Migration to Japan and South Korea is not as selective and exclusionary as many think
TLDR
In "Immigration Systems in Labor-Needy Japan and South Korea Have Evolved—but Remain Restrictive," published by the Migration Policy Institute, authors Erin Aeran Chung and Yunchen Tian analyze the restrictive and selective immigration policies of Japan and South Korea despite growing labor shortages and demographic challenges. While both countries have slowly adapted their immigration frameworks, they maintain hierarchical, segmented systems prioritizing economic utility over long-term integration. Programs such as Japan's Technical Intern Training Program (TITP) and South Korea's Employment Permit System (EPS) serve as temporary solutions but fail to provide stable pathways to residency or citizenship. The authors argue that while economic realities will likely force further immigration reforms, Japan and South Korea remain reluctant to embrace large-scale migration, instead favoring selective, controlled access based on economic needs.
Erin Aeran Chung and Yunchen Tian examine the contradictions in Japan's and South Korea's immigration policies, showing how both countries face severe labor shortages but resist permanent immigration pathways. Unlike Western nations that have expanded immigration to address workforce gaps, Japan and South Korea continue to prioritize domestic labor protections while reluctantly opening selective migration channels. Immigrants in both countries often remain temporary workers with limited rights, minimal job mobility, and few opportunities for long-term settlement.
A key reason for this restrictive approach is historical and political reluctance to redefine national identity. Japan, for instance, has long maintained jus sanguinis (citizenship by bloodline), making it difficult for non-ethnic Japanese to naturalize. Even co-ethnic migrants, such as Nikkei (ethnic Japanese) workers from Brazil and Peru, have struggled with integration. South Korea, similarly, historically focused on sending labor migrants abroad rather than receiving them, only beginning large-scale labor migration programs in the late 20th century.
Despite restrictive policies, both countries have gradually expanded temporary worker programs in response to economic pressure. Japan's TITP (Technical Intern Training Program) and South Korea's EPS (Employment Permit System) were designed to fill low-skill labor shortages but prevent long-term residency or job mobility. TITP, in particular, has been widely criticized for exploiting foreign workers under the guise of training. At the same time, EPS provides slightly better protections but still limits workers' ability to switch jobs or seek permanent residency.
The article also highlights the growing role of international students and professional workers in both countries. Japan and South Korea have actively recruited international students in the hope that they will enter the workforce after graduation. Still, many end up in precarious, low-wage employment rather than high-skilled jobs. Similarly, marriage migration has been encouraged to counter population decline, particularly in rural areas, where foreign brides from Vietnam, China, and the Philippines have been brought in to support declining local populations. South Korea has implemented language and employment programs for these spouses. At the same time, Japan has relied on local governments for integration efforts.
Despite needing more workers, political and cultural resistance to large-scale immigration remains strong in both countries. The authors argue that while Japan and South Korea must expand immigration policies to sustain their economies, they are unlikely to adopt Western-style multiculturalism. Instead, they will continue to refine their selective, tiered immigration systems, granting labor migrants limited rights based on economic necessity rather than full societal inclusion.
Concluding Reflections
Erin Aeran Chung and Yunchen Tian's article provides a critical analysis of Japan's and South Korea's restrictive immigration policies, showing how economic necessity has forced change but within a controlled and selective framework. Both countries prefer temporary and conditional migration systems over long-term integration models, ensuring that labor shortages are addressed without fundamentally altering national identity. While economic realities will likely push for further expansion of immigration pathways, Japan and South Korea remain cautious and reluctant to embrace large-scale migration. The future of immigration in these nations will depend on balancing labor needs with political and cultural resistance, shaping policies that prioritize economic gain while maintaining national cohesion.
Source:
Erin Aeran Chung & Yunchen Tian, "Immigration Systems in Labor-Needy Japan and South Korea Have Evolved—but Remain Restrictive," Migration Policy Institute.
