Best Of

Seoul voices regret after about 300 Koreans detained in US immigration raid at Hyundai-LG plant

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20250905/seoul-voices-regret-after-300-koreans-detained-in-us-immigration-raid-at-hyundai-lg-plant
The Korean government expressed regret on Friday over a U.S. immigration raid that is believed to have resulted in the detention of about 300 Korean citizens at a Hyundai and LG Energy Solution construction site in Georgia.

The detainees reportedly included a mix of Hyundai Motor Group affiliate employees and LG Energy Solution headquarters staff who were in the United States on business.

Seoul’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed that the business operations of Korean companies should not be disrupted by American law enforcement actions.

"The economic activities of our investment firms and the rights of our citizens must not be unfairly infringed upon during U.S. law enforcement operations," ministry spokesperson Lee Jae-woong said during a briefing.

Lee added that the ministry is taking active measures, including dispatching consuls from the Korean Embassy in Washington and the Consulate General in Atlanta to the site and setting up an on-site task force.

"We have also conveyed our concerns and regret through the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, urging them to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of our citizens are fully protected," the spokesperson said...

This, reportedly, is an "unusually strong response". Which translates as the Koreans saying politely "please stop being complete arses."

Ooh, so it’s genuine Koreans from Hyundai, LG etc.

Could be an interesting diplomatic incident, surely they’ve not let a hundreds of key staff overstay visit visas?

I suppose it depends what they're doing. No visa needed for 90 days for short term visits per US government website:



All rather definition-dependent though, that.

So not actually doing the work of, for example, commissioning a large piece of capital equipment?

Is it going to be one of these situations where the rules were very loosely interpreted in the past, but are now being enforced to the letter?

Here's the UK description, for example:

"You can visit the UK for up to 6 months to do the following business activities:

attend interviews, meetings, conferences and seminars

negotiate and sign deals and contracts

attend trade fairs to promote your business (you cannot sell things)

get work-related training if you’re employed overseas and the training is not available in your home country

give a one-off or short series of talks as long as they’re not for profit or a commercial event - you can only be paid for speaking at
certain engagements or events (a ‘permitted paid engagement’)

carry out site visits and inspections

oversee the delivery of goods and services provided by a UK company to your overseas company or organisation

deliver training or share knowledge on internal projects with UK employees of the company you work for overseas

install, dismantle, repair, service or advise on equipment, computer software and hardware, if your overseas company has a contract with a UK company or organisation"

I presume on the last point, it's also ok if the overseas company IS the UK company!

"Attend meetings" is ridiculously broad. My job is literally "attend meetings".

Isn’t that everyone’s job? Mine is predominantly “dial into Teams meetings”.

Seoul voices regret after about 300 Koreans detained in US immigration raid at Hyundai-LG plant

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20250905/seoul-voices-regret-after-300-koreans-detained-in-us-immigration-raid-at-hyundai-lg-plant
The Korean government expressed regret on Friday over a U.S. immigration raid that is believed to have resulted in the detention of about 300 Korean citizens at a Hyundai and LG Energy Solution construction site in Georgia.

The detainees reportedly included a mix of Hyundai Motor Group affiliate employees and LG Energy Solution headquarters staff who were in the United States on business.

Seoul’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed that the business operations of Korean companies should not be disrupted by American law enforcement actions.

"The economic activities of our investment firms and the rights of our citizens must not be unfairly infringed upon during U.S. law enforcement operations," ministry spokesperson Lee Jae-woong said during a briefing.

Lee added that the ministry is taking active measures, including dispatching consuls from the Korean Embassy in Washington and the Consulate General in Atlanta to the site and setting up an on-site task force.

"We have also conveyed our concerns and regret through the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, urging them to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of our citizens are fully protected," the spokesperson said...

This, reportedly, is an "unusually strong response". Which translates as the Koreans saying politely "please stop being complete arses."

Ooh, so it’s genuine Koreans from Hyundai, LG etc.

Could be an interesting diplomatic incident, surely they’ve not let a hundreds of key staff overstay visit visas?

I suppose it depends what they're doing. No visa needed for 90 days for short term visits per US government website:



All rather definition-dependent though, that.

So not actually doing the work of, for example, commissioning a large piece of capital equipment?

Is it going to be one of these situations where the rules were very loosely interpreted in the past, but are now being enforced to the letter?

Here's the UK description, for example:

"You can visit the UK for up to 6 months to do the following business activities:

attend interviews, meetings, conferences and seminars

negotiate and sign deals and contracts

attend trade fairs to promote your business (you cannot sell things)

get work-related training if you’re employed overseas and the training is not available in your home country

give a one-off or short series of talks as long as they’re not for profit or a commercial event - you can only be paid for speaking at
certain engagements or events (a ‘permitted paid engagement’)

carry out site visits and inspections

oversee the delivery of goods and services provided by a UK company to your overseas company or organisation

deliver training or share knowledge on internal projects with UK employees of the company you work for overseas

install, dismantle, repair, service or advise on equipment, computer software and hardware, if your overseas company has a contract with a UK company or organisation"

I presume on the last point, it's also ok if the overseas company IS the UK company!

"Attend meetings" is ridiculously broad. My job is literally "attend meetings".

I'm so sorry to hear that.

If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP.
Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.

She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.

Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).

There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.

Indeed, the hyperbole on this issue is reaching absurd proportions. This is the kind of oversight that essentially t the majority of the population would have made, refracted through both the political axe-grinding of the Telegraph, and someone with an unusual amount of information to give them.

Its the attempted cover up / lies / deflection that has done for her, not the original tax issue. If she had paid the extra on day one of the story, explained the situation honestly, think would have survived and all be forgotten in 6 months. I doubt most people remember her previous run in with the media over confusion about just where she actually lived for years.

The report explicitly mentions that she didn't act straight away on the issue when it came to light.

I don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.

I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.

There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.

Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.

Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.

That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.

The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.

She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.

The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.

Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?

God you are insufferable sometimes. We aren't peer reviewing academic papers here.

As for the lie about legal advice. If she had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.

So, there's no evidence that it's a lie. You have drawn that inference.

What she didn't do is seek adequate legal advice in which she fully informed the advisor of her situation.

I really don't know why you are insisting on this line that it's the cover-up that got her. No, it's not paying ~£40k in tax that got her.

Come on now....your career is on the line, you have been referred to standards investigation. You have claimed in interviews you took 3 separate legal opinions. The standards investigator first question will be can you show me all the legal advice you received. As noted in the report, the only evidence provided was two documents from conveyor firm stating your tax affairs are complicated, we aren't tax advisors, you need to get some. That is clear evidence she doesn't have the sort of legal advice that she claimed she had been given.

When it comes to legal advice, it is never word of mouth, it is all in writing.

What I saying is I think Rayner / Starmer wanted to ride this out and I think they might have been able to do if the order of events had been slightly different. Again, the report makes a point of how it was bad that she didn't address this issue as soon as it was raised.

This is the letter from the Independent Adviser: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68bac57c536d629f9c82ab4b/Letter_from_the_Independent_Adviser_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf What part of that "makes a point of how it was bad that she didn't address this issue as soon as it was raised"? Or do you mean something else?

The letter does say:

"I should acknowledge that Ms Rayner has provided her full and open cooperation in assisting me with my inquiries."

And:

"It is the realisation of this error that prompted Ms Rayner, shortly after having received the final tax law advice, to refer the matter to me on Wednesday 3 September."

Note the use of the word "shortly".

And:

"On realisation of this error, she has sought quickly to correct the mistake and to refer herself to HMRC in order to ensure that she pays the correct amount."

Yet she tried to throw under the bus the companies she had been using. Pretty shitty. Trying to put the blame on them. She’s no saint.

Their responses were telling.

Sure.

But I don't think that's why she's gone, or that if she hadn't done that she wouldn't have gone, which appears to be @FrancisUrquhart 's argument, if I've not misunderstood him.

We cannot know but I think you're probably right. In legalese an exocet word is "regrettable". And what we got here from the Ethics Advisor was the absolutely lethal "deeply regrettable". That dreaded phrase was specific to one thing and one thing only - her failure to seek specialist (stamp duty) tax advice on the flat purchase bespoke to her complicated circumstances.