Image file” alt=” Image file” />
data picture
The Constitutional Court ruled that the provisions of the Immigration Control Act, which allowed foreigners subject to deportation to be detained in foreigner detention centers for an indefinite period, were unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court announced on the 24th that Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration Control Act was unconstitutional with a judge’s opinion 6 to 3. The provision which is the subject of the judgment is ‘If the head of a regional immigration office cannot immediately return a person who has ‘to be ordered deported out of the Republic of Korea for reasons such as not having a passport or not having safe transportation, he/she can. be kept in an asylum until it is possible to return.’ is the content. An unconstitutional is a decision that temporarily upholds the form of the law until the law is amended because the law in question is inconsistent with the constitution, but its immediate invalidation can create a void in the law. The Constitutional Court said that this provision must be amended by May 31, 2025. In July 2018, when he was 17 years old, Mr A (22) from Egypt, who proposed the referee, entered Korea in alone to avoid death threats from his country. A, who applied for refugee recognition but was rejected because he was a minor, was ordered deported, and was accommodated in a room of more than 33.1㎡ (about 10 pyeong) at the Hwaseong Foreign Asylum with 25 adults in their 40s and 50s. After about a month in custody, he was temporarily released after being accepted as a “minor child and prospective refugee applicant.” The Constitutional Court judged that this provision violated the principle of excessive prohibition and did not comply with the principle of due process. The majority opinion of the Constitutional Court (Judges Nam-seok Yoo, Seok-tae Lee, Ki-young Kim, Hyung-bae Moon, and Mi-sun Lee) stated, “Enable protection without time limits for efficient administrative purposes only. the operation of the deportation order emphasizes the convenience and uniformity of the administration, and it Although the ‘protection’ under this provision is almost equivalent to ‘arrest or detention’, “At the stage of initiating or extending protection under the Immigration Control Act, no control procedure is provided by a neutral agency independent of the enforcement agency,” he noted. Judge Seon-ae Lee separately ruled this provision unconstitutional, saying, “It is unduly restrictive on the physical freedom of the ward by emphasizing only administrative convenience and uniformity.” However, it was announced that this law would remain in force until May 31, 2025, considering the confusion that could arise if the provision were to lose its effect immediately due to a simple unconstitutional decision. On the other hand, the Justices Lee Eun-ae, Lee Jong-suk, and Lee Young-jin gave a minority opinion that the provision was constitutional. A minority opinion said, “Although the Immigration Control Act does not set an upper limit on the protection period, the system is supplemented so that protection can be provided for only the minimum possible period.” The possibility cannot be ruled out.” After the Constitutional Court’s decision to disagree with the constitution, Song Doo-hwan, chairman of the Korean National Human Rights Commission, welcomed the decision as “a significant decision that marks a major milestone in the domestic migrant detention system.” He said, ” Looking at the cases of Germany and Taiwan, which introduced upper limits on immigration detention earlier than Korea, there is no empirical statistical data to support concerns (sudden increase in illegal immigrants) “Many countries, including Canada, Belgium. , France and Spain, effectively enforce eviction orders through non-custodial means.” Reporter Shin Min-jeong shin@hani.co.kr
