South Koreans want Cho to be considered non-Korean because of time spent abroad

Look at a portion of this article from the Washington Post:

And from Seoul, South Koreans and their government appealed to Americans not to let the carnage generate racial prejudice against the 2 million South Koreans who live in the United States.

At the same time, a number of South Koreans noted that Cho had lived in the United States for most of his life and said that he should not be considered a South Korean even though he carries a South Korean passport.

"a number of South Koreans . . .should not considered a South Korean even though he carries a South Korean passport"???? So, should emigrating South Koreans be rendered non-Korean after some threshold of being abroad? How long are these South Koreans thinking that threshold should be?


Look, if this guy really did come over when he was 8, then he probably had no choice in the matter, as it was up to his parents whether to bring him along, or leave him behind.

Cho could've naturalized if he wanted to, but I wonder if he even thought of these concepts of nationality and citizenship.

It's all annoying legalism, which people discard whenever convenient (see my post below), and trying to box people into these defined identities.

Here is the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701924.html

Chosun Ilbo: "Virginia Tech Shooter Was Korean"

Ugh, this article totally annoys me because of its two consecutive sentences that contradict each other!

The first two sentences of the article follow:

"The gunman behind the massacre at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia has been identified as Korean-American student Cho Seung-hui, police said. A permanent legal resident, Cho was a senior majoring in English and lived in Centerville, Virginia."

Hello!!! If he was a permanent legal resident, then he was Korean, not Korean-American. If he had naturalized and obtained US nationality, then he would be a Korean-American, or American.

Here is the link to the article:


I'm really sorry, but I can't get the "insert link" button to work right now on my computer, so the address is below:

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200704/200704180010.html

Danny Coulson on Fox

This is my first try at using a blog to "catch" something in the media right away. There was just a live interview on Fox with the anchor (I forgot his name, but it's the one that has been accused of hiding his gay sexuality). Anyway, right after speaking with Paula or Greta, Danny Coulson came on via telephone (there was no image of him talking) to discuss the newly released video clips received from Cho's package by NBC. It said Coulson was a former FBI something.

The first error was Coulson saying Cho Seung-Hui was on a student visa. However, I read elsewhere that Cho was a permanent resident and moved here when he was 8. The anchor did not correct him. Coulson was saying this in the context that Cho should've been deported after being declared mentally ill and stalking the girls.

The interview ended and Coulson said it was a failure of the immigration system to all the victims. How could the immigration service have failed when this guy immigrated as an 8 year old child and never been charged with anything since?

If Cho indeed had a green card, and not a student visa, then I am annoyed that Fox did not correct Coulson (wouldn't the anchor be on top of all the facts at this point of exhaustively covering all the events?), and I am annoyed that somelike like Coulson even worked for the FBI in the first place. With Cho's accent in the videos, it would lead me to believe he was pretty much a native English speaker, or someone who had spent a lot of time here. It doesn't seem to match someone on a student visa who just came here their Freshman year of college. Aren't FBI people supposed to be good at that stuff? This just really reduces the FBIs credibility in my mind, although Coulson is a former employee and not a current one. I wonder what his position was.

Do green cards afford more rights than student visas with regard to this sort of thing? Did anyone else catch this on Fox and make a note of it? Do people record all this live tv on their Tivos to analyze it later? It all goes by so fast, and it's hard to keep track of the rapidly developing events. Just trying to use the blog to make a small record. I would love to hear from anyone else who caught this.