Comments on: More USFK Contractors Lose Their Jobs Due to Visa Issue

By: Leon LaPorte

Leon LaPorte — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:03:23 +0000

What about people who live in a different country (perhaps Philippines or Thailand) and are denied SOFA status? What the hell does living in any other country have to do with ROK/US SOAFA status?

By: JD

JD — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:37:36 +0000

Quote from Star article…..

If a contractor spends more than a month in South Korea without SOFA status, CCK "determines (the) individual is not ‘ordinarily a resident of the U.S.’ and intended to live outside of the U.S.," the presentation stated.

By their own definition, even if someone is waiting for CCK to process thier paperwork, they would become ineligible for a SOFA visa after 30 days. It routinely takes CCK more than 30 days to process SOFA paperwork.

It just get more ridiculous…… These people are completely out of control.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:41:37 +0000

Did the Audit turn out to be the one everyone thought? Was the emial'er wrong?

Doesn't the AAA concern itself with material fraud and waste? Why would anything pertaining to the 700-19 be in there anyway.

Still doesn't make sense.

By: Contractor Quo

Contractor Quo — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:06:50 +0000

Not ordinarily resident in the States I mean.

By: Contractor Quo

Contractor Quo — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:06:07 +0000

Wow, it gets crazier and crazier everyday.

Grandfather Clause. And then use a tighter review process from now on. The Korean Governement still has no problem with these people.

How do spouses, dependedents and GS's qualify for SOFA if they are hired locally into a contractor position? If you have SOFA from other means, then become a contractor, doesnt that make you not an ordinarily resident of the US and ineligible? So many dependents have gained a job this way. And will in the future. Or does the reg state that if you have SOFA by other means, it rolls over to the new job? No precedent, and nothing in writing. Come to think of it, that would mean that if anyone even changed contracts, they would be considered not ordinarily resident, and not eligible.

What a can off worms. Cant wait to see the Audit. Is the other Audit posted online anywhere?

Grandfather Clause.

By: US Interest First

US Interest First — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:39:02 +0000

The reporter used the same AAA from the 8 February 2009 Sunday article and linked it to the IC program. The report has nothing to do with the IC program (read Sunday’s article to find out what that report has to do with).

The AAA report that states the IC program rules were not being enforced and contractors were getting IC status erroneously has not been released yet.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:11:00 +0000

I wonder if this some connection to the 5 year rule. I recall, many years ago, the military had a rule that individuals should not be outside the US for over 7 years at one time. Theory was they may become less loyal to the US if they stayed away too long. Not sure if this rule is still in effect. However, this all does not make sense when you look at individuals who were on active duty their last 6 or so years here in Korea, retire in country, and take a GS or contractor job and remain here for 15 or more plus years. Also some folks alternate between contractor and GS – taking a contractor job to skirt the 5 year GS rule and then going back to GS later. Of course we have a large percent of the higher ranking GS who have been here 10,15,20 and even 30 years straight and no one seems to have a problem with that. Best way to solve the issue is to require all new hires to be stateside hires only. I'm not sure if you can legally retire from the military in Korea. I was told by the personnel office years ago that military retirement could only take place on American soil -Guam was OK.

Now I see where folks retire in Korea and Germany without ever returning to American soil. Maybe the rules have changed.

By: JoeC

JoeC — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:14:50 +0000

correction: "The follow" -> "The following"

By: JoeC

JoeC — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:09:40 +0000

The follow is not an equivalent issue, but it shows what can happen when a government agency decided to retroactively mandate the enforcement of an immigration status verification policy and you scale up to where it impacts hundred of thousands of contractors over the past 10 years. The contracting companies do have it in them to raise a stink when they want to and get their existing employees grandfathered in. New Immigration Regulation Eased After Firms Complain I guess the situation for contracting companies in USFK didn't reach a high enough threshold for the them to complain. But I just wanted to point out that there is an existing precedent out there for them to have used in case they cared to fight it.

By: Hamilton

Hamilton — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:11:09 +0000

THEOTHERGUY, I'm never one for conspiracy theories but this smells of something more sinister than simple stupid behavior. Korean hires have been known to pay out the nose for a position both here and in the US. I know a highly qualified individual who gets the cold shoulder from a department that has "temporarily" hired 4 unqualified Korean contractors for years. I understand not keeping a job open if there is no-one available but this smells of corruption.