"We Live Because of Them": How a Rural Korean County Became a Model for Immigration

Immigration Era Arrives in Korea as Local Acceptance Shapes Outcomes

SEOUL — As South Korea heads toward an era in which its foreign resident population is projected to reach 3 million within four years, regional differences in how immigrants are integrated are becoming increasingly visible, according to field reports and policy data.

A recent case study contrasts Yeongam County in South Jeolla Province with Jeju Island, highlighting how legal status, community interaction, and local industry shape public acceptance of immigrants.

Yeongam: High Acceptance Through Legal Work and Daily Interaction

In Yeongam, where shipbuilding and industrial complexes dominate the local economy, around 30% of workers are foreign nationals, most holding legal employment visas (E-9).

According to a report by the Immigration Policy Research Institute, Yeongam scored 70.1 out of 100 in immigrant acceptance among local residents, ranking among the highest nationwide.

Long-term residents and migrant workers interact frequently in daily life, including shared housing and workplaces. Researchers identified three key factors behind the high acceptance:

A high proportion of legally employed migrants

Active interaction between locals and foreigners

Limited ethnic segregation

Jeju: Low Acceptance Amid Rise in Illegal Stay

By contrast, Jeju Island recorded the lowest acceptance score at 52.1, with particularly negative views among younger residents.

According to the Ministry of Justice, the number of illegal foreign residents in Jeju rose from 1,285 in 2013 to 11,191 as of June last year, with 93% being Chinese nationals. Many entered under the visa-free entry system introduced in 2002 for tourism.

Field reports describe informal labor networks, illegal housing, and limited interaction between undocumented migrants and local residents, contributing to social tension rather than integration.

Experts: Focus on “Stable Stay,” Not Exclusion

Experts emphasized that blanket opposition or abolishing visa-free entry is not a solution. Instead, they argue for policies that distinguish between:

Migrants who overstay after contributing to local communities

Those who exploit entry systems for short-term income

They stress the need for region-specific immigration policies that prioritize legal status, labor market needs, and social integration to reduce conflict and long-term costs.