@Illiane_Blues
So what if its discussed on TES, they arent an authority. There are real regulations that would permit an IT to enter China. Their definition of exceptional already includes ITs as it doesnt specifically exclude them. There is no statement, rule, regulation that states either directly or indirectly, that ITs are excluded from obtaining exceptional permission to enter China.
China closed
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
Illiane_Blues wrote:
> Officially but not effectively.
Yes, that's what I meant.
> Officially but not effectively.
Yes, that's what I meant.
Discussion
Then your officially, effectively, and explicitly still wrong. There are real regulations that would permit an IT to enter China. Their definition of exceptional already includes ITs as it doesnt specifically exclude them.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Discussion
PsyGuy wrote:
> Then your officially, effectively, and explicitly still wrong. There are
> real regulations that would permit an IT to enter China. Their definition
> of exceptional already includes ITs as it doesnt specifically exclude them.
I don't think anyone is disputing the regulations are there.
But effectively no ITs are getting in, so the fact the regulations are real doesn't help them much.
> Then your officially, effectively, and explicitly still wrong. There are
> real regulations that would permit an IT to enter China. Their definition
> of exceptional already includes ITs as it doesnt specifically exclude them.
I don't think anyone is disputing the regulations are there.
But effectively no ITs are getting in, so the fact the regulations are real doesn't help them much.
Reply
@Heliotrope
Happy to see you agree with me, why are you arguing if we agree on the regulations?
No ITs you know of. Do you know of all cases, can you predict with 100% accuracy that no IT will ever get in, is your crystal ball that good? The regulations are the regulations thy do not support your claim that they exclude ITs. Its just your opinion and belief that no IT has and no IT will be able to get in. Let me weigh them, on one side official published and agreed to regulations vs the other hand, something @Heliotrope believes and thinks is true....
Happy to see you agree with me, why are you arguing if we agree on the regulations?
No ITs you know of. Do you know of all cases, can you predict with 100% accuracy that no IT will ever get in, is your crystal ball that good? The regulations are the regulations thy do not support your claim that they exclude ITs. Its just your opinion and belief that no IT has and no IT will be able to get in. Let me weigh them, on one side official published and agreed to regulations vs the other hand, something @Heliotrope believes and thinks is true....
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Happy to see you agree with me, why are you arguing if we agree on the
> regulations?
I've been publicly agreeing with that from the start. Glad you're finally noticing.
> No ITs you know of. Do you know of all cases, can you predict with 100%
> accuracy that no IT will ever get in, is your crystal ball that good?
Again, you haven't been paying attention. I said that it seems that so far ITs aren't being considered exceptional. I also said that I hope that will change, and of course at some point they will allow ITs back in.
> The regulations are the regulations thy do not support your claim that they
> exclude ITs.
Rules don't always translate into reality (like the example of enforcing copyright).
This seems to be such a case.
Again, this might change in the future. Apparently the Chinese are even moving towards doing something about copyright violations as part of a trade deal. But that's just enforcing a very real law that has been there for many many years already but was disregarded. So in China issuing a 'real' regulation or law doesn't automatically mean they will do anything with it.
So on one hand we have a regulation that is only worth something if it's enforced, and on the other hand we many many reports from many many ITS that ITs are not getting in, and not one report of a case where an IT actually did manage to enter.
Plus, ITs as a whole might just not be considered exceptional enough, as we don't know the standards they use to judge this.
And not being explicitly excluded doesn't always mean you're implicitly included.
> @Heliotrope
>
> Happy to see you agree with me, why are you arguing if we agree on the
> regulations?
I've been publicly agreeing with that from the start. Glad you're finally noticing.
> No ITs you know of. Do you know of all cases, can you predict with 100%
> accuracy that no IT will ever get in, is your crystal ball that good?
Again, you haven't been paying attention. I said that it seems that so far ITs aren't being considered exceptional. I also said that I hope that will change, and of course at some point they will allow ITs back in.
> The regulations are the regulations thy do not support your claim that they
> exclude ITs.
Rules don't always translate into reality (like the example of enforcing copyright).
This seems to be such a case.
Again, this might change in the future. Apparently the Chinese are even moving towards doing something about copyright violations as part of a trade deal. But that's just enforcing a very real law that has been there for many many years already but was disregarded. So in China issuing a 'real' regulation or law doesn't automatically mean they will do anything with it.
So on one hand we have a regulation that is only worth something if it's enforced, and on the other hand we many many reports from many many ITS that ITs are not getting in, and not one report of a case where an IT actually did manage to enter.
Plus, ITs as a whole might just not be considered exceptional enough, as we don't know the standards they use to judge this.
And not being explicitly excluded doesn't always mean you're implicitly included.
Reply
@Heliotrope
Youre agreeing but youre still arguing.
Ive been paying attention, "seems" to you means nothing, its just your beliefs and opinion.
Nothing has to change, ITs can get into China, there is no regulation stating they cant. Thats the reality. The rules are the reality, thats why they are called rules.
Your copyright red herring is a re haring. There is a very real regulation that would allow for an exceptional IT to enter China, its not being unenforced. Theres no explicit standard stating no IT qualifies for entry.
Yes, it actually does mean if your not explicitly exclude youre implicitly included.
Let me weigh them, on one side official published and agreed to regulations vs the other hand, something @Heliotrope believes and thinks is true....
Youre agreeing but youre still arguing.
Ive been paying attention, "seems" to you means nothing, its just your beliefs and opinion.
Nothing has to change, ITs can get into China, there is no regulation stating they cant. Thats the reality. The rules are the reality, thats why they are called rules.
Your copyright red herring is a re haring. There is a very real regulation that would allow for an exceptional IT to enter China, its not being unenforced. Theres no explicit standard stating no IT qualifies for entry.
Yes, it actually does mean if your not explicitly exclude youre implicitly included.
Let me weigh them, on one side official published and agreed to regulations vs the other hand, something @Heliotrope believes and thinks is true....
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Youre agreeing but youre still arguing.
I'm agreeing that the regulation exists.
We're disagreeing about whether or not ITs are deemed exceptional or not.
> Nothing has to change, ITs can get into China, there is no regulation
> stating they cant. Thats the reality.
No, the reality is that I've hear dof over 100 cases where ITs were denied, and not a single reported case of an IT being allowed in.
> The rules are the reality, thats why they are called rules.
??
No, the word 'rules' is derived from the Latin 'regula': "a straight stick".
> Your copyright red herring is a re haring. There is a very real regulation
> that would allow for an exceptional IT to enter China, its not being
> unenforced.
It's also not being enforced.
The copyright example shows it's not uncommon for China to not enforce regulations.
> Yes, it actually does mean if your not explicitly exclude youre implicitly
> included.
Nope.
> Let me weigh them, on one side official published and agreed to regulations
> vs the other hand, something @Heliotrope believes and thinks is true....
I'm basing this on reports I've read. The regulation you mention isn't worth anything if it's not applied to ITs.
I'll leave it at this, as you live in your own bubble where rules in China equal reality in China.
Feel free to reply so you can have the last word, since I know how much you like that.
> @Heliotrope
>
> Youre agreeing but youre still arguing.
I'm agreeing that the regulation exists.
We're disagreeing about whether or not ITs are deemed exceptional or not.
> Nothing has to change, ITs can get into China, there is no regulation
> stating they cant. Thats the reality.
No, the reality is that I've hear dof over 100 cases where ITs were denied, and not a single reported case of an IT being allowed in.
> The rules are the reality, thats why they are called rules.
??
No, the word 'rules' is derived from the Latin 'regula': "a straight stick".
> Your copyright red herring is a re haring. There is a very real regulation
> that would allow for an exceptional IT to enter China, its not being
> unenforced.
It's also not being enforced.
The copyright example shows it's not uncommon for China to not enforce regulations.
> Yes, it actually does mean if your not explicitly exclude youre implicitly
> included.
Nope.
> Let me weigh them, on one side official published and agreed to regulations
> vs the other hand, something @Heliotrope believes and thinks is true....
I'm basing this on reports I've read. The regulation you mention isn't worth anything if it's not applied to ITs.
I'll leave it at this, as you live in your own bubble where rules in China equal reality in China.
Feel free to reply so you can have the last word, since I know how much you like that.
Re: China closed
and in the end I am still a teacher in China currently sitting in my dining room in the USA because the borders are closed and the Chinese government won't let me back in. Of course there is also the issue of lack of flights and transit countries not allowing transit passengers.
Re: China closed
Practically speaking, ITs outside of China aren't allowed back in and most likely won't be any time too soon. There are IS Head of Schools and other admin outside of China that can't get in right now. It's always possible that things will change over the next few months here but if you're a foreign passport holder IT outside of China, you're not coming back in the near future. Things here can change quickly. Hopefully all of those policies will change before August and flights will start up again, but for the near future, no go.
Re: China closed
There is also the issue of getting a Z visa. The process usually takes at least a few months. China is not currently processing visas for those who are out of the country. This will likely cause a lot of delays.
Reply
@mysharona
Youre not an exceptional enough IT to qualify. I dont doubt that MANY ITs cant get in, just that there is some possibility howsoever small that one could.
@ fortuna
Its absolutely possible that an IT could get into China, its just not probable.
@TheHuman
There are ITs who already have visas.
Youre not an exceptional enough IT to qualify. I dont doubt that MANY ITs cant get in, just that there is some possibility howsoever small that one could.
@ fortuna
Its absolutely possible that an IT could get into China, its just not probable.
@TheHuman
There are ITs who already have visas.