[Comprehensive] "Excessive Entry Ban" vs "Justified Measure" Yoo Seung-jun, Controversy Over South Korea Entry Restrictions

Mu Cheongjang on Yoo Seungjun's Entry Ban Question: "It Must Be Maintained"
"Excessive Human Rights Violation" vs "Just Punishment for Wrongdoing"

In August 2001, Yoo Seung-jun expressing his opinion during a physical examination. Photo by Netv. TV Entertainment Capture

[Asia Economy Reporters Han Seung-gon and Kim Seul-gi] Singer Yoo Seung-jun (American name Steve Yoo, 44), who has been banned from entering South Korea due to controversy over evading military service, is claiming that the 18-year entry ban is an excessive human rights violation, sparking controversy. While some believe the entry ban is justified, others argue that banning entry for as long as 18 years is an excessive measure.

On the morning of the 13th, at the National Assembly National Defense Committee’s Military Manpower Administration (MMA) audit, MMA Commissioner Mo Jong-hwa was asked about Yoo’s entry ban and responded, "(The entry ban) should continue to be maintained. I do not want to use the term Yoo Seung-jun. I consider him Steve Yoo," adding, "I think of him as Steve Yoo, an American, not a Korean."

He further stated, "Steve Yoo voluntarily abandoned his noble military duty and, despite promising the public to fulfill his military service fairly, he refused to do so."

In response, Yoo appealed, saying, "Although I made a mistake by not keeping my promise as an entertainer, the government preventing me from setting foot in South Korea for decades is blatant discrimination and a human rights violation."

On the same day, Yoo posted on his Instagram, "I still feel sorry for disappointing many people by not keeping my promise to serve in the military back in 2002," and expressed his views.

Yoo recently won a final lawsuit against the government regarding visa issuance cancellation. On March 12, the Supreme Court ruled that the Consulate General in Los Angeles erred by not exercising discretion and refusing to issue a visa solely based on a past decision by the Minister of Justice without reviewing whether Yoo was subject to visa refusal.

Controversy continues over Yu Seung-jun (American name Steve Yu, 44), who was banned from entering the country due to allegations of evading military service, claiming that the 18-year entry ban is an excessive human rights violation.
/Photo by Yonhap News

This sparked a heated debate among netizens. One netizen commented, "Our country seems to be extremely sensitive about military issues," and pointed out, "Banning entry for 18 years seems excessive." Despite the Supreme Court ruling in Yoo’s favor, some question whether the government’s entry ban is excessive.

Recently, the LA Consulate General banned Yoo’s entry. On July 2, the LA Consulate General prohibited Yoo’s entry based on the 'Overseas Koreans Act.' This is because the current 'Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans' (Overseas Koreans Act) explicitly includes provisions that deny visas for reasons of military evasion.

Article 5 of the Overseas Koreans Act states that males who have not completed or been recognized as having completed military service (active duty, full-time reserve, supplementary service, or alternative service), who have not been incorporated into wartime labor service, or who have not received military exemption, and who have lost or renounced South Korean nationality to become foreigners, shall not be granted overseas Korean residency status.

Additionally, it stipulates that "if there is a concern that the safety, order maintenance, or public welfare of the Republic of Korea may be harmed, the Minister of Justice shall not grant overseas Korean residency status."

Some citizens agree with the LA Consulate General’s stance. Choi Yeon-su (pseudonym, male), a worker in his 20s, said, "It’s honestly not very admirable to run away when you don’t want to serve in the military and then try to come back," adding, "He is essentially someone who abandoned his military duty."

Amid ongoing controversy, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) previously ruled that Yoo’s entry refusal was not a human rights violation.

In 2003, regarding Yoo’s complaint about the infringement of freedom of residence and movement due to the entry ban, the NHRCK stated, "The constitutional freedom of residence and movement includes freedom of entry and exit and freedom of nationality change, but unlike citizens, foreigners are not granted constitutional freedom of entry," and dismissed the case, noting, "Under international law, there is no general obligation for a state to permit entry of foreigners, so whether to allow entry is at the discretion of the state."

Meanwhile, Yoo is expected to continue seeking entry into South Korea. Through his Instagram, Yoo asserted, "My roots are in the Republic of Korea, and the fact that I am one of many overseas Koreans who long for their homeland does not change."

He criticized, "Although I made a mistake by not keeping a promise as an entertainer, the government’s decades-long prevention of my entry into South Korea citing national security and other reasons is blatant discrimination and a human rights violation."

He added, "The Supreme Court ruled in my favor in a lawsuit that lasted five years, stating that I should be issued a visa. Nevertheless, the government recently refused to issue my visa again, and today the MMA Commissioner expressed that the entry ban should continue. I find this very regrettable and unjust. I hope the court will make a proper judgment on the lawsuit I recently filed."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.