This thesis aims at comparing the visa law of Korea and Canada and discussing the ways to improve the Korea’s visa law. As of December 31, 2014, approximately 1.8 million foreigners resided in Korea. Along with the recent sharp increase of the number of foreign residents, immigration policy has become a “main stream” government policy area.
It is needless to say that the major tool of immigration policy is visa requirements for foreigners. This thesis compares Korea’s visa law with that of Canada, which is well known for its organized visa system.
Through the review of Canada’s visa law, several of its key characteristics, which are different from Korea’s visa law were found. First, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act(IRPA) clearly shows the category of permanent resident and non-permanent resident visa. The category of permanent resident visa is family reunification, economic immigration and refugees. Non-permanent resident visa is divided into temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit, and temporary resident permit. Second, IRPA does not provide quasi-permanent resident visa similar to F-2 visa of Korea’ Immigration Control Act. Third, IRPA stipulates that all visa application is considered to be an application made for the principal applicant and their accompanying family members. Therefore, accompanying family members of permanent resident visa holder acquire permanent resident visa and those of non-permanent resident visa holders acquire temporary resident visa. Fourth, the route to change from non-permanent resident visa to permanent resident visa is much simpler. Skilled workers, care-givers and some low-skilled workers obtain permanent resident visa through Canadian experience class, care-giver permanent resident visa program and provincial nominee programs respectively. Foreign students obtain post-graduate open work permit and after working for one year in a skilled worker position, they can apply for permanent resident visa through Canadian experience class. Finally, the Citizenship Act requires all citizenship applicants to have lived certain period of time as permanent residents without exceptions.
Considering the above characteristics of Canada’s visa law, key policy suggestions were made to improve Korea’s visa law in the areas of visa law in general, work visa and permanent resident visa. With regard to the visa law in general, five suggestions were made. First, visa related provisions of the Immigration Control Act should be modified including the objective clause(Article 1) and definition clause(Article 2). Second, the visa categories should be stipulated in each of non-permanent, quasi-permanent and permanent resident visa. Third, the number of visa types should be decreased through abolition and amalgamation. Fourth, accompanying family members of quasi-permanent residents(F-2) and permanent residents(F-5) shall be accorded same visa with the principal visa holder. Finally, the type of visa holders who are subject to medical examination, background checks and social integration programs, including KIIP(Korea Immigration and Integration Program) or early adaptation program shall be expanded.
Concerning the work visa, three recommendations were provided. First, the type of work visa holders who are subject to labor market test shall be expanded so that all work visa applicants are to go through labor market test except enunciated in the law. Second, the number of skilled workers’ visa type should be decreased and it be reorganized hierarchically in accordance with the skill levels, which are global talent, skilled worker and semi-skilled worker. Third, the maximum length of low-skilled workers’ stay in Korea should be shortened and those who grow to be semi-skilled workers be allowed to change to semi-skilled worker visa, which has better immigration benefits.
Finally, in respect of permanent resident visa, three suggestions were made. First, four categories of permanent resident visa were suggested, which are family reunification, economic immigration, oversea Koreans and special circumstances. Second, more people need to acquire permanent resident visa rather than naturalize. To encourage long-tern foreign residents to obtain permanent resident visa, it is necessary to accord more rights, especially social ones, to permanent resident visa holders. Third, certain period of stay as a permanent resident visa holder shall be required to acquire citizenship on condition that the general requirements to obtain permanent resident visa be softened and that more rights be accorded to permanent resident visa holders.