|
Once again, the children take the backseat to revenue as the exchange industry leads another charge to defeat any regulation of its business operations.
In a letter below, read that the exchange industry opposes any regulatory efforts to protect the welfare and safety of exchange students.
Dated: July 23, 2007
To: Mr. Stanley Colvin, Director
Office of Exchange Coordinationand Designation
Departmentof State
Washington, D.C. 20547
Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange
Click for 07-23-07 letter by Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange
In 1994, it opposed mandatory criminal background checks in California.
In 1999, the exchange industry was authorized to run fingerprint criminal background checks for adults applying to be host families, but did not adopt this vital screening method as a standard business practice.
In 2005, it opposed fingerprint background checks in Oregon.
In 2006, it opposed mandatory fingerpring background checks in California's AB 2899.
The resulting sexual abuse and other victimization of foreign exchange students is a direct result of the exchange industry's failure to police itself.
If the exchange industry is allowed to continue to operate without oversight, then the exchange visitor program is a farce.
The exchange industry must place the health, safety and welfare of the children as its primary priority.
-------------------
The Nation Web Blog -- THAILAND
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai/2007/10/28/entry-2
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mahwatthai/2007/10/25/entry-3
---
Ausgetausch.dr Forum -- GERMANY
http://www.ausgetauscht.de/forum/austauschprogramme~24979.htm
http://www.austauschschueler.de/phpBB/fpost420124.html#420124
---
Warning to Parents: Before signing any contracts with a student exchange agency, ask directly if students are ever
forced to sign documents (Probation Letters, Letter of Warning, Letter of Probation).
Ask if your son or daughter may be forced to sign documents that will later be used against them. This is a common
tactic for exchange representatives to document situations that will result in returning your son or daughter to your home
country early. In many cases, these letters are false, but the children are told to sign it, or they will not be able to return
to America for ten years, as you will read:
Below you will find the natural father's heartfelt letter that was sent to the Department of State via CSFES.
The student's exchange organization was: American Cultural Exchange Service (ACES).
CSFES has correspondence dated 10/03/05 from Executive Director, Debbie Li of (ACES). She issued a "warning"
to this student for not:
"Sharing: You must show appreciation and share with the host family. For example, your host mother brought grapes
home and before the rest of the family had a chance to eat any, you ate all of them. This is rude and inconsiderate. You
must be considerate at all times."
A second letter dated 12/05/05 from Executive Director, Debbie Li of American Cultural Exchange Services
(ACES) to this student states the student was repatriated for
1) not sharing
2) sometimes wearing clothing that was inappropriate
3) not keeping her room neat and not doing her chores
ACES used the excuse that it was because there was illness back home in Slovakia. As you will read from the
natural father's letter; this was a lie.
In a letter dated February 22, 2006, from Ms. Nancy Starr, of the United States Department of State to the
natural father in Slovakia. You will read, "our review has disclosed no regulatory violations and in light of the above documents
we find the sponsor was justified in returning your daughter to Slovakia."
To the many caring people who have contacted CSFES to learn if this family was reimbursed their money; the
answer is: No.
If you would like a copy of the above-referenced correspondence from ACES and the United States Department of State,
simply click "Contact us" and provide your name and address.
---
The following letter was sent to CSFES from Slovakia. This father is seeking help for his daughter who had been sent back
to Slovakia for reasons that you will read:
I XXXXXXXXXX DOB X-XX-1962 /adress in XXXXXXXXXX, Slovakia / request that my daughter XXXXXXXXXXX
can be sending back to the United States to complete her exchange school year program on Saranac High School
or another High School
The fact that I am very upset and confused is the reason, why my daughter the agency / ACES / returned to Slovakia.
The agency as a reason why my daughter returned to Slovakia was, because someone family member was sick, which
is not true.This information was announced in school to Mr.Ehrlich /school counselor/.
Day 12-5-2005 my daughter asked about change her host family Rebbeca XXXXXXX for a family Carter. FamilyCarter
expressed interest about XXXXX what agency rejected because had deceptive information about family Carter. Her
local coordinator Carol Diorio sad the family Carter have not rules in the house and aslo they are no right family for my
daughter. But Mr.Ehrlich sad the family Carter is exemplary family and convenient host family.Day 12-6-2005 my daughter
got a new letter rules from agency where was write limits about communication with family and frends from Slovakia, she
must limit her communication with family and friends from Slovakia to no more than one hour every two weeks also she
was limited to spending one evening each week with her friend from school XXXXXX XXXXXX. Then Carol Diorio told
XXXXX that the agency looking for new differend host family in Wisconsin later in Minnesota.
Between 19th and 22nd December her host mother Rebbeca XXXXXXX did not let my daughter leave the house, go
to the school, meet her friends and also make a call.
Day 12-20-2005 called Debbie Li / executive director of ACES / my daughter that she will be return to Slovakia,
because her behaviour is bed. But in school her personality evaluated like a model student without disciplinary problems .
Our daughter received two options either she voluntarily return to Slovakia or Debbie Li will be contated US goverment
owing to her visa will be abolishable and Lujza will can not be came back to USA mimimally 10 years. XXXXX choosed the
first option.
In school 12-20-2005 XXXX XXX / Rebbecas daughter / told everyone that XXXXX left to Slovakia, which was not true.
Me and my wife tried to contact and find our daughter. We spoke with her after when we made a phone call with our
attorney. He called Debbie Li and told her about the situation that our daughter is "captive" in Rebbecas house. Then
XXXXX a visited the school 12-22-2005 and she sad good bye to friends and teachers after that Mr.Ehrlich called to
Rebbeca XXXXXX that XXXXX have to go the school. The night between 12-22-2005 and 12-23-2005 XXXXX spend in
Carol Diorio house. XXXXX was returned to Slovakia at morning 12-23-2005. The ACES did not give any chance to our
daughter for changing her host family.
If our daughter will not be permit finish the school year on Saranac High School or another High School then we require
for repaymant the money which we gived the agency / ACES / 4 .140 dollars and also 150 dollars from XXX XXXX whose
our daughter had to payed per month 50 dollars because XXXX XXXX was not employed she was in this time without job.
Rebbeca XXXX was not employed since 4-7-2005 what XXXXX found out after came to host family.In the Student Homestay
Placement Information of June 23, 2005 which the agency sent to us there was information that Rebbecas occupation is a
Dental Assistant.
I think the agency made flaw when they choosed the family for our daughter. And also Rebbeca is widow which is I think no right.
In the psychological side.
I am sure in XXXXX case was violated her human rights.
Yours sincerely.
XXXXXX XXXXX
|
