정책 이슈

What we need is practicality, not tiptoeing around. The reason why the same statements and statistics are interpreted by one side as 'hatred' and by the other as 'legitimate policy judgment' is not because the facts are different, but because their political alignments are different. Factional logic can make the same data appear as both truth and falsehood, fostering hatred and cynicism towards politics itself in the process. President Lee Jae-myung's remarks regarding foreign workers at the State Council meeting on October 27, 2026, and the subsequent reports, rebuttals, and criticisms, clearly illustrate this structure.

The President, while discussing labor shortages in agriculture and livestock farming, said, “Even if we bring in foreign workers, it doesn’t significantly help the national economy because they send all their money home.” He then suggested that the government consider ways to increase domestic employment, even if it means subsidizing labor costs. The focus of his remarks was on resolving domestic unemployment, revitalizing domestic demand, and finding realistic solutions for rural labor shortages. His subsequent clarification on X was even clearer: “Considering their economic contribution, such as solving unemployment, promoting consumption, and boosting domestic demand, foreign workers who send money abroad do help the domestic economy, but they do not help 'significantly' more than domestic workers. Therefore, we should devise ways to increase domestic employment through labor cost subsidies.”

It was argued that criticizing the statement by assuming it meant 'not helpful' was excessive, despite the clear comparative nature of the remark within its context. It was a practical judgment that, in a situation of severe unemployment, domestic employment, which benefits the domestic economy more significantly, should be increased even through financial support. The Blue House also countered that it was inappropriate to cut off the context and lead to controversy over xenophobia.

However, some media outlets published headlines that omitted the word 'significantly,' reporting it as 'Foreign workers do not help the national economy.' Hankyoreh revised the headline after the President's request for correction and apology, but the frame that had already been established quickly spread into hate speech. Migrant worker organizations and some progressive parties and unions defined it as discrimination that would likely come from the far-right, criticizing that questioning remittances itself was a stigma. The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions condemned it as discriminatory, stating that the economic value created by migrant workers amounts to tens of trillions of won, and the Justice Party and others also took issue with the attitude of criticizing workers for remitting their wages. Conversely, those who supported the President believed that the media intentionally distorted the facts to destabilize the government. The same sentence, the same statistics, and the same policy proposal are interpreted by one side as a regression of human rights and multiculturalism, and by the other side as an attempt to protect domestic employment and domestic demand.

This difference stems not from a difference in facts, but from the interpretive rules of each camp. For one camp, emphasizing the contribution of foreign workers and reacting sensitively to discrimination frames is part of their identity. Therefore, even a comparison like 'not significantly helpful' sounds dangerous, and the exaggerated expression 'all remittances' immediately becomes evidence of hatred. For the other camp, prioritizing domestic unemployment, labor shortages in rural areas, and the outflow of wages abroad is their identity. Therefore, they emphasize comparative rhetoric, highlight media manipulation of headlines, and defend the policy intent of the remarks. Each camp predetermines what to see and what to ignore.

In the 2025 Survey on Immigrant Status and Employment, the figures showing that the proportion of domestic and international remittances to total income for all foreigners is 25.5% and living expenses are 37.3% become evidence for one side to prove the exaggeration of the President's remarks, while for the other side, the remittance proportion of 56.5% and living expenses of 20.3% for non-professional employment (E-9) visa holders are used to support the argument that the domestic economic effect is limited. The same data functions as two truths. Each camp selects the numbers that are favorable to them and separates or downplays the unfavorable numbers from the context.

From a practical standpoint, the judgment changes. Foreign workers maintain production in industries that Koreans avoid, keep businesses afloat, and spend part of their housing and living expenses domestically. Evaluating this contribution solely by remittances is incomplete. At the same time, the comparison that remittances are high in certain industries and that the domestic consumption and employment multiplier is lower compared to domestic employment is statistically grounded. The government's plan to increase domestic employment by subsidizing labor costs is a policy issue that requires a comprehensive assessment of fiscal burden, employment displacement effects, productivity, and tax revenue, not an identity issue of whether it is xenophobia or not.

The structure of rural and livestock industries already relies heavily on foreign labor to maintain their operations. Rather than simply filling labor shortages while keeping this structure intact, the proposal to increase domestic jobs and circulate wages within the country, even by mobilizing financial means such as labor cost subsidies, is practical. From a nationalist perspective, this is closer to a self-reliant measure that strengthens the internal circulation of the economy, reduces foreign dependence, and prioritizes domestic employment. The concern that if a significant portion of wages flows overseas, production occurs but the domestic demand effect is limited, aligns with a perspective that prioritizes national economic effects.

Hesitation hinders this practical calculation. On one side, it's difficult to advocate for prioritizing domestic employment for fear of being framed as discriminatory, and on the other side, it's difficult to acknowledge exaggerations and limitations in statements for fear of being used to criticize the government. As a result, policy discussions turn into a signaling competition between factions, and real issues like rural labor shortages and domestic unemployment are pushed aside. The reason why factional logic allows for both truth and falsehood is that the criterion for verification is not factual consistency but the interests and identity of the faction.

When the media omits key words from headlines, it distorts facts. When the president exaggerates by saying "all of it," that too is a factual limitation. However, each camp tends to magnify the distortions of one side while downplaying the limitations of the other, or vice versa. If this selective verification is repeated, citizens find it difficult to fully trust either side. The more politics becomes a battle of frames rather than a battle of facts, the greater the aversion to politics itself. Cynicism spreads, thinking 'everyone just speaks to their own advantage anyway,' and taking sides becomes more important than practical judgment. In this controversy, some reports prioritized a frame of aversion over accurate quotation, and some defenses blamed the media alone for the problem of exaggerated expressions. Both sides strengthened their camp's logic, but the restoration of facts and the practicality of policies were weakened.

What we need are practical standards. We must consider what measures will reduce domestic unemployment, maintain rural workplaces, and increase domestic demand circulation. We need to calculate both the production contribution of foreign workers and the outflow due to remittances, and compare the financial efficiency and employment effects of labor cost subsidies. In this process, we must be able to point out exaggerations in statements as exaggerations, and distortions in media headlines as distortions. The moment facts are adjusted to avoid appearing to betray one side's identity, policy becomes a product of playing to the gallery. The reason the same issue is interpreted so differently is not because the facts are ambiguous, but because factions have already set the rules for interpreting facts. Only by temporarily setting aside those rules and prioritizing practical calculations can we reduce the factional logic that makes both truth and falsehood possible, and the resulting aversion to politics.

When the value of labor and its economic effects, as well as domestic employment and domestic demand, take precedence over nationality, the debate can shift from a wasteful framework to a discussion that solves real problems. Instead of pitting the employment of citizens against that of foreigners, the policy objective should be to resolve structural issues in the domestic labor market—wages and working conditions in undesirable industries, limitations of domestic demand circulation, and efficiency of financial support. When the media accurately quotes statements, explains context, and verifies the validity of claims, and when citizens prioritize practical calculations over partisan signals, animosity towards politics decreases, and factual debate becomes possible. Ultimately, what is needed is not division, but the restoration of facts and practical judgment. When that standard is established, the two goals of job expansion and social integration can be pursued together.