A Justice Ministry request that local governments report their multicultural-family ‘preferential policies’ by the 3rd has unsettled officials on the ground. The Kyunghyang Shinmun reports that, with no standard for what counts as a privilege, interpretations differ by region and the real blind spots in migrant policy may be hidden from view.
According to the Kyunghyang Shinmun, the Justice Ministry sent a letter to local governments late last month saying that ‘excessive privileges for multicultural families have become controversial’ and asking for data by November 3. The letter reportedly did not say where ‘excessive’ begins.
광고 문의 · 300×250The survey grew out of President Lee Jae-myung’s social media post on admission priority at Seoul’s public postnatal care centers. At the November 3 cabinet meeting he again asked whether it is right to give multicultural families blanket priority, said support should go to those who are struggling rather than to a category, and ordered a review of eligibility criteria.
Each local government defines ‘preference’ differently
The confusion over scope shows in local responses. Jeonnam-Gwangju City plans to report its 70% fee reduction for multicultural-family mothers at public postnatal care centers as a preferential measure, although under the ordinance the same discount also applies to basic livelihood recipients, the near-poor, people with disabilities and mothers having a second or later child.
Daegu plans to submit programs such as child-education cooperation, support for multicultural families in crisis, and outpatient and health-checkup aid. Most select applicants who meet criteria or help low-income households at or below 100% of median income, so they are far from the ‘priority’ the president criticized, yet the city counted them anyway. South Chungcheong is weighing whether to include water and sewage fee reductions, while North Gyeongsang and others judged that no policy ranks ahead of citizens and said they had identified none so far.
Officials stressed that the origin of each policy should be examined first. Help with home visits for marriage-migrant women who could not afford flights for years, or driver’s-license support for migrant women in sprawling rural counties, grew out of local conditions. A North Chungcheong official warned that the ‘reverse discrimination’ frame could itself breed discrimination and isolation for multicultural families.
What the numbers say about blind spots
In the 2024 national survey of multicultural families summarized by the Kyunghyang Shinmun, use of support services by marriage migrants and naturalized citizens over the past year rose to 21.5% from 14.3% in 2021. Yet 62.3% said they find life in Korea difficult, almost unchanged from 62.1% three years earlier, and 21.1% said they had no one to consult about their children’s education.
Experts disagree but overlap. Prof. Seol Dong-hoon of Jeonbuk National University said reasonable adjustments such as income criteria based on beneficiary data and international standards may be needed, but that the debate should lead to broader social protection for legally resident foreigners rather than cuts. Prof. Yang Kyung-eun of Sungkonghoe University worried that needed aid could be trimmed in the review and said measures for migrant-background children outside the legal definition of multicultural families should be discussed as well.
Separately, members of national migrant rights and labor groups held a press conference in front of the presidential office on the 3rd, saying the president’s remarks fueled anti-migrant hate online and demanding an apology and safeguards. The Kyunghyang Shinmun relayed attendees’ accounts that a senior presidential secretary said afterward he would apologize on the president’s behalf, but no formal apology from the president himself has been reported. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family plans an overall performance evaluation of the Fourth Basic Plan for Multicultural Family Policy (2023–2027).
