You know what, I pretty much agree with everything you said. We discussed this a good bit on the upcoming show, even though I feel that more discussion is required. There is a lot of confusion out there, and I admit that I have been a bit confused on this. My feeling is that if this is an issue of protecting the students then background and drug checks should be done by Education and not Immigration. I'm about to enter F-series Land myself, and I had a real headache getting my criminal check here and then getting it through Immigration because of an arrest over something that was never prosecuted (they got the wrong guy). Don't want to take the risk of going through that again and having another Immigration officer determine my fate on a whim.

The heart of that issue is that the whole criminal check requirement is fucked up to the core of the system. It reveals what people have been complaining about the whole time–there is no system in the system. A country is allowed to determine who gets visas to stay there. The country performs this function through a system that is consistent across the board and is not based on the whims of individual Immigration officers who are highly uninformed of their own scant regulations.

I'm by nature a political junkie. It's my sport. So whenever I hear about campaigns like the Equal Checks for All, I don't take it at face value. I immediately look for the subtext and the political points one is making in doing it. I think realistically ATEK knew that the Equal Checks thing wouldn't be made into law. It wasn't made to succeed. The purpose was threefold: a.) show the Korean public that it had the children's best interest at heart rather than solely existing to benefit foreign "unqualified" English teachers, b.) anticipate attacks from critics like the hagwon associations, who already started painting ATEK as an organization set up to protect only foreign English teachers with no concern for the students and parents, and c.) use it as the jumping point to highlight the deep whimsical inconsistencies in the immigration system.

It backfired.

Even though Equal Checks was expected to fail as a policy issue, it was supposed to gain points as a PR issue with the general public. They didn't make the distinction that Equal Checks didn't mean equal benefits between the visa types.

As for ATEK claiming to speak for all foreign English teachers, historically that's how groups like this get started. It's rhetoric.

So far, though, I like what I see with ATEK. They're the closest we've had to an organization to balance the power with the hagwon associations and create something closer to equilibrium in the market. I'd rather teachers help them get off the ground now and then work from the inside to iron out the kinks–not join anti-English Spectrum and the hagwon associations in crushing it. For the past year, yes, they've only been three guys. But, damn, they really have already overcome a lot of odds and gotten the ears of government and international media–a feat that should at least be respected.

Mike, keep listening and participating. We may have Tony on again next month, and I really want to hit him hard with the legitimate concerns you have. I still don't have phone-in capabilities on the show. But I don't want to turn the SeoulPodcast into the ATEK Cheerleading Squad just because of my personal politics. So please, post or send questions. Or if you want to ask him live on the show, I'm sure we could do that.

You know what, I pretty much agree with everything you said. We discussed this a good bit on the upcoming show, even though I feel that more discussion is required. There is a lot of confusion out there, and I admit that I have been a bit confused on this. My feeling is that if this is an issue of protecting the students then background and drug checks should be done by Education and not Immigration. I'm about to enter F-series Land myself, and I had a real headache getting my criminal check here and then getting it through Immigration because of an arrest over something that was never prosecuted (they got the wrong guy). Don't want to take the risk of going through that again and having another Immigration officer determine my fate on a whim.

The heart of that issue is that the whole criminal check requirement is fucked up to the core of the system. It reveals what people have been complaining about the whole time–there is no system in the system. A country is allowed to determine who gets visas to stay there. The country performs this function through a system that is consistent across the board and is not based on the whims of individual Immigration officers who are highly uninformed of their own scant regulations.

I'm by nature a political junkie. It's my sport. So whenever I hear about campaigns like the Equal Checks for All, I don't take it at face value. I immediately look for the subtext and the political points one is making in doing it. I think realistically ATEK knew that the Equal Checks thing wouldn't be made into law. It wasn't made to succeed. The purpose was threefold: a.) show the Korean public that it had the children's best interest at heart rather than solely existing to benefit foreign "unqualified" English teachers, b.) anticipate attacks from critics like the hagwon associations, who already started painting ATEK as an organization set up to protect only foreign English teachers with no concern for the students and parents, and c.) use it as the jumping point to highlight the deep whimsical inconsistencies in the immigration system.

It backfired.

Even though Equal Checks was expected to fail as a policy issue, it was supposed to gain points as a PR issue with the general public. They didn't make the distinction that Equal Checks didn't mean equal benefits between the visa types.

As for ATEK claiming to speak for all foreign English teachers, historically that's how groups like this get started. It's rhetoric.

So far, though, I like what I see with ATEK. They're the closest we've had to an organization to balance the power with the hagwon associations and create something closer to equilibrium in the market. I'd rather teachers help them get off the ground now and then work from the inside to iron out the kinks–not join anti-English Spectrum and the hagwon associations in crushing it. For the past year, yes, they've only been three guys. But, damn, they really have already overcome a lot of odds and gotten the ears of government and international media–a feat that should at least be respected.

Mike, keep listening and participating. We may have Tony on again next month, and I really want to hit him hard with the legitimate concerns you have. I still don't have phone-in capabilities on the show. But I don't want to turn the SeoulPodcast into the ATEK Cheerleading Squad just because of my personal politics. So please, post or send questions. Or if you want to ask him live on the show, I'm sure we could do that.

DRUGS TESTING: I do not agree with them being a requirement for a first visa, but then I have no problem with them being requested once you have been in Korea for 6 months. My thoughts on the matter are that Koreans should not be policing what you do in other countries, but they have every right to request that you obey their laws whilst you are here. In order to avoid accusations of discrimination, perhaps drugs tests should only be requested when you renew a visa

ATEK's chief argument has been that F-Visa holders are not subject to the same checks as E-2 holders, and yet these requirements have been met by people so that they could get their residency visas. ATEK have thus misrepresented the facts in the media both here and overseas, and as such are making the situation worse.

Now couple this with the misrepresentation of ATEK's mandate in various publications and correspondence. In the Korea Times there was (an apparent misquoted) claim about them having 20,000 members. On this very podcast, Tony Hellman stated that ATEK represents English Teachers in Korea (in the letter he read out), yet it has since come to light that ATEK has 0 members, and in fact represents no more than the 3 people that are ATEK. This kind of misrepresentation does nothing to help ATEK or their cause.

Now… I am not saying that everything ATEK stands for is bad. They do have some great ideas, and they could be a force for good here in Korea. Although I have not read their handbook yet, I do look forward to finding the time to do so.

They problem is, they are just 3 people who have a nice idea and they seem to be motoring ahead without any real consultation with the people they claim to be representing. It is all well and good meeting with Korean Immigration officials, sending off strongly worded letters, and making newspaper headlines alongside Prof. Wagner, but to do so without consulting the people they claim to represent is foolish. The F-visa holders are the people who can help ATEK the most, and yet they have not even been consulted for basic fact-checking purposes.

Now… I am not siding with Dave's… I hate that place and I only go there when I need to. The negativity there means that any idea will be treated as a bad one, but that does not mean that any comments made on the site should be dismissed because "they are always negative". Posting to a site known for its negativity, receiving negative comments, and then claiming that they should be ignored because they are always negative is not a valid excuse in my book! If they are always negative, don't use it to promote yourself. If you want the feedback from them, then accept it all and take a look at it. Do NOT respond with childish posts such as this: http://atekforming.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/why-y…

I hope ATEK can recover from this. When Tony appeared on your podcast, he did a tremendous job of presenting ATEK, and it is obvious that he is an intelligent guy who is committed to making a difference in Korea and for that I commend him. That said, he and ATEK need to take a step back and try and get the community behind them before they move forward. I for one can't help wonder how much better they would have fared had they released the book in order to gain interest in ATEK, and followed that up with a campaign that was better researched and less divisive.

Sorry for the long speel, but I figured you would like to hear the other side of the story from an F-visa holder who has been somewhat angered by the ATEK campaign (yet not so angry that he files police reports whilst sodomising chickens).

Mike

I'm a long time listener (Seoul Survivors and all) and occasional poster here. I usually post under an alias, but I figured these comments should be posted under my real name.

First off, you create a great show and I agree with Karl that Stafford should be bumped up to co-host!

Now… I listen to your show on my way to and from work, and so I have only just got to the part about the ATEK/F-visa dispute, and I felt that it would be helpful if you knew about a few of the issues at hand…

Most F-visa holders will agree that the portrayal of English teachers in the Korean media is wrong, and that a knee-jerk reaction to the CPN incident is to blame for the stringent requirements being implemented by immigration. Are they discriminatory? Possibly…

CRIMINAL CHECKS: Most F-Visa holders have already given criminal record checks in the past. I gave mine when I first came to Korea as a public school teacher on an E-2 visa. I did not need to give them a new one when I upgraded to F-2 status, because I was still on a PS contract. When I have switched jobs and moved to a hagwon on my F-2 visa, the MOE required a Korean criminal check. They did not require one from my home country, because I have a Korean residency visa. From y understanding, they WILL require another before I can swicth to the F-5 visa.

If ATEK are asking F-visa holders to get criminal record checks from their home country, they are trying to make life difficult for F-visa holders. The problem is, ATEK is looking at the issue from an American perspective, where it is pretty easy to get the required check done. For other countries, it is not so easy. The Korean Immi are telling Canadians to get the almost impossible VSS search done, and if they requested the same thing from F-visa holders, it would indeed threaten the livelihood of people with family commitments.

Take the UK example (easier for me to talk about, as I am a British citizen) – we too have a VSS search available, but it is only made available to employers in the UK who are registered to make the search requests. Individuals can not make the request, and I could not make that request. If Korean immigration, with all of their logic and foresight, decided to request that search from myself, I would be unemployable in Korea. This is not because I have anything to hide, but simply because Korean immigration are asking for something that it is impossible for me to provide, and if you (or your embassy) tell them it is impossible, they call you 'unhelpful'. I would have to break a promise that I made to my wife and her family (that I would never make her leave Korea), and in order to maintain a decent lifestyle, my wife would probably be forced to take up some shitty dead-end job in the UK until I can secure the kind of work I did in the past.

AIDS TESTING: Is it really such a big deal that a country requests that people coming to live and work in their country require that people do not have an incurable contagious disease? I have had 2 AIDS tests since coming to Korea – one as part of my application to the PS system, and one whilst working there. As an F-visa holder with a wife and child, I have better things to do with my time that go around screwing anything that casts a shadow, though if an AIDS test was required as part of an employment medical I would have no qualms about providing one. I am sure that most other F-Visa holders feel the same way, as long as it is done in country.

((splitting as this is a little too long))

DRUGS TESTING: I do not agree with them being a requirement for a first visa, but then I have no problem with them being requested once you have been in Korea for 6 months. My thoughts on the matter are that Koreans should not be policing what you do in other countries, but they have every right to request that you obey their laws whilst you are here. In order to avoid accusations of discrimination, perhaps drugs tests should only be requested when you renew a visa

ATEK's chief argument has been that F-Visa holders are not subject to the same checks as E-2 holders, and yet these requirements have been met by people so that they could get their residency visas. ATEK have thus misrepresented the facts in the media both here and overseas, and as such are making the situation worse.

Now couple this with the misrepresentation of ATEK's mandate in various publications and correspondence. In the Korea Times there was (an apparent misquoted) claim about them having 20,000 members. On this very podcast, Tony Hellman stated that ATEK represents English Teachers in Korea (in the letter he read out), yet it has since come to light that ATEK has 0 members, and in fact represents no more than the 3 people that are ATEK. This kind of misrepresentation does nothing to help ATEK or their cause.

Now… I am not saying that everything ATEK stands for is bad. They do have some great ideas, and they could be a force for good here in Korea. Although I have not read their handbook yet, I do look forward to finding the time to do so.

They problem is, they are just 3 people who have a nice idea and they seem to be motoring ahead without any real consultation with the people they claim to be representing. It is all well and good meeting with Korean Immigration officials, sending off strongly worded letters, and making newspaper headlines alongside Prof. Wagner, but to do so without consulting the people they claim to represent is foolish. The F-visa holders are the people who can help ATEK the most, and yet they have not even been consulted for basic fact-checking purposes.

Now… I am not siding with Dave's… I hate that place and I only go there when I need to. The negativity there means that any idea will be treated as a bad one, but that does not mean that any comments made on the site should be dismissed because "they are always negative". Posting to a site known for its negativity, receiving negative comments, and then claiming that they should be ignored because they are always negative is not a valid excuse in my book! If they are always negative, don't use it to promote yourself. If you want the feedback from them, then accept it all and take a look at it. Do NOT respond with childish posts such as this: http://atekforming.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/why-y…

I hope ATEK can recover from this. When Tony appeared on your podcast, he did a tremendous job of presenting ATEK, and it is obvious that he is an intelligent guy who is committed to making a difference in Korea and for that I commend him. That said, he and ATEK need to take a step back and try and get the community behind them before they move forward. I for one can't help wonder how much better they would have fared had they released the book in order to gain interest in ATEK, and followed that up with a campaign that was better researched and less divisive.

Sorry for the long speel, but I figured you would like to hear the other side of the story from an F-visa holder who has been somewhat angered by the ATEK campaign (yet not so angry that he files police reports whilst sodomising chickens).

Mike

I'm a long time listener (Seoul Survivors and all) and occasional poster here. I usually post under an alias, but I figured these comments should be posted under my real name.

First off, you create a great show and I agree with Karl that Stafford should be bumped up to co-host!

Now… I listen to your show on my way to and from work, and so I have only just got to the part about the ATEK/F-visa dispute, and I felt that it would be helpful if you knew about a few of the issues at hand…

Most F-visa holders will agree that the portrayal of English teachers in the Korean media is wrong, and that a knee-jerk reaction to the CPN incident is to blame for the stringent requirements being implemented by immigration. Are they discriminatory? Possibly…

CRIMINAL CHECKS: Most F-Visa holders have already given criminal record checks in the past. I gave mine when I first came to Korea as a public school teacher on an E-2 visa. I did not need to give them a new one when I upgraded to F-2 status, because I was still on a PS contract. When I have switched jobs and moved to a hagwon on my F-2 visa, the MOE required a Korean criminal check. They did not require one from my home country, because I have a Korean residency visa. From y understanding, they WILL require another before I can swicth to the F-5 visa.

If ATEK are asking F-visa holders to get criminal record checks from their home country, they are trying to make life difficult for F-visa holders. The problem is, ATEK is looking at the issue from an American perspective, where it is pretty easy to get the required check done. For other countries, it is not so easy. The Korean Immi are telling Canadians to get the almost impossible VSS search done, and if they requested the same thing from F-visa holders, it would indeed threaten the livelihood of people with family commitments.

Take the UK example (easier for me to talk about, as I am a British citizen) – we too have a VSS search available, but it is only made available to employers in the UK who are registered to make the search requests. Individuals can not make the request, and I could not make that request. If Korean immigration, with all of their logic and foresight, decided to request that search from myself, I would be unemployable in Korea. This is not because I have anything to hide, but simply because Korean immigration are asking for something that it is impossible for me to provide, and if you (or your embassy) tell them it is impossible, they call you 'unhelpful'. I would have to break a promise that I made to my wife and her family (that I would never make her leave Korea), and in order to maintain a decent lifestyle, my wife would probably be forced to take up some shitty dead-end job in the UK until I can secure the kind of work I did in the past.

AIDS TESTING: Is it really such a big deal that a country requests that people coming to live and work in their country require that people do not have an incurable contagious disease? I have had 2 AIDS tests since coming to Korea – one as part of my application to the PS system, and one whilst working there. As an F-visa holder with a wife and child, I have better things to do with my time that go around screwing anything that casts a shadow, though if an AIDS test was required as part of an employment medical I would have no qualms about providing one. I am sure that most other F-Visa holders feel the same way, as long as it is done in country.

((splitting as this is a little too long))