ratio is one crime per every 100 Korean people. Below is the raw statistics provided by the Korean National Police Agency:
Korean Crime Data 2006
Murder - 1,074
Robbery - 4,832
Rape - 8,759
Larceny - 192,808
Violence - 282,102
Total - 489,575
Now let�s compare this number to the foreign crime statistics for 2006. In 2006 there was a total of 3,701 total serious foreigner crimes. Recent headlines show that the foreigner population in Korea has exceeded 1 million for the first time ever for a grand total of 1,000,254 foreigners. The ratio of serious crime for foreigners in Korea comes to 1 crime out of every 270 foreigners. Below is the raw statistics for foreigner crime once again provided by the Korean National Police Agency:
Foreigner Crime in Korea 2006
Murder - 72
Robbery - 107
Rape - 68
Larceny - 971
Violence - 2483
Total - 3,701
Let�s look at these numbers again. For every 100 Koreans walking around in Korea there is at least one serious criminal while for every 270 foreigners walking around there is one serious criminal. The average person walking down the street in Korea is nearly three times more likely to have a serious crime committed against them by a fellow Korean than a foreigner.
Let�s break down the numbers even further by sub-categories.
The ratio for murders for Koreans is one murder for every 45,623 Koreans. The same murder ratio for foreigners comes out to one murder for every 13,892 foreigners. This murder ratio is much higher than the Korean murder ratio. Before any Korean citizens reading this begins to fear their kid�s hagwon teacher or the next GI they see walking down the street is going to murder them, keep in mind that in 2006 no Koreans were murdered by either a US soldier or a foreign English teacher. None. In fact a Korean has more recently murdered a GI than the other way around when Major David Berry was murdered in Itaewon by a crazed Korean man. I can�t even recall the last time a foreign English teacher murdered anyone. The murders that I have seen in the Korean news by foreigners against Koreans are coming from Chinese and third country national workers. Just for clarity once again I repeat that in 2006 not one English teacher or GI murdered a Korean. The kids can stay in the hagwon and the next GI you see walking down the street will not murder you.
Now let�s look at the robbery numbers. The ratio for robberies is one robber for every 10,140 Koreans. For foreigners the ratio comes out to 9,348. So you are slightly more likely to be robbed by a foreigner in Korea than by a Korean though once again this number is probably inflated by the 3D workers.
Here are the ratios for rape. There is one rapist for every 5,594 Koreans while there one rapist for every 14,709 foreigners. So the possibility of being raped by a Korean man is nearly three times greater than being raped by a foreigner.
Here are the ratios for larceny. Larceny is one person out of every 254 Koreans while for foreigners it is one person out of every 1,030 foreigners. So basically you are four times more likely to be ripped off by a Korean than by a foreigner. This shouldn�t be surprising at all considering the number of shady characters that have tried to rip me off in Korea before and this doesn�t even include the shady taxi drivers. I can only imagine what this number would be if they actually cracked down on the taxi drivers.
Finally let�s look at the violence ratio. There is one person committing an act of violence for every 173 Koreans. For foreigners it is one person committing an act of violence for every 402 foreigners. Koreans are about two and half times more likely to commit an act of violence than a foreigner.
So to summarize the average person walking down the street in Korea is per capita three times more likely to have a crime committed against them by a Korean, more likely to be murdered by a foreigner even though as I pointed out it wouldn�t be by a English teacher or a GI, slightly more likely to be robbed by a foreigner than a Korean, three times more likely to be raped by a Korean, four times more likely to be frauded by a Korean, and two and half times more likely to be assaulted by a Korean. Despite the wide spread media attention condemning foreigner crime in Korea it is quite clear foreigners are not a criminal problem in Korea outside of the murders being committed by 3D workers and a few thiefs. Statistically speaking if you live in Korea it is safer to hang out with those bastard GIs and the low quality foreign English teachers than the native Koreans. Who would have thought it?
I wonder if there will be a KBS2 special on this any time soon?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| buymybook wrote: |
| Let�s look at these numbers again. For every 100 Koreans walking around in Korea there is at least one serious criminal while for every 270 foreigners walking around there is one serious criminal. The average person walking down the street in Korea is nearly three times more likely to have a serious crime committed against them by a fellow Korean than a foreigner. |
Slight error in the bold part.
Using your raw data, if the rate of an individual being a criminal is 1 per 100 Koreans and 1 per 270 foreigners, then that means if you meet a Korean and a foreigner on the street, then chances are about 3 times as great that the Korean is has committed a crime in Korea than that the foreigner has committed a crime in Korea.
But, your statistic, the chances for the average person walking down the street in Korea to have a serious crime committed against them by a Korean vs a foreigner would be:
489,575 / 3,701 or about 132 to 1.
That means:
The average person walking down the street in Korea is 132 times more likely to have a serious crime committed against them by a fellow Korean than a foreigner.
And, since only about 1 out of 40 foreigners is an English teacher, assuming that the ratio of crime for foreigners is constant for all foreigners in Korea:
The average person walking down the street in Korea is 5300 times more likely to have a serious crime committed against them by a fellow Korean than a foreign English teacher.
And, I would hazard a guess, that the English teacher crime rate is lower than the average foreigner rate. |
|
| 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
