Number of foreigners increases who are entering Korea for various reasons and staying for a long time, including Korean Chinese, migrant workers, and marriage immigrants. And social services for immigrants should be guaranteed for several reasons. The first issue is that immigrants need for social right in Korean society, so that their entitlement to social services should be discussed in terms of basic rights. Secondly, when immigration policy is changing, it is important to discuss whether the entitlement to social services is necessary to ensure immigrants' social integration. Thirdly, it is necessary to discuss social security for immigrants who participate in economic activities in their communities and pay taxes.
Therefore, this study analyzes current status of immigrants’ entitlement to social services in major foreign countries and derives implications for Korean social security policy. The first step in this study is to analyze the social service systems in major foreign countries in order to determine the current status of immigrants’ entitlement. The second objective of this study is to examine the structure of immigrants’ entitlement to social services based on the social policies and immigration policies. The third aspect of this study is to provide policy implications for Korea's social security systems based on the analysis results of the overseas cases.
Accordingly, this study has examined social security systems for child care, elderly care, care for the disabled, and housing (housing assistance and social housing) in UK, Germany, Sweden, and Japan. Also the current status of immigrants' security in Korea has been examined based on the systems of central and local governments.
In comparison to Germany, Sweden, and Japan, UK offers relatively limited foreigner protection in the social services. German and Swedish governments guarantee social services to immigrants with valid residence permits, regardless of their nationality and type of residence permit. Foreigners with residence permits in the countries are covered by social security services if they are "residing" there. However, more restrictive requirements are demanded for German child care allowances when it comes to residence permits. Next, in Japan, foreigners can apply for care and social housing in the same way as the nationals.
UK, however, classifies many care and housing services as public funding, so foreigners subject to the NRPF (No Recourse to Public Funds) are not able to access to them, excluding the recognized refugees. UK's central government applies limited standards to social services for immigrants. However, local governments can provide limited social services to NRPF immigrants at their discretion. Moreover, overseas countries are improving accessibility for migrants to the social services to allow their entitlements mentioned above.
In Korea, excluding marriage migrants and recognized refugees, most immigrants have difficulty in receiving the public social services. In areas with a high proportion of immigrants, local governments, however, provide social services to immigrants through their own businesses or services.
Social rights of immigrants must be guaranteed as universal human rights, in terms of the movement of "people" rather than the influx of short-term labor. Future immigrants would need better social security, and immigration policy should be gradually improved of the social security systems for foreigners with possibility of permanent residency, and for long-term residents. Changes in immigration policy may require revisions of related laws or guidelines for social services. It is necessary for local governments to expand social services for immigrants and to improve their access to the services since foreigners are likely to be included as "residents" of local governments.