Open Net Files Constitutional Complaint Challenging Ban on Political Activities by Foreign Nationals

On January 28, 2026, Open Net, together with Law Firm Innovation (attorneys Jiwon Son and Jihwan Park), filed a constitutional complaint seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 17(2) of the Immigration Control Act, commonly referred to as the “ban on political activities by foreign nationals.”

Article 17(2) of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter, “the Provision”) stipulates that “foreign nationals staying in the Republic of Korea shall not engage in political activities, except as permitted by this Act or other laws.” The Provision thus imposes a principle-based, blanket, and comprehensive ban on political activities by foreign residents. Violations may result in severe sanctions, including deportation, departure recommendations, or departure orders.

The concept of “political activities” may be interpreted extremely broadly as “any act intended to influence political decision-making by individuals, the state, or society.” As a result, the Provision has had a chilling effect on the overall social participation and freedom of expression of foreign residents in Korea.

Under this sweeping interpretation, even expressing opinions on political developments in one’s home country or on international political issues may be deemed prohibited “political activities.” For example, a Myanmar national residing in Korea could be barred from participating in rallies or demonstrations supporting the democratic movement in Myanmar. Likewise, foreign nationals advocating for the establishment of a free and democratic order in their own or other countries could be subject to sanctions. Palestinian residents in Korea engaging in activities related to Palestinian liberation movements could also be prohibited. Furthermore, activities concerning global issues such as climate change and environmental protection, or efforts to promote universal human values and human rights, may likewise be classified as “political activities” if they are deemed capable of influencing governmental policies.

The petitioners in this constitutional complaint are foreign nationals working for non-profit organizations established to respond to the climate crisis. Due to the existence of the Provision, they have been unable to freely participate in press conferences, assemblies, demonstrations, or campaigns expressing support for or opposition to Korea’s climate, environmental, or energy policies. Beyond the petitioners, many foreign nationals—including refugees, migrants, and foreign activists working in public interest organizations—refrain from publicly expressing their views or participating in assemblies and protests out of fear that they may be subject to deportation or other sanctions for violating the Provision.

Although foreign nationals residing in Korea do not hold Korean citizenship, they are nonetheless members of society who engage in economic, social, and cultural activities and contribute to the formation and maintenance of Korean society. Political activities aimed at influencing the institutions, policies, and culture of the country in which one lives and works should naturally be protected as part of the freedom of expression. Excluding foreign residents’ voices from the democratic public sphere constitutes unjust discrimination and runs counter to fundamental democratic principles.

Moreover, while Korea recognizes foreign residents as members of the local community by granting them voting rights in local elections and other forms of participation in local self-governance, the Provision simultaneously imposes a blanket and comprehensive restriction on their political expression and influence, effectively excluding them from democratic deliberation. This contradiction undermines the coherence of the legal system itself.

Foreign nationals occupy a minority position within Korean society. As such, they typically possess fewer resources and less influence to express and disseminate their views, and their opportunities to affect public policy are already limited. At the same time, many government policies—such as immigration, refugee, and migrant labor policies—directly and profoundly affect their lives and fundamental rights. In these circumstances, active political expression and participation are often essential. Additionally, as members of socially marginalized groups, foreign nationals are frequently victims of hate speech, discriminatory practices, and social exclusion, making counter-speech and collective action necessary to challenge such harms. For these reasons, the freedom of political expression for foreign nationals is all the more vital.

Restricting political expression by foreign nationals also infringes upon the public’s right to know. Silencing the voices of foreign residents—particularly those with global expertise and experience, such as the petitioners in this case—deprives the Korean public of access to high-quality information and diverse perspectives. This, in turn, undermines the public interest and hinders the development of Korean society.

The Provision, which imposes a blanket ban on political activities by foreign nationals, was enacted during the Yushin era, an authoritarian period characterized by extensive social control in the name of national security. It reflects an outdated perspective that views foreign nationals not as members of society, but as potential threats. Nearly half a century has passed since the Provision was introduced in 1977. As of 2025, more than 2.8 million foreign nationals reside in Korea, accounting for approximately 5.5% of the total population.

At a time when Korea’s standing in the international community continues to grow, maintaining a closed and exclusionary legal regime that effectively forces foreign residents and migrants into political silence severely damages Korea’s image as a global, democratic, and advanced nation. The Provision is an unconstitutional relic of an authoritarian past and must be repealed to ensure equal protection of fundamental rights for foreign nationals in an era of globalization, to promote the development of Korean society, and to establish a democracy that meets international standards.

Open Net calls upon the Constitutional Court to render a meaningful decision at the earliest possible date.