This article looks at how Korean media coverage of undocumented migrants can fuel hatred, and provides a clear, accurate overview of the legal background behind Korea’s immigration detention system and the process of revising the Immigration Act. Immigration detention centers are not correctional facilities that hold criminals, and it matters a great deal to understand the reform process correctly.

What is an Immigration Detention Center?

An immigration detention center is an immigration enforcement facility where foreign nationals who have received a deportation order are held temporarily until they can be removed from the country. It is a completely different kind of institution from correctional facilities (remand centers and prisons) that impose criminal punishment.

The Constitutional Court’s Incompatibility Ruling

In March 2023, Korea’s Constitutional Court issued a constitutional incompatibility ruling on Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act, which governs immigration detention centers.

The court found that the absence of any upper limit on the detention period excessively restricted detainees’ right to personal liberty, and that the lack of an independent review body at the stage of initiating or extending detention also violated the principle of due process. The court ordered corrective legislation by May 31, 2025, and directed that the provision remain provisionally in force until then.

Why Legislative Reform Was Delayed

The Ministry of Justice’s passive approach played a large part in delaying revision of the Immigration Act.

  • Nearly two full years passed after the Constitutional Court’s ruling in March 2023, yet the Ministry of Justice held no public hearings, forums, or open discussions of any kind.
  • Even inter-agency consultation had not taken place before a bill was introduced on October 7, 2024, leaving institutions that needed to be involved — such as the courts and the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) — without adequate time to prepare.
  • Various lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties, including Representative Park Ju-min, introduced related bills, but the Ministry of Justice only expressed opposition without offering concrete alternatives.
  • Civil society groups requested discussions on multiple occasions but received no substantive response from the government.

Problems with the Ministry of Justice’s Draft Bill

The draft bill that the Ministry of Justice eventually produced departs sharply from international standards in several ways.

  • Length of detention: The Ministry of Justice’s proposal would allow foreigners to be detained for up to 36 months without a court ruling, with the possibility of re-detention afterward. This is exceptional: among countries that have set a statutory upper limit on immigration detention, the longest period found anywhere in the world is 18 months.
  • Review body: All bills introduced by both ruling and opposition parties agreed at minimum that a court should review extensions of detention. This is the practical way to achieve the “control by an objective third party” that the Constitutional Court pointed to. Yet the Ministry of Justice’s proposal called for creating an Immigration Detention Review Committee (외국인보호위원회) inside the Ministry itself, claiming this would constitute “objective review.”

Because a bill was introduced right before the deadline with no prior consultation and at a level of severity with no parallel anywhere in the world, it was only natural that parliamentary debate would be prolonged.

Note: The revised Immigration Act did pass the National Assembly plenary session on February 27, 2025. However, human rights organizations including Lawyers for a Democratic Society (민주사회를 위한 변호사모임, known as Minbyun) have criticized the amended law as running counter to the core intent of the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

The Flawed Logic of “Releasing Criminals”

Some news reports emphasize that a portion of long-term detainees in immigration detention centers have criminal records, and raise fears that, if the law changes, dangerous ex-convicts will end up on the streets. This, however, confuses the facts.

  • Criminal prosecution and punishment of foreign nationals follows exactly the same system of prosecutors, courts, and prisons as it does for Korean nationals.
  • People with criminal records who are held in immigration detention centers have already completed their criminal punishment in full. All that remains for them is the removal procedure.
  • The Immigration Act is not a crime prevention statute. Imposing additional restrictions on the liberty of someone who has already served their sentence requires a separate new law, and any such law would be highly vulnerable to a challenge on constitutional grounds.
  • The Constitutional Court itself stated in its ruling: “It cannot be assumed that a foreign national who has committed a crime in Korea will abscond or commit further crimes upon release from detention.”

Reporting Standards: The Korean Journalists Association Human Rights Reporting Guidelines

The Korean Journalists Association Human Rights Reporting Guidelines

state that journalists must “not use expressions that could brand migrant workers and others as potential criminals or as sources of infectious disease,” and specify that journalists should “be careful about using terminology that could attach a negative image of ‘criminal’ to foreigners without lawful immigration status.”

The guidelines further state that journalists must work to respect and promote the human rights of all people regardless of country of origin, ethnicity, race, skin color, immigration status, or nationality, and must avoid expressions that discriminate against or demean specific countries, ethnic groups, or races.

Reporting that portrays undocumented migrants as potential criminals, or that passes on the Ministry of Justice’s claims without scrutiny, directly contradicts these guidelines.

On the Term “Illegal Alien”

The United Nations recommends using the terms “irregular migrant” or “undocumented migrant” rather than expressions such as “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant.” The word “illegal” can stigmatize the person themselves as a criminal. Being without valid immigration status is an administrative condition, not evidence that someone is a criminal.

The Lesson of the 2018 Jeju Yemeni Refugee Situation

When roughly 500 Yemeni refugees arrived on Jeju Island in 2018, some media outlets reported on hate-fueled public sentiment toward refugees and Muslims without filtering or critical context, amplifying social fear. Seven years on, none of the harms that those promoting hatred predicted have come to pass. Reporting that links undocumented migrants to the threat of crime has continued since then — a sign that lessons from that episode have not been learned.

In Summary

The issue of immigration detention centers is not simply a question of “whether to release criminals.” The real question is how to reform a system that the Constitutional Court found unconstitutional, so that it meets human rights standards. When reporting on this process, it is important to convey the facts accurately and to be alert to language and frames that portray migrants as a potential threat.

For the most up-to-date information on immigration law, please contact the Immigration Contact Center (1345) at 1345 or your local Korea Immigration Service office.