Comparative Immigration Policy: Japan and Canada - Coursework Example

Comparative Immigration Policy: Japan and Canada Introduction Over the past 30 years, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union and the conflicts that followed in former Soviet states, debate on immigration has increasingly become a centre-piece of many countries’ policies, especially as the number of refugees and asylum seekers increased. These asylum seekers are mainly people filing applications for refugee status in countries other than their country of origin. Allport and Ferguson (2013: p33) define immigration policy as any policy pursued by a nation-state to deal with or control transit of people, particularly those who want to stay and work in these countries, across the country’s borders. Policies on immigration may range from free migration that allows most forms of immigration to proceed, to those that forbid any immigration at all. Immigration policy is usually implemented through immigration laws, which are meant to control immigration and vary from state to state (Allport & Ferguson, 2013: p33). The aim of this paper is to investigate the factors responsible for variation of immigration policy in Japan and Canada. In this case, the dependent variable is the immigration policy, while the independent variables are factors that influence immigration policy, which are political factors, economic factors, and national security factors. The method used for this report is the most similar systems design (MSSD), which involves comparison of similar cases that differ in regards to their dependent variable, in this case immigration policy. The hypothesis for the study is that differences in political, economic, and national security concerns make Japan’s immigration policy stricter than Canada’s. Literature Review Allport and Ferguson (2013: p14) note that there has been a surge in global migration over the past four decades, writing that whereas only 2.2% of the world’s population in 1970 was made up of migrants, the figure increased to 3.2% in 2010. While economic factors were the main determinant influencing immigration in the past, and still remains one of the major reasons for immigration today, other factors have arisen in the last few decades, including individuals looking for political asylum. Immigration for family reasons has also become a major factor influencing immigration levels, of which at least 70% of immigrants in Europe have moved for family-related reasons (Allport & Ferguson, 2013: p15). Labour migration is recognised as another major reason causing the rising levels of immigration, especially since these immigrants continue to play essential roles in the workforce of major OECD countries. Freeman (1995: p884) approaches the issue of immigration policy from the liberal democracy perspective, noting that immigration politics in such democracies are similar in their inclusiveness and expansionism. He identifies three groups of nation-states that display unique immigration policy modes. The first group involves the English-speaking societies founded by immigrant settlers like Australia, the US, and Canada, which favour expansionary immigration policies. The second group includes hose with guest worker and post-colonial migrations, such as France, the UK, and Japan, where immigration happened after the countries were already established, specifically after WWII, introducing significant minority groups (Freeman, 1995: p885). The third group of countries are the new immigration countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece that were initially sources of immigrants. However they now have to cope with reverse immigration pressures under crisis conditions. Overall, the author asks whether it is possible for liberal states to control unwanted migration (Freeman, 1995: p885). Joppke (1998: p270) picks up from this argument, exploring why liberal states actually continue to accept unwanted migration. There are several reasons why this is the case, including a decline in state sovereignty, which has resulted in declined perception of these immigrants as aliens. Moreover, it is also noted that liberal states tend to practice client politics, which has made their immigration policy increasingly expansionist. However, Joppke (1998: p272) also identifies the impact of self-limited sovereignty as the main reason why liberal states continue to accept unwanted immigration. Interest-group politics are one important aspect of such self-limited sovereignty, which leads to liberal states accepting unwanted immigration. Noting the impact of family migration in European states, Joppke (1998: p274) states that self-limited sovereignty is also as a result of moral obligations to some historically particular groups of immigrants, as well as constitutional-legal constraints on the government. Factors influencing Variation of Immigration Policy in Japan and Canada Canada has one of the most progressive and open immigration policies in the world. The root of this lenient immigration policy has been attributed to shortages in skilled labour. Indeed, as of the year 2010, immigrants make up almost 22% of the total population in Canada (Hollifield et al, 2014: p44). On the other hand, Japan has one of the strictest immigration policies in the world, which has resulted in only 1.7% of the total population being of immigrant origin (Hollifield et al, 2014: p46). Both Japan and Canada have rapidly declining populations, which has resulted in the two countries rolling out a point-based system meant to rate immigrants based on their business or research experience and academic background. However, it is still arguable that Japan’s strict immigration policy is actually an anti-immigration policy. This section will discuss the effect of political, economic, and national security factors on the variance between the two countries’ immigration policy. Economic Factors According to Oishi (2012: p1094), Japan’s economy underwent a period of rapid growth during the 70s and the 80s, which led to a rapid expansion in the number of immigrants from the Asian main-land. As a result, the government adopted differentiated categories of entry for immigrant labour, instituting strict penalties on illegal immigrant brokers and employers, as well as opening the way for Japanese descendants living in South America to return for free to the country. This resulted in unprecedented flows Japanese descendants living in South America to Japan’s manufacturing hubs. Revisions to the Immigration Control Act sought to ease the entry of skilled immigrants into Japan, while making it almost impossible for unskilled immigrants to enter the country. A point-based system was also introduced to enable the recruiting and retention of skilled immigrants, who are given preferential benefits (Oishi, 2012: p1094). Overall, Japan’s economic rise and stagnation have led to increased preference for skilled labour over unskilled immigrants, greatly reducing the number of immigrants into the country. Canada, on the other hand, has had historically high rates of immigration due to the unique economy of the country. As one of the world’s largest suppliers of natural resources, coupled with a sparse population, Canada has always faced acute shortages of labour (Akbari & MacDonald, 2014: p806). This has led to an immigration policy that seeks to actively encourage immigration, such as efforts to attract immigrants to work in the Alberta-based oil sands project. Like Japan, Canada has very low rates of birth, in turn leading to immigrant-friendly policies. However, unlike Japan that has mainly targeted the return of Japanese immigrants from South America, Canada’s policy is aimed at foreign immigrants. As a country founded by immigrant settlers, the Canadian economy continues its reliance on immigrant labour (Akbari & MacDonald, 2014: p807). Thus, the perceived economic benefits of immigrants in Canada, compared to the perceived economic burden of immigrants in Japan, suggest that immigration policy will continue to attract higher levels of immigrants to Canada than Japan. Political factors Roberts (2012: p53) states that to understand Japan’s immigration policy, it is essential approach it from the perspective of political pressures, as well as constructs of a national Japanese identity that dominated Japanese politics in the latter half of the 20th century. Indeed, assumptions of Japan being a mono-cultural and mono-ethnic society has dominated Japanese politics and debate, influencing immigration policy to reflect Japan as a fully unified and homogenous country. This has emerged in political campaigns, where foreign immigrants are repeatedly blamed for unemployment and economic weakness. Evidence points to Japanese government agencies justifying policies that uphold ideals aimed at achieving a homogenous society, even in the wake of calls for a more liberalised immigration policy. Overall, the anti-immigration feelings that have become characteristic of Japanese electoral politics and, subsequently, its immigration policy, reflects growing uncertainty of the current ideological and political structure in Japan (Roberts, 2012: p54). Therefore, political disincentives for the revitalisation of the immigration regime in Japan are responsible for the lack of urgency in loosening immigration policy. Canada, unlike Japan, has unusually widespread public support for immigration, which has increased in recent years. Indeed, Gogia and Slade (2011: p55) write that all major political parties in Canada support an increase in current immigration levels or sustenance of current levels. Although the Reform Party did raise some concerns about Canada’s liberal immigration policy, the Conservative government has said that it does not plan to pursue a restrictive immigration policy. Various political parties continue to base their arguments for an aggressive immigration policy in the economic arguments elucidated above, which has led to all federal political parties in Canada pursuing pro-immigration policies. Unlike Japan, multiple supports for immigration in Canada have led to a stable pro-immigration public opinion that has buffered immigration policy from anti-immigration trends (Gogia & Slade, 2011: p55). Overall political support for migration has made Canada unique and distinct from other immigrant host countries like Japan, where immigration tends to be seen as an unwelcome occurrence by the political class. National Security factors One of the themes that may help explain Japan’s strict immigration policy is a growing perception that illegal immigrants are contributing significantly to public security deterioration. This resulted in an amendment to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, decreasing the number of illegal immigrants and residents (Green & Kadoya, 2015: p69). Human trafficking in Japan has led to international criticism, which has seen the government amend the penal code to prevent entry of unskilled female immigrants. Moreover, the war on terror has been reflected significantly in Japan’s immigration policy. For example, the government has made admission and entry procedures stricter, including the finger-printing of all immigrants aged over 16 years before entering Japan. This has had a major impact on the number of immigrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa allowed into Japan, specifically because they are required to have a valid, economically-related reason to enter Japan (Green & Kadoya, 2015: p71). While Canada was also greatly impacted by the 9/11 attacks, the immigration policy changed only slightly to reflect national security concerns and the reaction was relatively muted compared to Japan. Indeed, attempts by anti-immigrant lobbyists to reopen the immigration and refugee protection Bill so as to introduce tougher anti-immigration measures failed in the House of Commons (Picot & Sweetman, 2012: p1). Rather than restrict the entry of immigrants into Canada as happened in Japan, the government introduced front-end security reviews that require further investigation of asylum seekers instead of entry restrictions like in Japan. In fact, in 2013, 31,387 asylum seekers were investigated further, of which only two were found ineligible based on their perceived threat to national security (Picot & Sweetman, 2012: p1). Moreover, rather than send suspect immigrants back to their country of origin immediately, such as in the case of Japan, the immigration policy in Canada proposes immigration detention and only 1% of detentions were made based on national security concerns. Conclusion Japan and Canada provide two excellent case studies of widely variant immigration policies, where the former has possibly one of the most restrictive immigration policy in the world compared to the latter that has one of the most open immigration policies in the world. The reasons for this variance have been given in the discussion above. Differences in economic realities in both countries have partially led to this variance with Japan restricting immigration to protect Japanese jobs as the economy declines, while Canada has pursued a more open policy due to its need or skilled and semi-skilled labour to work on its abundant natural resources. In addition, political and public opinion on the need to maintain a homogenous and mono-ethnic population in Japan has led to a strict immigration policy, compared to Canada’s political and public support for pro-immigration policies. References Akbari, A. H., & MacDonald, M. (2014). Immigration Policy in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: An Overview of Recent Trends. International Migration Review, 48(3), 801-822 Allport, A., & Ferguson, J. E. (2013). Immigration policy. New York: Chelsea House. Freeman, G. P. (January 01, 1995). Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states. International Migration Review, 29, 881-902. Gogia, N., & Slade, B. (2011). About Canada: Immigration. Fernwood Publishing Company, Limited. Green, D., & Kadoya, Y. (2015). Contact and Threat: Factors Affecting Views on Increasing Immigration in Japan. Politics & Policy, 43(1), 59-93 Hollifield, J. F., Martin, P. L., & Orrenius, P. M. (2014). Controlling immigration: A global perspective. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Joppke, C. (January 01, 1998). Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration. World Politics, 50, 2, 266-293. Joppke, C. (January 01, 1998). Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration. World Politics, 50, 2, 266-293. Oishi, N. (2012). The Limits of Immigration Policies: The Challenges of Highly Skilled Migration in Japan. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(8), 1080-1100. Picot, G., & Sweetman, A. (2012). Making it in Canada: Immigration outcomes and policies. IRPP study, 6(29), 1 Roberts, G. S. (2012). Vocalizing the “I” Word: Proposals and Initiatives on Immigration to Japan from the LDP and Beyond. ASIEN, the German Journal on Contemporary Asia, 124, 48-68 Read More