This topic was inspired by my recent personal experiences. I recently moved to Australia after living in South Korea for nearly six years. Both countries are popular destinations for migrants from around the world, though for different reasons and under different circumstances. This article seeks to briefly explore the migration patterns of these two nations. With the recent surge in anti-immigrant sentiments and policies across the globe, I thought this would be an interesting subject to examine. (Note: This article was written in October 2025.)

Migration is one of the most significant global phenomena shaping states, societies, and economies in the twenty-first century. While countries such as Australia have long incorporated migration into their national development strategy, South Korea is a relatively new destination for migrants. A comparative study of South Korea and Australia offers valuable insights into how different historical trajectories, demographic pressures, and policy orientations shape migration patterns.

Australia represents a “classic immigration country,” characterized by long-standing, large-scale, and relatively permanent migration flows, embedded within a multicultural framework. South Korea, in contrast, is a latecomer to large-scale immigration, transitioning only in the last three decades from a society of emigration to one that increasingly relies on migrant labor and marriage migration to address demographic challenges.

This brief article examines the migration patterns of South Korea and Australia through three lenses: demographic drivers, policy frameworks, and integration outcomes. It argues that while both states rely on migration to sustain labor markets and population growth, Australia has institutionalized migration as part of its nation-building project, whereas South Korea continues to regard migration largely as a temporary solution to labor and demographic shortages.

South Korea: from a country of emigration to immigration

Until the late twentieth century, South Korea was primarily an emigration country. Large-scale migration began in the 1960s and 1970s, with workers and nurses moving to Germany, miners to the Middle East, and later, significant numbers of students and families settling in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Emigration was encouraged by the state, which saw overseas workers as a source of remittances and skills.

By the 1990s, South Korea’s rapid economic growth and declining fertility transformed it into a destination for migrants. Labor shortages in low-skilled sectors, such as manufacturing, agriculture, and services, led to the introduction of the Employment Permit System (EPS) in 2004, which allowed employers to legally recruit foreign workers from countries such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Today, over one million foreign workers are employed in South Korea, the majority under temporary contracts.

In addition to labor migration, South Korea has witnessed a rise in marriage migration, particularly in rural areas where declining populations and gender imbalances in the marriage market led to an influx of foreign brides, primarily from China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. This trend has reshaped rural communities but has also raised concerns over social integration and cultural adaptation.

Despite these shifts, South Korea remains hesitant to embrace migration as a permanent demographic strategy. Citizenship pathways are limited, long-term settlement remains difficult, and migrants often face precarious working conditions. Social acceptance of multiculturalism has improved since the early 2000s, but discriminatory practices persist, reflecting Korea’s long-standing emphasis on ethnic and cultural homogeneity.

Australia: a nation built on migration

Unlike South Korea, Australia has been characterized as a “settler society,” where migration has played a central role in nation-building and economic development since European colonization. Large-scale immigration after World War II, initially dominated by Europeans, was institutionalized through programs aimed at boosting population and labor supply. The shift in the 1970s from the racially restrictive “White Australia Policy” to multiculturalism marked a turning point, transforming Australia into one of the most diverse societies in the world.

Contemporary Australian migration policy is structured around three main streams: skilled migration, family migration, and humanitarian migration. The skilled stream, based on a points system, prioritizes workers with qualifications, experience, and language proficiency aligned with labor market needs. This system has enabled Australia to attract a high proportion of highly skilled migrants, contributing to innovation and economic productivity.

The family stream enables the reunification of spouses, children, and other close relatives, reflecting the role of migration in building social cohesion. Australia also maintains a humanitarian program, accepting refugees and displaced persons, though its approach to irregular asylum seekers, particularly those arriving by sea (boats), remains highly restrictive and controversial.

Migration is central to Australia’s population growth: over 30 percent of the population is foreign-born, one of the highest rates in the world. Multiculturalism has become institutionalized, supported by settlement programs, language assistance, and community initiatives that promote social integration.

Comparative analysis

Demographic drivers

The demographic pressures shaping migration in South Korea and Australia differ significantly. South Korea faces one of the world’s lowest fertility rates (0.7 in 2023) and a rapidly aging population, leading to acute labor shortages in both low-skilled and care-related sectors. Migration, though politically sensitive, has become an unavoidable strategy to sustain economic activity. However, the government’s reluctance to institutionalize permanent migration reflects broader anxieties about cultural homogeneity and national identity.

In contrast, Australia has long relied on migration as a deliberate tool for population growth. Migration is framed not as a reluctant necessity but as a core element of the national development strategy. While Australia also faces demographic aging, migration is widely accepted as a mechanism to balance population dynamics and support long-term growth.

Policy frameworks

Australia’s migration policy is comprehensive, structured, and long-term in orientation. The points-based system allows the state to align migration intake with economic priorities, while permanent settlement pathways and citizenship acquisition foster long-term integration.

South Korea’s policies, by contrast, are more fragmented and short-term. The Employment Permit System provides labor flexibility but restricts permanent settlement. Migrants are often tied to a single employer, limiting their rights and agency. While multicultural family policies exist, they are often framed in terms of assimilation rather than multicultural recognition.

Integration and social inclusion

Integration outcomes reflect these divergent approaches. In Australia, multiculturalism is institutionalized, though challenges around racism, discrimination, and Indigenous relations remain. Migrants are generally seen as future citizens and contributors to society.

In South Korea, migrants are frequently positioned as outsiders, with limited opportunities for permanent settlement. Public discourse around “multicultural families” reflects a growing awareness of diversity, yet integration policies remain underdeveloped, and social acceptance is uneven. Migrants in low-skilled sectors, in particular, experience precariousness and limited rights, which hinder long-term social cohesion.

Nation-building narratives

Finally, the role of migration in national identity differs sharply. Australia has redefined its national narrative around multiculturalism, using migration as a vehicle for diversity and international engagement. South Korea, on the other hand, still negotiates its identity as a largely homogeneous nation, with migration framed as an external necessity rather than an internal strength.

Conclusion

The comparison between South Korea and Australia highlights two distinct migration trajectories. South Korea has undergone a rapid transition from an emigration to an immigration country but remains hesitant to integrate migrants as permanent members of society. Australia, by contrast, has long relied on migration as a structural component of nation-building and economic growth, embedding diversity within its national identity.

Both countries face ongoing challenges: Australia must continue addressing debates around asylum seekers, racism, and the balance between economic and humanitarian migration, while South Korea must grapple with how to reconcile demographic imperatives with cultural homogeneity. Ultimately, the divergent cases of South Korea and Australia illustrate how migration is not merely an economic or demographic phenomenon but a deeply political and cultural process that reflects the ways states envision their national futures.