The Marmot’s Hole

23 Comments

1. Sperwer
   Posted January 26, 2006 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

   Korea has been pushing hard for as long as I’ve been here, except at the height of the Korean financial crisis when offialdom had other prioritues and the likelihood that the US would lighten the preconditions for the waiver program was nil. Even the Korean American Chamber of Commerce has been suborned into the effort; it’s now the leading cheerleader.

   What this amounts to, though, is special pleading - more affirmative action for Korea. The visa waiver program has specific requirements - the most important of which is the % extent of compliance by Korean visa holders with the terms and conditions of their visas - essentially checking out on time, not overstaying - a test that Korea has been inching up to a passing grade on, but has never been able to reach.

   Why should the US accomodate current ROKGOV, especially with its policies of non-cooperation with larger and more important US policy initiatives, or just Korea, by making an exception to its rules just for it?

2. kushibo
   Posted January 26, 2006 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

   The visa waiver program has specific requirements - the most important of which is the % extent of compliance by Korean visa holders with the terms and conditions of their visas - essentially checking out on time, not overstaying - a test that Korea has been inching up to a passing grade on, but has never been able to reach.

   What are the rates of rejected applications? What are the overstay rates? What are the necessary targets to qualify?

   Is there anything within Korea’s particular situation (e.g., mandatory military service requirements that make it difficult for males of a certain age to leave the country) that might be keeping Korea’s application rejection rate higher than it would be without that particular circumstance?

   In U.S. lands where Korea already has visa-free entry, is there a problem with high levels of overstay?

   I would like to see this happen, but only if the change doesn’t create any serious new problems.

3. Sperwer
   Posted January 26, 2006 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

   Kushibo:

   You asked (did you think I was making it up?);

   Visa Waiver Program - How a Country Qualifies

   How does a country qualify to participate in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)?

   In order to be designated to participate in the Visa Waiver Program, countries must meet certain legislatively established criteria, as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (U.S.C. 1187), the Border Security Act, and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (EBSVERA).

   Among these criteria are requirements that:

   * Governments provide reciprocal visa-free travel for U.S. citizens (90 days for tourism or business purposes);
   * Governments issue secure machine-readable passports that satisfy internationally accepted standards;
   * Governments certify that they have a program to incorporate biometric identifiers into their passports in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization standards;
   * Governments certify that they report the theft of blank passports on a timely basis to the U.S. Government, and do so in practice;
   * The refusal rate for nonimmigrant visitor visa applications for nationals of the country is less than three percent for the previous two fiscal years; and
   * The incidence of nationals of the country traveling as nonimmigrant visitors who are denied admission, withdraw their application and violate the terms of a VWP admission is less than two percent of the total number of nonimmigrant nationals traveling to the U.S. during the previous fiscal year.

   In addition to these specific criteria for participation in the Visa Waiver Program, Section 217 of the INA also requires that the Department of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretary of State evaluate the effect that a country�s designation as a VWP participant would have on the law enforcement and security interests of the United States, including interests related to enforcement of immigration laws and the existence and effectiveness of extradition agreements and procedures. In order for a country to be designated as a VWP participant, a determination must be made that such interests would not be compromised by the designation of the country.

   Specific factors to be considered in such a review are not established in the legislation. However, in the past the following types of issues have been considered:

   * Security of a country�s passport application, production and delivery processes;
   * Security of passports and other documents used to demonstrate identity and citizenship, and incidence of fraud or misuse involving such documents;
   * Nationality and citizenship laws, and application of such laws;
   * Existence of security and law enforcement threats in the country (terrorist activities, organized crime, money laundering, human and drug trafficking, etc.), and efforts to address such threats;
   * Immigration controls and alien smuggling activities in the country, and efforts to address such threats;
   * Stability of the government politically and economically;
   * Degree of cooperation with the U.S. and other international partners on law enforcement issues, including extradition.

   Obviously, some of these criteria are post 9/11. Let’s leave this aside, because e.g., even when Korea gets its new biometric passports in place, its compliance with the post 9/11 measures won’t resolve all the problems that have tripped Korea up. One very siginficant pre 9/11 problem that I assume may get solved by the biometric system is the truly huge number of phony Korean passports that are out there. I don;t have this figues handy, but I was astonished at the number when I told of it by a former consular official at Embassy Korea (who was a proponent of the waiver program for Korea, but felt this was a deal breaker). The other traditional issues have been the rejection rate for visa issuance - Korea istorically has hovered close to 5% compared to the required 3 - and the visa violation rate - Korea historically has been at 3%++ compared to the limit of 2%.

   As for your other questions, viz.
   

   Is there anything within Korea’s particular situation (e.g., mandatory military service requirements that make it difficult for males of a certain age to leave the country) that might be keeping Korea’s application rejection rate higher than it would be without that particular circumstance?

   In U.S. lands where Korea already has visa-free entry, is there a problem with high levels of overstay?

   frankly, they are beside the point, and exemplary of just the sort of “but Koreans are exceptional mentality” that seems to drive the persistent Korean agitation about this issue. The rules are clear; what Korea needs to do to comply is clear. Why is this about what the US should do to make it easier for Korea by making exceptions to the rules that apply to everyone else?

4. kushibo
   Posted January 26, 2006 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

   Kushibo:

   You asked (did you think I was making it up?);

   Huh? What gave you the impression I thought you were making it up? (Seriously, how could you have read something like that into what were three very straightforward questions?) I was simply asking the questions because I thought that you, as someone who had just cited the reasons, might have some relevant data handy.

   Visa Waiver Program - How a Country Qualifies
   How does a country qualify to participate in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)?

   – snip –

   The other traditional issues have been the rejection rate for visa issuance - Korea istorically has hovered close to 5% compared to the required 3 - and the visa violation rate - Korea historically has been at 3%++ compared to the limit of 2%.

   Thank you. This is what I was looking for. I had heard slightly different (lower) figures, but somewhere around this.

   As for your other questions, viz.
   

   Is there anything within Korea’s particular situation (e.g., mandatory military service requirements that make it difficult for males of a certain age to leave the country) that might be keeping Korea’s application rejection rate higher than it would be without that particular circumstance?

   In U.S. lands where Korea already has visa-free entry, is there a problem with high levels of overstay?

   frankly, they are beside the point, and exemplary of just the sort of “but Koreans are exceptional mentality” that seems to drive the persistent Korean agitation about this issue.

   Well, if you interpreted a simple question about rejection and overstay rates as an expression of disbelief, I guess it’s no surprise that you would think that wondering if there was something in particular Korea could do to improve its rate to get it in the appropriate range would be an expression that Korea deserves an exception (which was the intent of my first question). My second question, about visa-free entry that already exists in our Pacific territories, my question was in relation to this statement:
   

   I would like to see this happen, but only if the change doesn’t create any serious new problems.

   In other words, I don’t want Korea to squeak into the program and then have everything go to pot when there are visa violations galore. That would be very Hwang-like.

   The rules are clear; what Korea needs to do to comply is clear. Why is this about what the US should do to make it easier for Korea by making exceptions to the rules that apply to everyone else?

   I don’t know. That’s not what I was asking.

   I snipped this out of order:
   One very siginficant pre 9/11 problem that I assume may get solved by the biometric system is the truly huge number of phony Korean passports that are out there. I don;t have this figues handy, but I was astonished at the number when I told of it by a former consular official at Embassy Korea (who was a proponent of the waiver program for Korea, but felt this was a deal breaker).

   I was under the impression that a majority of phony Korean passports were being used outside of Korea by non-ROK citizens. I guess it’s possible, but I wouldn’t think that a phony passport would get you directly to the U.S., unless you had a phony Korean National ID Card to go with it and you had the balls and the luck to get away with using it at Inchon International Airport. I thought you had to show both the passport and national ID card to get checked-in, and they won’t let you check-in unless you have the appropriate visa. And if you walk into the US embassy to get a visa with a fake passport, it’s not going to happen unless it matches up with a fake ID card, too. No, I’m not saying this to suggest that the counterfeit passports have no bearing on visa refusals; I’m asking this because I thought phony passports were more of a problem with non-ROK nationals posing as ROK nationals, and I would imagine it is very hard for non-ROK nationals to go to the US embassy in Seoul and get a US visa. Right? Again, I’m asking this in a completely non-rhetorical fashion.

5. Sperwer
   Posted January 26, 2006 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

   Kushibo:

   I was under the impression that a majority of phony Korean passports were being used outside of Korea by non-ROK citizens.

   Right, and that’s why the US is reluctant to give Koreans visa free entry to the US since it means that who happens to have a Korean passport can get in - they don’t have to go through any process at Embassy Korea, Incheon or anywhere else in Korea. They just show up from wherever at an airport in the US with a get in free card.

   P.S. I was joking about suggesting that you thought I’d made it up.

   PPS: I wasn’t implying that you were enaged in specail pleading in dismissing your other questions, just observing that these are the sorts of things that are put forward by the whingers. But the answer to your general question of what Korea can do is obvious - comply with the fairly simple rules and obey the law - something that seems to be extraordinarily difficult for Koreans to do when the law is inconvenient to them.

6. kushibo
   Posted January 26, 2006 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

   Right, and that’s why the US is reluctant to give Koreans visa free entry to the US since it means that who happens to have a Korean passport can get in - they don’t have to go through any process at Embassy Korea, Incheon or anywhere else in Korea. They just show up from wherever at an airport in the US with a get in free card.

   Oh, duh! I plead intense fatigue. That was a pretty stupid last paragraph I wrote there.

7. Darin
   Posted January 26, 2006 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

   The most recent Korean airline passenger protest at Narita three days ago certainly can’t help Korea’s case for visa-free status…

8. slim
   Posted January 26, 2006 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

   My figures are five years old, but recall seeing something like 40,000 ROK illegals in Japan.

9. Wedge
   Posted January 27, 2006 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

   Why not open the floodgates? The U.S. could have a Korean massage parlor on every block.

10. Mizar5
    Posted January 28, 2006 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    The most recent article I read claims Korea must meet just a 3% rejection rate (not 2%) while the current rate stands at 3.5% (not 5%).

    Who’s right on this issue?

11. judge judy
    Posted January 29, 2006 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    i think wedge is right-we really could have a massage parlor on every block.

12. Sperwer
    Posted January 30, 2006 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Mizar:

13. Sperwer
    Posted January 30, 2006 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Mizar:

    Apart from all the other preconditions, there are two numericcal tests:

    (i) the visa rejection rate (i.e., at the place of application, normally Embassy Korea) must be less than 3%, AND

    (ii) the visa violation rate (i.e., once the visa holder is in the US and e.g., doesn’t leave on time, commits some other crime while in the US, etc) must be less than 2%).

    It wouldn’t surprise me that the application rejection rate now is closer to 3.5% than the historical 5% rate I quoted, given the tremendous effort that has been made by the Embassy to bend the visa granting rules in response to the enormous pressure that has been brought to bear to that end over the past 6 years.

    The fact remains that Korea consistently fails both tests. Which seems to be to be a reason for Koreans to start playing by the rules instead of circumventing them, in this instance by importuning the US to make affirmative action exceptions for them,

14. kushibo
    Posted January 30, 2006 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    It wouldn?? surprise me that the application rejection rate now is closer to 3.5% than the historical 5% rate I quoted, given the tremendous effort that has been made by the Embassy to bend the visa granting rules in response to the enormous pressure that has been brought to bear to that end over the past 6 years.

    In what ways has the US Embassy been bending the rules to grant visas? (I’m asking, not making a rhetorical point). I’ve been involved with several people getting tourist visas or student visas in the United States, and other than them saying this or that document was not enough, so get this thing and come back, there were no special favors. Of course, that’s just personal experience, which is by nature nothing more than anecdotal, but discussions I’ve had with embasssy personnel wouldn’t indicate “tremendous effort” to fudge the rules.

15. Sperwer
    Posted January 30, 2006 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    I’m not talking about individual cases - although there’s a lot of that, to; your personal experiences in that regard aren’t particualrly relevant in that regard except as an indication of the lack of pull of the people you know. (The juice needed is generally with Korean staff at the Embassy, a pile of whom were dismissed a few years ago for taking bribes).

    What I’m referring to are explicit and implicit directions to lighten up generally on the application of the criteria to be applied to determine whether applicants are eleigible for visas, e.g., income and other tests designed to determine whether or not the applicant will abide by the terms of the visa and return to Korea upon expiration.

    Basically, what MOJ is asking for is enhanced and continued slackness in enforcing these criteria so that the visa acceptance rejection rate is within the 3% limit for two consecutive years, so that Korea can satisfy that part of the waiver program prerequisites.

16. Mizar5
    Posted January 30, 2006 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    So far everything I’ve read has been one-sided - from the perspective of Koreans. In your opinion, what if anything would the US have to gain from granting this favorable treatment?

17. Sperwer
    Posted January 30, 2006 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

    Mizar:

    If you think I’ve been writing from Korean shoes, you’re less perceptive than I thought. The question I started out with was why the US should treat Koreans exceptionally, as they keep whining it should.

18. kushibo
    Posted January 31, 2006 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    what if anything would the US have to gain from granting this favorable treatment?

    Some parts of the United States (e.g., Hawaii, Alaska, California, and Las Vegas) would like the boost to tourism and other commerce that visa-free entry would bring. Hawaii has a two-focus tourism market??apan and California??nd has long been looking to expand its prospects.

    Koreans are (were?) the second biggest spenders when traveling abroad (Japanese were #1), so the tourists could “help fuel the U.S. economy” (the Korea Times cites a US Commerce Department source that says 626,000 Koreans visiting the U.S. each year spent around $1 billion in 2004).

    Also, according to embassy personnel I’ve talked with, the visa-free entry would free up their people to deal with other more important matters. The same Korea Times article says that the number of visa applications has gone up from 350,000 in 2004 to 400,000 in 2005, and is expected to read half a million in 2006. That’s about 2000 every working day. Many of these are handled, I believe, primarily by travel agents that follow certain guidelines, under a program seen as a forerunner of sorts to a general visa waiver, but the remainder still represent a huge workload for embassy personnel.

    Frankly, though, I don’t want the US Congress to authorize this until fall of next year, a month or so before the 2007 presidential elections. I fear a leftist candidacy by preening former Unification Minister Chung Dong-young may include subtule and/or overt appeals to anti-American or anti-Japanese sentiment, and the announcement that South Korea is now in the visa waiver program would take some of the air out of that blimp. An October/November surprise.

    [Though not exactly the same as the regular 90-day stay visa waiver being proposed, here is testimony by Representative Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) in 1997 about justification for the bills he and Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) tried to get passed to allow ROK citizens 15-day entry while with tour groups.]

19. Mizar5
    Posted January 31, 2006 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    Sperwer, if you think my comment was intended as a jab at you, then I think you’re less perceptive than you thought I was when you thought I was less perceptive than you thought.

    The question was not aimed at anyone in particular, even though it followed your comment sequentially, and neither was it critical of anything you have written.

    I am just curious as to whether there is in fact anything in this for America.

20. Richardson
    Posted January 31, 2006 at 2:13 am | Permalink

    “…then I think you??e less perceptive than you thought I was when you thought I was less perceptive than you thought.”

    I like it.

21. Mizar5
    Posted January 31, 2006 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Richardson, to know me is to love me. Or to misunderstand me and feel otherwise…

22. Sperwer
    Posted January 31, 2006 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Mizar: I am just curious as to whether there is in fact anything in this for America.

    Obviously not. Even the Korean immigration whores don’t pretend there is; it’s all about their “rights”.

23. Mizar5
    Posted February 1, 2006 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    If nobody can seem to come up with a potential benefit to the US of opening the floodgates to illegal Korean immigration (oops, I meant visa-less visits), let me point out that there are some risks.

    Most pointedly, I consider he security risk in particular quite alarming, considering the extent to which the domestic media tends to reflect North Korean news sources when endulging in anti-American sentiment. Naturalized citizen, Robert Kim, was lauded as a national hero and his plans to trade highly sensitive defence-related techology to the Korean government were hushed in the Korean press.

    Even North Korean refugees are often reluctant to come to South Korea for fear of the North Korean agents here.