[Statement] Seoul, Gyeonggi Province and Other Authorities Must Not Exclude Migrants From Their COVID-19 Disaster Relief Policies!
In response to the COVID-19 crisis, Seoul, Gyeonggi Province and several other local governments are carrying out support policies under names such as emergency disaster living expenses and disaster basic income, with the aim of supporting the livelihoods of low-income vulnerable groups and reviving the domestic economy by stimulating consumption. However, migrants are excluded from the target groups of these policies, which raises great concern.
In Seoul’s case, the policy is carried out for about 1.17 million households with income at or below 100% of the median income, and payment is based on the Ordinance on Support for the Livelihood Stability of Low-Income Residents. Although the purpose of amending the ordinance states that “direct and timely support is required for the lower-middle income group who are suffering economic damage in the disaster situation but are not receiving institutional support,” when we checked with the relevant department, we were told that migrants are being considered within the scope of existing law. That is, the scope for migrants is limited to cases such as being married to a Korean national or raising a minor child who is a Korean national. This would exclude the many other long-term resident migrants from support. According to the Ministry of the Interior and Safety’s “Status of Foreign Residents by City and Province,” Seoul had 446,000 foreign residents in the 2018 statistics.
The case of Gyeonggi Province is more serious. The disaster basic income of 100,000 won per person is said to cover all Gyeonggi residents, yet the press release explicitly states “foreigners are not supported.” That is, everyone is excluded, whether unregistered, a marriage migrant, a permanent resident, a migrant worker or a refugee. Gyeonggi Province is said to have 418,000 foreign residents. Gyeonggi Province relies on the draft Gyeonggi Province Disaster Basic Income Payment Ordinance, whose purpose is likewise to prepare a disaster basic income response “as the prolonged spread of COVID-19 threatens the lives of provincial residents through social disasters and the like.” Are we then to understand that migrants are not residents of the province and not members of society?
It is no exaggeration to call a policy that excludes migrants in this way institutional racism.
In fact, it has long been pointed out that the scope of social security is too narrow and discriminates against migrants. This includes basic livelihood security and support for persons with disabilities, and recently even discrimination in the sale of public masks. We once again strongly urge that social security policies that include migrants are essential.
Moreover, this is an urgent disaster situation. It is unlikely that migrants, who are a vulnerable group, are suffering little damage. At the “Testimony Meeting on the Naked Face of Racism Revealed by Corona,” held on March 20, job loss, threats to livelihood and discrimination experienced by migrants and refugees during the COVID-19 crisis were reported. Since the virus does not choose by nationality, universal measures are needed, and since vulnerable groups suffer greater damage from a disaster, should measures not be prepared that include migrants? In the 2008 financial crisis, the United States provided cash support that included migrants, and Japan at that time also paid all residents holding an alien registration card. In Hong Kong, it is said that payments are now planned to include permanent residents and low-income immigrants.
To exclude migrants in Korea runs against the purpose of disaster support and basic income.
Even under the Seoul ordinance, “In the event of a disaster, the Mayor may pay benefits for livelihood stability to residents other than those falling under each item of paragraph 1 (recipients, near-poor households, and residents of social welfare facilities).” The Gyeonggi Province ordinance also states, “In the event of a disaster, the disaster basic income may be provided with the recipients and amount varied within the scope of the budget. This decision is made by the Governor after receiving advice from the relevant working committee under the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Gyeonggi Province Basic Income Committee, and is announced on the website and elsewhere.”
In other words, local governments can decide to pay emergency disaster living expenses and disaster basic income to include migrants. The government and local governments must not exclude migrants from COVID-19 disaster support policies!
March 26, 2020
Joint signatories of migrant human rights organizations
난민인권네트워크(공익법센터 어필, 공익변호사와 함께하는 동행, 공익사단법인 정, 공익인권법재단 공감, 공익인권센터 드림(DREAM), 광주이주민건강센터, 국제난민지원단체 피난처, 글로벌호프, 난민인권센터, 동두천난민공동체, 사단법인 두루, 순천이주민지원센터, 아시아의 친구들, 아시아평화를향한이주MAP, 이주여성을위한문화경제공동체 에코팜므, 이주민지원공익센터 감동, 의정부 EXODUS, 이주민센터친구, 천주교 제주교구 이주사목센터 나오미, 재단법인 동천, 제주평화인권연구소 왓, 파주 EXODUS, 한국이주인권센터, 휴먼아시아) 난민과함께공동행동, 두레방, 외국인이주노동운동협의회((사)모두를 위한 이주인권문화센터, 아산이주노동자센터, 부천이주노동복지센터, 인천외국인노동자센터, (사)한국이주민건강협회 희망의친구들, 남양주시외국인복지센터, 파주샬롬의집, 포천나눔의집, 서울외국인노동자센터, 아시아인권문화연대, 순천이주민지원센터, 외국인이주노동자인권을위한모임, 의정부EXODUS, (사)함께하는 공동체, (사)한국이주여성인권센터, 원불교 서울외국인센터), 이주노동자 차별철폐와 인권·노동권 실현을 위한 공동행동(건강권실현을위한보건의료단체연합, 경기이주공대위, 김포이웃살이, 공익인권법재단 공감, 구속노동자후원회, 노동당, 노동사회과학연구소, 노동전선, 노동자연대, 녹색당, 대한불교조계종사회노동위원회, 문화연대, 민주사회를위한변호사모임노동위원회, 민주주의법학연구회, 민주평등사회를 위한 전국교수연구자협의회, 사회변혁노동자당, 사회진보연대, 이주노동자노동조합(MTU), (사)이주노동희망센터, 이주노동자운동후원회, 이주민방송(MWTV), 이주민센터 친구, 전국민주노동조합총연맹, 전국불안정노동철폐연대, 전국빈민연합, 전국철거민연합, 전국학생행진, 정의당, 지구인의정류장, 천주교인권위원회, 필리핀공동체카사마코, (사)한국불교종단협의회인권위원회, 한국비정규노동센터), 이주인권연대(경산(경북)이주노동자센터, 경주이주노동자센터, 아시아의 창, 울산이주민센터, 이주민과 함께, 이주민노동인권센터, 이주와 인권연구소, 지구인의 정류장, 천안모이세, 한국이주인권센터) (가나다순)