Won Ok-kum

The author is a representative of the Migrant Center Donghaeng and originally from Vietnam.

The government recently distributed livelihood recovery vouchers to boost local spending and help revive a struggling economy. Early reports suggest the program is producing positive economic effects. Yet, as in many past initiatives, a large number of migrants living in Korea were excluded.

These migrants are part of Korean society, living and working alongside citizens, but only a small minority qualified for the program. This is not a matter of administrative convenience. It sends a social message: "You are not a full member of our community." The vouchers are worth far more than their nominal amount. They reflect who the government considers part of "us" and who remains outside the boundary. Many migrants, unrecognized in this mirror, were pushed to the margins.

Some argue that recovery funds should not be extended to foreigners. Policymakers likely anticipated such views. "Why give benefits to foreigners when it's our tax money?" "They might leave after a few years." "Wouldn't giving to them reduce what we get?" These comments are not always pure prejudice. They often stem from unease about sharing perceived entitlements with people regarded as outsiders. In times of economic hardship, it can be harder to empathize with others' struggles. That is exactly why we must confront the question.

Are migrants truly unrelated to "us"? One migrant worker I know leaves home at six each morning to work 12 hours on a farm and pays more than 100,000 won a month in health insurance premiums. Another migrant woman raises two children alone, juggling grocery bills and tuition fees. They say vouchers would mean more visits to local shops and a treat for their children. Their spending would go directly to local merchants, market vendors and small convenience stores.

The vouchers aim to stimulate the economy as much as provide welfare. If the goal is to boost spending, the identity of the consumer should not matter. Migrants who spend in local communities are economic actors, yet they are excluded based solely on nationality or visa status.

Some counter that taxes should not benefit those without citizenship. But migrants also pay taxes - income tax, resident tax, value-added tax and even health insurance contributions. Because visa extensions often require proof of payment, they have little choice but to pay on time. They do so at the same rates as citizens.

Vouchers cannot be taken abroad or saved; they must be spent locally. The question should be where the money is used and what impact it produces, not the passport of the spender.

How can opponents be persuaded? First, establish clear criteria. This is not a call to indiscriminately hand benefits to all migrants. Support could be limited to registered migrants who have lived in Korea for a set period of time and participate in the local economy. This offers a practical balance between public sentiment and policy effectiveness.

Second, ensure transparency. Disclose how much is given to migrants and how that spending benefits local economies. Concrete data and examples can shift vague resentment into informed discussion.

Most importantly, we must recover a sense of community. Migrants are already neighbors - in apartments, neighborhoods and cities. They clean our streets, care for children, work in supermarkets and produce goods in factories. Without them, daily life in Korea would falter. Yet in policy, they remain outsiders.

Community is built not on shared nationality but on shared life. Walking the same streets, shopping at the same stores, riding the same buses, and breathing the same air - these are bonds that matter. When migrants spend vouchers, that money becomes income for local shops and recovery for neighbors.

To the question, "Do we have to give them to foreigners?" my answer is: "Why not? They live here, work here, pay taxes here." And one more point: "This is not char...