Systemic Exclusion of Undocumented Migrant Children in South Korea: International and Comparative Legal Analysis = 한국 내 미등록 이주아동의 구조적 배제: 국제 및 비교법적 분석

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This thesis examines the systemic exclusion of undocumented migrant children (UMC) in South Korea through an international and comparative legal analysis. Despite South Korea’s ratification of core international human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), its domestic legal framework continues to deny undocumented children access to legal identity and secure residence, subordinating child-specific protections to immigration status. The study argues that citizen-centric governance and the state’s reliance on administrative discretion operate as structural mechanisms that transform humanitarian accommodation into legal exclusion, preventing the consistent application of the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. Methodologically, the analysis combines doctrinal legal analysis with comparative case studies drawn from the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Japan, alongside secondary ethnographic evidence on undocumented childhood from the United States and Europe. Through this framework, the thesis conceptualizes South Korea’s approach as a form of institutional statelessness, in which protection is conditional, temporary, and grounded in compassion rather than enforceable legal rights. The findings demonstrate how the absence of universal birth registration and durable regularization pathways produces long-term developmental harm, psychosocial insecurity, and intergenerational vulnerability. The thesis concludes by proposing rights-based legal and institutional reforms necessary to align South Korea’s domestic practices with its international human rights obligations.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

한국 내 미등록 이주아동은 국제인권법상 보호의 대상임에도 불구하고, 국내 법·제도상에서는 여전히 체계적으로 배제되고 있다. 한국은 아동권리협약(CRC)을 포함한 주요 국제인권규범을 비준하였음에도 불구하고, 미등록 아동에게 법적 신분과 안정적 체류 지위를 부여하지 않고 있다. 시민권 중심의 거버넌스 구조와 행정 재량에 대한 의존은 아동을 권리의 주체가 아닌 이주관리의 대상으로 종속시키며, 아동의 최선의 이익을 최우선적으로 고려하지 못하는 구조적 한계를 드러낸다. 그 결과, 인도적 보호는 지속되는 반면 법적 권리는 배제되는 제도적 모순이 고착화된다.
이러한 제도적 한계를 분석하기 위해 본 논문은 독일, 프랑스, 캐나다, 일본의 비교 사례를 검토하고, 미국과 유럽의 민족지학적 연구를 활용하여 미등록 아동이 경험하는 발달적·심리적 영향을 조명한다. 이를 통해 한국의 법·제도적 구조가 보호를 시혜적 판단과 예외적 조치에 의존하는 제도적 무국적 상태(institutional statelessness)를 재생산하고 있음을 논증한다.
이와 같은 구조적 배제를 해소하기 위해 본 논문은 △국적과 무관한 보편적 출생등록 제도의 도입, △장기 체류 아동에 대한 합법적 체류 경로의 법제화, △교육 및 보건 접근권에 대한 법적 보장을 핵심 개혁 과제로 제안한다. 이를 통해 한국의 미등록 이주아동 문제를 인도주의적 시혜의 영역이 아닌 국제인권법상 국가의 의무 이행 문제로 재구성하며, 아동의 법적 존재와 권리 보장을 제도적으로 확립할 필요성을 강조한다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Abstract 1
• 1. Introduction 1
• 1.1 Background and Context: Korea’s Shift to a Multicultural Society 1
• 1.2. Problem Statement: The Paradox of Legal Liminality and Master Status 2
• 1.3. Research Objectives 5
• 1.4. Research Question 7
• 1.5. Scope and Significance of the Study 8
• 1.6. Thesis Organization 10
• 2. Theoretical and Legal Frameworks: Citizenship, Rights, and Illegality 12
• 2.1. Conceptualizing Undocumented Status and Exclusion 12
• 2.1.1. Illegality, Deportability, and Liminality 12
• 2.1.2. Undocumented Status as a Master Status 13
• 2.2. International Human Rights Norms and Obligations (The CRC Foundation) 14
• 2.2.1. The Binding Authority of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 14
• 2.2.2. Core Principles: Non-Discrimination and Best Interests 15
• 2.2.3. Guarantees of Essential Rights 16
• 2.3. The Paradoxical Positioning and Governing of the Undocumented Child 17
• 2.3.1. Innocence, Guilt, and Vulnerabilisation 17
• 2.3.2. The Intergenerational Context and Parental Stigma 18
• 2.3.3. Agency and ‘Child-Right-ing’ 19
• 3. Methodology: Critical Qualitative Analysis and Secondary Data Integration 20
• 3.1. Research Design and Conceptual Framework 20
• 3.2. Data Sources and Constraints 22
• 3.3. Ethical Framework and Fieldwork Praxis 24
• 4. Theorizing the Lived Consequences: Structural Failure and Developmental Crisis 27
• 4.1. Shifting Legal Contexts: The Life-Course Perspective and Predictable Disruption 28
• 4.1.1. The Life-Course Perspective and Suspended Illegality 28
• 4.1.2. The Predictable Crisis of Late Adolescence: Transition to Illegality 29
• 4.2. The Onset of Abjectivity: Structural Blockage and Psychosocial Cost 30
• 4.2.1. The Interrupted Rite of Passage 30
• 4.2.2. Korea’s Structural Failure and the Production of Vulnerability 31
• 4.3. Immigration Status as Master Status: The Finality of Exclusion 32
• 4.3.1. The Devaluation of Human Capital 32
• 4.3.2. Divergent Paths and Converging Marginality 33
• 4.4. Psychosocial Impacts: Alienation, Fear, and Perpetual Liminality 33
• 4.4.1. The Chronic Stress of Deportability 33
• 4.4.2. Intergenerational Trauma and Legal Instability 34
• 4.5. Reinterpreting Ethnographic Insights for the Korean Context 35
• 5. Structural and Legal Limitations in Korea: Mechanisms Reproducing Exclusion 37
• 5.1. The Citizen-Centric Legal Framework and the Right to Stay 37
• 5.2. The Crisis of Legal Identity: Birth Registration, Invisibility, and the Limits of Reform 39
• 5.3. Policy Gaps in Social Rights: Education and Health 41
• 5.4. Timeline of South Korean Government Action for Undocumented Migrant Children 42
• 5.5. The Transformation to Master Status and Trust Protection 44
• 5.6. The Economic and Social Costs of Wasted Potential 45
• 6. Comparative Legal Analysis and Policy Gaps: Pathways to Inclusion and the Limits of Sovereignty 48
• 6.1. Deconstructing the “Internal Contradiction” of the State 48
• 6.2. Comparative Model I: Judicial Mandates and the Perils of Partial Relief (The US Case) 50
• 6.2.1. Judicial Intervention: Plyler v. Doe and the Equal Protection Mandate 50
• 6.2.2. DACA and the Entrenchment of Perpetual Liminality 51
• 6.3. The Critical Turning Point: Illegality as Master Status 52
• 6.3.1. The Interrupted Rites of Passage 53
• 6.3.2. The Psychological and Developmental Impact of Legal Blockage 54
• 6.4. Comparative Model II: Institutionalizing Rights, Permanency, and Firewalls (Europe) 55
• 6.4.1. The German Model: Converting Toleration into Legal Stability 55
• 6.4.2. The Institutional Firewall: Severing Service Access from Deportation 57
• 6.4.3. The UK, Sweden, and France: Welfare without Status, the Hostile Environment, and Statutory Pathways 58
• 6.5. Comparative Model III: Institutionalized Discretion and the Bedrock of Identity (Japan) 61
• 6.5.1. Japan’s Special Permission for Residence: Formalizing Human Integration 61
• 6.5.2. Birth Registration: The Structural Root of Administrative Invisibility 63
• 6.6. Policy Gaps and Structural Imperatives for Korea 65
• 6.6.1. The Failure of Administrative Exceptions vs. Statutory Guarantees 66
• 6.6.2. Absence of Firewalls and the Reign of Deportability 66
• 6.6.3. Imperative for Institutionalized Permanent Pathways 67
• 7. Conclusion: Pathways to Inclusion and the Moral Imperative 69
• 7.1. Answering the Research Question 69
• 7.2. Critique of Korea’s Incremental Measures 72
• 7.3. Final Reflections 73
• Bibliography 76
• Abstract in Korean 87