The same applies to South Korea. You want to live there, you need to apply for a visa like everyone else.
The same applies to South Korea. You want to live there, you need to apply for a visa like everyone else.
It's an asymmetric relationship. The nomad doesn't care if SK runs this program. But SK does care if people don't come.
Unfortunately, they don't particularly care. The whole driver behind this program is optics. Both to domestic voters "Look at how global and modern the current government is and how much we're doing", as well as to international headline-readers "Look at how progressive Korea is".
How is that a loss?
I think people are realising that the 'grow your way to success' model doesn't work for countries any more, unless you're the US, which is in a fairly unique position simply due to having a geography that no other country shares.
But perhaps they have another path. I guess it's good to have someone else run that experiment. We can observe and duplicate or avoid.
If you're the US, you can't. The US never learns from others' example: there's many examples of things other developed nations do far better than the US, but the US refuses to learn from their example. The US only makes big changes when it's their own idea, not because they saw it working well someplace else. Some examples: healthcare, the metric system, high-speed or even regular passenger rail, walkable cities, good zoning laws, etc.
The kinds of optics South Korea can buy from virtue-signalling, but not actually implementing, progressive immigration policy are limited. You can't clickbait immigration law.
[0] Complicating South Korean immigration desirability are two competing factors:
- People from poorer countries tend to not be picky about what country will give them a visa, but,
- South Korea, like Japan[1] has racism and sexism problems that uniquely impacts immigrants from southeast Asia
[1] Korean and Japanese nationalists really hate it when you compare the two countries.