A Letter to the Immigration Office

In response to a letter from the Immigration department that was posted by the Korea Times, I have sent the following email to the writer (I have edited a few parts out for my own privacy):

Mr. Lee:

My name is Steve ****. I would like to, first of all, thank you for your explanatory letter in the Korea Times. Although the new regulations do not apply to me (unless I were to begin teaching, which I may do again some day), I am very interested in these issues because they effect my friends, as well as the way Koreans view all foreigners in Korea, whether they are English teachers or not.

My own credentials are a Masters degree in Public Administration with a specialization in Community and Organizational Change from the University of Missouri. The University of Missouri’s Truman School of Public Affairs is an up and coming MPA school consistently ranked the highest in the nation among Masters degree-only MPA programs. I have a strong background in policy (though it was not my specialization) and worked as a Performance Auditor for the State of ******, where my job was to visit various government agencies and analyze the effectiveness of various laws and policies, look for instances of malfeasance, protect the taxpayers’ money, and make recommendations for change. My former boss at the Auditor’s Office is U.S. Senator **** ******.

I fell in love with Korea during my two study abroad sessions in Seoul, one of which was as a graduate student at the Seoul National University Graduate School of International Studies. In spite of my high qualifications, I came to work in a Korean company as an English editor because I profoundly love living in Korea and have an interest in learning Korean (and also because [the former state auditor I worked for] was not running for re-election as the State Auditor, so my job security was unclear). In fact, I am seriously considering returned to the US to finish my PhD in Public Administration in the hopes of returning to Korea as a full professor teaching at a Korean University that is seriously interested in issues of transparency and public governance.

Coming from that perspective, I have seen several problems with the new immigration regulations. I generally support the implementation of a criminal background check, but the way it is being implement and the information is being disseminated is cause for great concern. First of all, from an administrative standpoint, the U.S. Embassy is not equipped to handle this task and it is not reasonable to expect it to. The U.S. Embassy is known as the biggest and busiest U.S. embassy in the world. The staff there is already underpaid and overworked, especially the new first-assignment Foreign Service Officers that bear the brunt of the office work.

Also, a run-of-the-mill background check from a local police station is downright useless for verifying the records of a highly mobile population such as foreign English teachers. Many of them have lived all over the world and may not have stepped foot in their home cities for years. As in the case of Christopher Paul Neil, a criminal record check done in Canada would not have uncovered that he was molesting children in Cambodia. In fact, I am not convinced at all that the new immigration policies would have screened out Mr. Neil had they been in place when he was applying for any of his several visas, including the E-7 visa, which is already a supposedly more rigorously screened visa.

I believe that a more restrictive immigration policy with the goal of ’screening’ people out does not make Korean children any safer, as it only provides another hurdle for legitimate, caring, well-qualified teachers. That’s just one more encouragement for the ‘good’ teachers to go other places.

What Korea needs is an immigration policy that, rather than punishing all teachers for one persons’ crimes, actually encourages teachers (and all foreigners for that matter) to keep their noses clean and work for improved visa status. A prominent University professor by the name of Michael Hurt has proposed a new visa class that I fully endorse and believe that it would better serve the Korean people as well as Korea’s expatriate population. It rewards people for their demonstrated commitment to Korea by requiring a Korean proficiency examination and a minimum 2 or 3 year stay in Korea before the status is granted.

Such a new visa would improve the image of all foreigners in Korea, make it more difficult for corrupt hagwon owners to treat their foreign employees like slaves, discourage illegal teaching (because it would be easier for qualified foreigners to make the wages they deserve at the outset) as well as help the ‘good foreigners’ to lead a much improved reputation and quality of life without fear of getting deported for volunteer work at Korean orphanages, or other community involvement. Personally, I would be willing to jump through a lot of hoops to receive an improved visa status, rather than doing all that work just to have a hagwon owner fire me one month from the end of my contract to avoid paying my severance pay.

In conclusion, I care greatly for Korea and I hope that it can overcome many of it’s social problems. Opening up to outsiders would be a big step in the right direction. I would gladly help in any way I can, even volunteering some time for the immigration department to collect research or drafting a policy proposal.

Sincerely,

Steven *. ****

————————-

I’ll let you know if I get a response, but don’t hold your breath.

Edit: Well I’ll be darned. He already wrote a brief reply. Doesn’t seem like a bad guy. He sent me his office phone number so I’m debating giving him a call and doing a bit of an interview with him.