Around May 2021, the city of Mungyeong in North Gyeongsang Province had plans to launch a program it called ‘Marry Off Rural Bachelors to Increase the Population.’ The city sent a request for cooperation to an administrative office registered with the Ministry of Justice to handle immigration services that stated, “The flight of the younger generation and women from rural areas is intensifying due to the continuous decline and aging of the rural population. In order to increase the rural population and revitalize it, we want to promote marriage for rural bachelors through natural encounters between rural bachelors and international students from Vietnam.” When this fact became public, there was resistance from various quarters, including from Vietnamese international students, and Mungyeong called off the program.

 

However, this type of ‘marry off rural bachelors’ project can still be found in other areas of the country. Local governments have even created ordinances supporting international marriage—even though such measures are sexist and racist in their reduction of immigrant women to targets of marriage and tools for reproducing the population.

 

▲ “Immigrant women do not belong to Korean husbands!” A picket sign held by a participant in the press conference “Call for the Abolition of International Marriage Support Ordinances, Which Spread Sexist and Racist Views and Promotes Discriminatory Behavior” held on the 11th in front of the main entrance to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. © Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center

The Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center has formed the “Task Force for the Abolition of Sexist/Racist International Marriage Ordinances” centered around migrant women’s groups, human rights groups, and pro bono lawyers and is taking proactive action. One of the task force’s activities was to hold the “Forum to Promote the Abolition of Sexist and Racist Ordinances to Strengthen the Citizen Subjectivity of Immigrant Women” on December 11th.  The event included criticism of the relevant ordinances still in effect in 25 locations around the country.

 

‘Marry off rural bachelors’ programs run by local governments… still?

 

At the time of the 2021 Mungyeong incident, the Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center, the female international students who were designated ‘marriage targets’ for rural bachelors, immigrant women’s human rights groups, and pro bono lawyers raised their voices in protest.  Together, they also submitted a petition to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea alleging discrimination. Activist Nam Ji-eun of the Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center reiterated the problematic points of Mungyeong City’s ‘Marry Off Rural Bachelors’ program.

 

“First, that it presented immigrant women (Vietnamese exchange students) as potential spouses. A belief in the superiority of one country, race, and gender is implicit in this program that offers residency in Korea through marriage with a Korean man as a ‘favorable opportunity.’

 

Second, that it used immigrant women as tools to solve [the issues of] the decline and aging of rural populations and entrenched gender roles within the family.

 

Third, that it increased prejudice against women marriage migrants currently residing in Korea and their vulnerability to gender-based violence. It took for granted that they are obligated to bear and raise children and do housework and farmwork, and structuralized suspicion of the sincerity of their marriage if they do not fulfill these assigned ‘obligations.’

 

Fourth, the issue of a local government actively intervening in marriage brokering and that it violated its obligations as a public institution to prohibit gender discrimination and [other forms of] discrimination.”

 

Thanks to the resulting “criticism from civil society” and “recommendations based on the gender impact assessment of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family,” Ms. Nam said, “some local governments got rid of their ordinances and programs.” However, by conducting exhaustive research using the Local Government Law Information System, the task force “determined that 28 local governments still have international marriage support ordinances and are operating matrimony-centric so-called ‘marry off rural bachelor programs’” as of the first half of 2023.

 

International marriage support ordinances and similar ordinances (such as those that don’t limit the marriage targets to immigrant women) are “designed to actively respond to the low birthrate, aging population, and crisis in rural areas by helping unmarried men working in agriculture or fishing within the jurisdiction cover some of the expenses of (international) marriage to help them ‘start a family.’” These ‘expenses of (international) marriage’ “include airfare, board, and arranged marriage fees.”

 

▲ The current state of international marriage support ordinances, according to research conducted by the Task Force for the Abolition of Sexist/Racist International Marriage Ordinances. From left to right, the columns are titled “Number”, “Gender Specified”, “Broader Area” (like a province or metropolitan city), “Base” (specific jurisdiction, like a small city or a district of a large city), “Ordinance Name”, and “Reply Regarding Intention to Abolish/Revise.” ©Ilda

It’s true that there have been some changes recently. In the second half of this year, three of the 28 jurisdictions have abolished their ordinances or announced plans to do so. However, Ms. Nam pointed out that “although they stated that it was because they were aware of the [ordinances’] violations of  immigrant women human rights, the ‘ineffectiveness of the program’ was also an important reason,” adding, “It’s still disappointing that marriage immigrant women are being cited as and assessed to be part of population increase measures.”

 

Immigrant women ask, “Who are these policies for?”

 

Lee Seon-mi, an immigrant woman and member of the task force, explained point by point why international marriage support ordinances are discriminatory and how they affect immigrant women. First, there’s the ordinances’ names. Ms. Lee pointed out that they have in common the use of phrases like “rural bachelors, unmarried men residing in rural areas, [and] bachelors in farming and fishing villages,” and said, “You can’t help but ask, ‘Why is it men/bachelors?’” With these names, the ordinances “are premised on marriage between a Korean man and a foreign woman. In other words, we can see that foreign women are fixed in a passive position.” This is nothing other than “gender discrimination.”

 

She also called attention to the ordinances’ “seeing women in international marriages with Korean men as people who have to escape difficult financial situations in their mother countries,” which is “class discrimination.” Ms. Lee criticized, “If you look at the contents and stated purposes of international marriage support ordinances, you’ll see ‘to instill the desire to farm and promote the vitality of society in farming and fishing villages through the forming of happy families,’ but I don’t understand why they’re instilling the desire to farm and promoting the vitality of society through international marriage.” These kinds of stated purposes can only be said to be “viewing migrant women as the subjects responsible for childbirth and childcare, as well as a means to achieve the goal of population increase.”

 

Such discrimination not only “makes immigrant women into merchandise and reinforces Korean men’s patriarchal marriage values” but also leads to the women suffering “abuse, violence, and forced labor.” Ms. Lee shared her experience working for a Multicultural Family Support Center: “I met a lot of female marriage migrants, and a very sad part of the stories they told me was that their husband, mother-in-law, or whoever often told them, ‘I paid money for you. So if you want to leave this house, pay me back that money first.’ Also, if the husband was the suspicious type, he would stop her from getting [Korean] citizenship because he was afraid she would run away once she had it.”

 

Another characteristic of international marriage support ordinances is that ages [of the target men] are often specified. ‘Between the ages of 30 and 50,’ ‘over the age of 35’, or ‘over the age of 33’—no matter the exact numbers, Ms. Lee said she found the specificity suspicious. It is even more so given that in the majority of international marriages, there is an age gap between the spouses, and the husband is the older party. Ms. Lee explained, “Some research has found that the reason Korean men choose young spouses from ‘developing countries’ is because by putting themselves in the superior age position in the spouse selection process, they gain control over their spouses.”

 

Ms. Lee repeated her criticism that “you can’t help but question who such an international marriage support ordinance is for.”

 

Discrimination and exclusion must not be systematized

 

What are the real-life effects of these ordinances? Baek So-yoon, an attorney with GongGam Human Rights Law Foundation, explained, “Local laws function as more substantive norms than national laws in that they establish the rights, obligations and standards of behavior of the area’s residents and are directly related to the lives of community members.” She warned, “Sexist, racist legislation and public policies are problems in a systematic sense because they conflict with constitutional values or the value pursued by the higher law of ‘the obligation to implement gender equality,’ and they cause great harm to society in that they hinder the actual realization of those values and their establishment as social norms.”

 

Ms. Baek also emphasized that “discriminatory legislation and public policies can be viewed as being constructed on the basis of stereotypes about immigrants and women, and when functioning as a part of the system, they in turn reinforce stereotypes about immigrants and women.” She added, “The ‘benefits’ provided by international marriage support ordinances or multicultural family support ordinances only address the life events of female marriage immigrants who are fulfilling the gender roles of marriage, childbirth, and childrearing, and they impose gender roles within the family on women and limit the identities and roles of female marriage immigrants. In these points, they are incompatible with the principle of gender equality.”

 

▲ The “Forum to Promote the Abolition of Sexist and Racist Ordinances to Strengthen the Citizen Subjectivity of Immigrant Women” held on December 11th, 2023 at the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. From left: Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center director Heo-Oh Yeong-suk and activist Nam Ji-eun; Lee Seon-mi of the Task Force for the Abolition of Sexist/Racist International Marriage Ordinances; attorney Baek So-yoon of GongGam Human Rights Law Foundation; and Kim Na-hyeon of Link Migrant Interpretation and Translation Center. ©Ilda

On the flip side, there are also policies and laws that exclude immigrants. For example, said Ms. Baek, “they don’t allow pregnant immigrant women to get the expectant mother transportation subsidy established by childbirth and childcare support ordinances, or they don’t make immigrant children eligible for subsidies for daycare or preschool fees.” They are telling immigrant women to get married but then marginalizing them when it comes to giving birth and raising children.

 

Ms. Baek explained, “Exclusion of immigrants is leading to a reality where female immigrants with diverse identities like ‘worker’ and ‘exchange student’ are unable to enjoy the rights befitting their particular identities,” and, “We can expect double, even triple exclusion arising from [the intersection of] the three positions—‘immigrant’, ‘woman’, and ‘worker’.” She also emphasized that “not working for structural resolution of continued discrimination is also a form of discrimination.”

 

What our society needs are not discriminatory, exclusionary policies but ones that can protect the human rights of immigrant women. Ms. Baek said, “That the absolute principles of ‘the prohibition of discrimination’ and ‘the guarantee of equal rights’ can be practically secured through legislation and public policy must be reflected in our means and goals,” and, “If there are attempts to justify hatred or discrimination in the name of human rights, we must stop them by confirming through the blocking of discriminatory legislation or abolishment of [discriminatory] laws that the basic principles defended by the state are constitutional values.”

 

In addition, she suggested “legislation and public policies being reviewed from a gender-sensitive perspective before they are implemented” and “reflecting the diverse narratives and desires of immigrant women as the subjects of rights who have diverse needs rather than limited roles such as marriage partner, caregiver, and domestic worker.”

 

Power of participation and solidarity needed for abolition of discriminatory ordinances

 

Regarding the question of how the discriminatory ordinances that still remain can be gotten rid of, the panel’s opinion was that solidarity is important. Woo Sam-yeol, head of the Asan Migrant Workers Center, introduced the case of the “Asan City Resident Foreigner Support Ordinance” enacted in the South Chungcheong Province city in 2008: “The contents of the ordinance included one regulation that violated human rights.  In the section describing who was eligible for support, there was a proviso tacked on that read, ‘However, foreigners who do not have a status that allows them to legally reside in the Republic of Korea pursuant to the Immigration Control Act, etc. are excluded.’ This was problematic because it meant that no support was provided to the unregistered—people who’ve lost their residency status.”

 

In October of 2014, however, the South Chungcheong Province Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated, and it included a meaningful phrase: “residency status.” It “clearly stated that there should not be discriminatory treatment of immigrants based on their residency status.” Mr. Woo continued, “The Asan Migrant Workers Center emphasized to city council members the [importance of] following the spirit of the provincial declaration of human rights, and in October 2014, the proviso in the ordinance in question was removed by order of the city council.” The creation of the human rights declaration and the criticism of the problematic part of the ordinance were both the result of long-term efforts by non-governmental organizations to create an equal society.

 

As an immigrant herself, Kim Na-hyeon, an activist with Link Migrant Interpretation and Translation Center, pointed out “the importance of making a network among the people directly affected.” She said, “When stories of the discrimination and injustice that immigrants experience come to light, the actions of citizens’ groups are important, but now immigrants are living in Korea for longer periods and their numbers are growing. So there are more and more movements centered around them. It is important for them to raise their own voices and make change, too.” 

 

For this to happen, immigrant women must gain experience in direct involvement in activism and exercising their right to make decisions. Ms. Kim said that “immigrant women must participate directly in the process by which policies or systems related to immigrants are created,” and recommended that “those women [receive] education and training so that they can properly convey the reality and problems faced by immigrant women, and not speak merely about personal difficulties.”

 

Before the forum began, the Task Force for the Abolition of Sexist/Racist International Marriage Ordinances submitted a petition to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea that called on the organization to recommend the abolishment of international marriage ordinances. It read, in part, “An international marriage support ordinance is a system that subsidizes the marriage brokering fees and other expenses of marriage for men who have married immigrant women, based on the premise that, from a perspective that places importance on the ‘normal family’ centered around a patriarch, immigrant women may be used as methods to solve Korea’s social reproduction crisis. It is a sexist system that reinforces stereotypes about the role of women in ‘normal families’ subordinate to men, and, in its reinforcement of prejudices about immigrant women in particular, it is a policy that leads to discrimination based on race and country of origin.” The national government and local authorities will have to take these words seriously. [Translated by Marilyn Hook]

 

-Published Dec. 18, 2023. Original article: https://ildaro.com/9793

 

◆ To see more English-language articles from Ilda, visit our English blog(https://ildaro.blogspot.com).

기사 내용과 관련이 없는 글, 욕설을 사용하는 등 타인의 명예를 훼손하는 글은 관리자에 의해 예고없이 임의 삭제될 수 있으므로 주의하시기 바랍니다. 댓글 작성 시 상대방에 대한 배려와 책임을 담아주세요.

• 닉네임
• 비밀번호
• 
• 도배방지 입력