Immigration stirs strong emotions in many societies that pride themselves on their openness. The “native born” often fear that newcomers will encroach on their territory creating new competition for jobs and social advancement. In response, they support political groups that promise to “preserve their way of life.” These movements have different names and take different forms, but the world’s leading democracies ― France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States ― all have them.

Countries where it is a political issue have high rates of immigration. According to “Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision,” a U.N. report on immigration, the U.S. accounted for 20 percent of worldwide immigration. Next came Russia, followed by Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the U.K, France, Canada, Australia and Spain. In every nation except Russia, immigrants made up more than 10 percent of the population.

Korea was also included in the survey and ranked No. 32 in the number of immigrants, accounting for only 2.9 percent of the population. Interestingly, Korea fared better than its neighbors. Japan ranked No. 22, in the number of immigrants, but had a lower percentage of the total population at only 1.9 percent. China ranked No. 49, and only 0.1 percent of its population was composed of immigrants. Immigrants are included in the foreign-born population, but differ because they live in the country permanently.

Countries with large numbers of immigrants have policies governing the movement of people. The policy, in turn, is connected with a perceived advantage of having newcomers settle down in the country. Historically, the most common advantage has been the need for labor. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Argentina, Brazil, Canada and the U.S. allowed mass immigration to increase the labor supply. From the late 20th century, immigration has also helped societies reduce the impact of an aging population by increasing the size of the younger population. Immigration is also a tool to attract foreign capital or to achieve a larger geopolitical goal.

Immigration became an issue in Korea as it moved into the ranks of wealthy democratic nations in the 2000s. Foreign workers from poor countries in Asia first came to Korea in large numbers in the 1990s, but these guest workers were expected to leave after a few years of working in the country. This, of course, remains the policy today. Immigration in Korea began with women from nearby Asian countries ― such as Vietnam and Cambodia ― marrying Korean men, mostly in rural areas, who could not find a partner. Many marriages were arranged by brokers and the women often spoke little Korean before arriving and had problems adjusting to life in Korea.

In response to reports of adjustment problems, local governments took the lead in developing programs, usually Korean language and culture classes to help immigrants adjust to life in Korea. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family began setting up Multicultural Family Support Centers around the nation. At the end of the 2000s, the media began paying attention to multicultural families with the subtext of encouraging their integration through “Koreanization.” Another subtext in media coverage, of course, was that openness toward immigrants helped make Korea look more global, which fit the neoliberal policies of the Lee Myung-bak administration (2008-2013).

Things in Korea change quickly. A recent report by the Korea Multicultural Research Institute showed that tightened regulations reduced the number of F-6 “marriage” visas issued in Vietnam from 5,708 in 2013 to 3,814 in 2014. The tightened regulations came in response to increasing reports of domestic violence and divorce among multicultural families that are attributed to “cultural differences.”

More rigorous screening of F-6 applicants may be a good thing, but it also reveals a disturbing cycle in Korea immigration policy that reflects a broader trend in dealing with foreigners since the 1990s. The cycle starts with a wave of openness that is designed to show that Korea has joined the ranks of the “advanced countries.” As the number of foreigners increases, the media takes a more critical look at the foreigners, causing a shift away from openness. In response to the “problems” associated with the foreigners, the Ministry of Justice tightens regulations regarding visas in the hope of weeding out the problems. Complaints that Korea is too “closed” increase and the cycle eventually starts again with a new wave of openness.

The biggest problem with the cycle is that it encourages Koreans to think of foreigners as being in Korea conditionally. To reduce the swings of the cycle, Korea needs to develop an immigration policy based on a clear direction ― openness versus selectivity ― rather than on the whims of bureaucrats.

By Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. ― Ed.