South Korean citizenship and military service

South-Korean military musician

South-Korean military musician (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by Yoon Jee Hyun (JeeJee)

South Korea, an unstable peninsula under the idea of democracy, has continuous anxiety on the never-ending possibilities of warfare with the Communist country of North Korea. Due to this country’s precarious diplomatic situation with its neighbor, having a strong military system is a highly significant governmental role to achieve in South Korea. In order to have a concrete military system, male Korean citizens have to serve in the army for about 2 years, except in the cases of fourth-generation only son, child patriarch, persons with disease, and persons who have foreign citizenship. Once a male person has “South Korean citizenship”, it is his fate to enlist in the army.

From the reading of “Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State”, Bloemraad, Korteweg, and Yurdakul define ‘citizenship’ in four different dimensions: legal status, rights, political participation, and a sense of belonging. Simply to identify citizenship firstly as a legal status means people can get citizenship status by their own birth place or parental origins or through naturalization process. Citizenship as rights grants authorities such as basic rights to the people from the state while individual has to obligate state’s set rules. Citizenship in terms of political participation is that people are privileged to actively participate politically to shape the nation whereas the state itself can govern its people within its territory boundaries. Lastly, people have ‘in-group’ feelings by sharing the same community under the suggested definition of citizenship as sense of belonging by Bloemraad and her co-authors. All these four different dimensions integrate altogether; the notion of citizenship can be enhanced and can be advanced.

In case of South Korean citizenship, I think the emphasized meaning of citizenship as ‘rights’ plays an important role. The nation (South Korea) provides rights to its citizens such as rights to a basic education and rights to be able to live in a healthy environment. Vice versa, South Korean government can impose rules to Korean citizens that people should and have to follow. This both-way obligation process related to rights of citizenship could facilitate military service system in South Korea.

In other words, under the status of ‘Korean citizenship’ and male gender, the people are obliged by governmental law to protect their family, friends, and the nation through entering 2 years of military service.


Bloemraad, I., A. Korteweg, & G. Yurdakul. Citizenship And Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, And Challenges To The Nation-State. Annual Review of Sociology34, 153-179.

Refugees and assimilation

Map showing destination countries of refugees ...

Map showing destination countries of refugees /asylum seekers (= people fleeing abroad) in 2007 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by Naresh Kumar

Different countries receive thousands of refugees every year. All of them come from different religions, cultures, and share different moral values that makes them identical in the host countries. Many are vulnerable to the crimes and human rights violations in the host country. They try to assimilate themselves in the society but instead of being accepted, many end up being the victims of different crimes (Ferenchik, 2012). Assimilation is always seen in an optimistic way with eventual integration of newcomers and it is expected that the process will end over time when foreigners and natives are merged (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001).

However, the facts about victimization are ignored. The situation is even worse in the developing and underdeveloped countries, where refugees find it very hard to integrate into the host society. Refugees who migrated to different countries are asking for help to keep up their culture, language, religion, and other things, to keep up their identity. If we look at the numbers then it is global south that holds so many refugees. The number is increasing everyday. It is the responsibilities of the international community to provide support for the refugees and help them integrate in host countries.

Poverty, crimes, discrimination, human rights violations are some of the issues in societies that holds refugees. Coping with uprootedness, adversity, and assimilation into new social landscapes has always been a challenge. There is always a clash between different cultures, religious values, political ideologies, etc. After the end of the Cold War, nation states have carried out more restrictive policies, which makes it difficult for refugees and asylum seekers to enter the host country.

The rise of nationalism is another issue. In different countries in Europe, immigrants are becoming victims to so called “national movements”, which is simply to push back foreigners and immigrants out of the host country. The European Union only grants EU citizenship to citizens of member states, which is described as “fortress Europe” by many advocates of refugee rights.

The Global South lacks the ability to provide basic needs and lacks to assure certain rights, whereas those who can looks away from the issues. Europe is the only continent which receives thousands of refugees every year, but integration into the society depends on one’s abilities of language and education levels. Refugees who enter into different societies of different countries are not well protected. Their voice is less heard and are constant victims of crimes and human rights abuses.



Ferenchik, M. (2012, June 19). Nepali refugees struggle with life in city. Retrieved from

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

The present situation of Japanese poverty

by Mizuki Watanabe

According to Anne Alison, present-day Japan has a different host of issues. In particular, one of the most serious problems is poverty. Generally speaking, Japan is very developed country and most people imagine that this country is not involved in poverty. However, there are many people who live at a minimum standard of living. Jobs of those people are usually unstable and often are non-regular jobs. Those poor people do not have equal rights and equal status compared to regular workers. That is to say, their fundamental human rights are violated. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to those problems. We are here concerned with two questions, “What are factors of those Japanese problems? Why does Japan not change and cannot solve those problems?”

The first point that we should discuss is a policy of the Japanese government for the economy. Apparently, poverty is related to the economic situation of our country. When the economy has come to a standstill, the Japanese government always establishes a practical policy only for the economy. To put it another way, it usually ignores the others such as the daily lives of nations and so on. Public assistance must be important at this point. If citizen’s lives are not guaranteed, the Japanese economy never recovers.

Unfortunately, nowadays fundamental problems remain unanswered. Actually, there is public assistance such as a livelihood protection system in Japan. However, such a social security does not work enough. According to OECD.stat (date extracted on 30 Sep 2013), Japanese costs for social security are lower than in any other developed country, especially European countries. Moreover, the Japanese government cut the cost of livelihood protection twice.

Some man has a wife and two children who go to an elementary school. Because of the policy, he does not get enough money and has to cut down their cost of foods and they always eat instant food such as “cup ramen”. Nowadays, there are many people in Japan who live in such a terrible situation. What should be remembered is that the most important thing is a nation’s life and their rights. Government should not forget those things and establish a policy for those deep issues.

There is a further problem which needs to be asked. That is the problem of the Japanese sense of entitlement. Historically, a revolution like a French Revolution and the Arab Spring have never happened in Japan. We have not experienced that we get any rights on our own. Also, Japanese are always called “People who do not say their opinions clearly and agree with other’s ideas” by foreign people. Indeed, we have a famous Japanese proverb that is “Deru kui ha utareru”. This means that a person who is different from other people is blamed. When we are child, Japanese have been educated following to this proverb. Because of those factors, we are always afraid of saying our opinions and do not think of what are our rights seriously. Therefore what seems to be lacking is a Japanese sense of entitlement.

As mentioned above, what is important in poverty is social security and sense of entitlement of citizens. Government has to care about citizens and people have to care about their rights and rise up against their dissatisfaction as well. Now, it is the time to improve our society. We have to think those problems deeply.


Seikatsuhogo genjo sitte [the present situation of livelihood protection] Asahi news paper digital Retrieved June 9, 2014 from

Syakaihosyokyufuhi no kokusaihik haiku(OECD countries 2009)[An international comparison of the cost of social security(OECD countries)] Retrieved September 30, 2013 from

Enhanced by Zemanta

Denizenship and refugeeism

by Shiori Nabeshima

In the sliding-down society, as Anne Allison expressed the Japanese circumstances, once people slip off to the bottom, it is hard to climb up to recover the former situation. It seems that the ‘angle’ is becoming sharper than before to make more people slide down. It means that even though the top or middle and bottom people are all Japanese, the gap between them in terms of equality and rights is widening. Especially temporary or contracted workers are overworked like slaves to support the society. Where are their rights of citizenship? Are they actually regarded as citizens? In Precarious Japan, Allison uses the words denizenship and refugeeism.

Essentially in Britain, the people who are categorized as ‘denizens’ are foreigners who are granted a status similar to resident aliens. Resident aliens have usually rights such as residential, social and economic right, but not electoral rights. It shows that some countries guarantee basic rights to foreigners. Although not all countries give all rights to foreigners, the citizens should have guaranteed all rights by their countries.

Most of people, such as net café nanmin, temp or contracted workers and the working poor which Allison mentioned in her book, are Japanese. Even though they are Japanese, some of them do not have fixed residences, cannot receive security as citizens and are struggling to live on minimum wage. Some of them are paid less than needed to receive welfare, but their welfare applications have been denied.

Right now, their rights are below denizens, such as non-citizens. Therefore Allison introduced the new word “refugeeism”. Refugeeism is as the spread of the nation-state made “belonging to the community into which one is born no longer a matter of course and not belonging no longer a matter of choice”. Being disconnected makes them to be refugees. In the story of Moyai, many precariats were estranged from their family or feel alone because they are precariats. This is led by the notion of winners and losers. Frequently, society rejects those who are in precarious situations. It sometimes makes people join hate groups or cults. As with the experience of Karin Amamiya, the people who are members of hate groups or cults tend to accept precariats. If the others or society accept them, they do not need to join such group.

Japanese society should become more tolerant to those who are precarious and prevent them to fall from the safety net.


Allison, Anne. 2013. Precarious Japan. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Undocumented Immigrants in Hiding

by Maki Yoshikawa

In our class, we have studied about undocumented immigrants through video, and reading articles on real-life  undocumented immigrants.

I think it is very difficult to make it clear that undocumented immigrants in Japan should be accepted in this society or not. There are a lot of undocumented immigrants who want to stay in Japan. My opinion is that Japan should accept undocumented immigrants. Indeed, it is true that some Japanese people might lose their job because of increasing number of workers. However I suppose that undocumented immigrants are needed in Japan. Japanese society will not be able to survive on its own without help of foreigners. Some Japanese businesses still need workers to work, for example, farming, caring for aged people, fishing, and so on. In these kind of jobs, most Japanese are not willing to take these jobs.

On the other hand, these jobs are socially needed because the aging society is growing year by year, and the workers in the rice fields are also getting older. As everyone knows, rice is necessary in Japanese food. Who knows how to raise rice according to the changing seasons?  Who will take over the technique? After all, there are many kind of jobs which will definitely need people to succeed to. In addition, from my view, foreigners or immigrants can be engaged in these jobs. This will lead the problems which Japanese society having to be known worldwide and recruit people from all over the world. This will be more effective. However, there is a wall of documents and language when recruiting people from around the world.

It is very complex issue when it comes to children like Noriko Calderon. We have laws to follow, and human rights to protect. It is difficult to put weight on both. When we try to follow the laws, human rights tend to be violated as a term of undocumented immigrants. I insist parents are responsible for undocumented children like Noriko even if they had no choice. Children have no reason to be blamed and be restricted their rights. Therefore, as following the law, parents are supposed to leave the country. There is no way to avoid separation between parents and children. On the other hand, this situation must be changed. As a student like Noriko, I would not want more undocumented children in Japan and other countries to feel like her because they are not guilty, they were just born and raised without knowing they are undocumented.

The Japanese government must do something. However, for government, as a policy it is not appropriate to accept all immigrants without limit. For the first step, the Japanese government needs to promote awareness and interest of undocumented immigrants because a friend sitting next to us who looks completely Japanese might be undocumented immigrant who lives hiding his/her problem.

Resolving the Issue of Undocumented Immigrants in Japan

by Tomoya Yamaguchi

As globalization progresses, the number of undocumented immigrants are increasing little by little and there are a lot of problems in the world, too. There are also many problems in Japan and I would like to describe how the Japanese society should do to solve problems, especially about Noriko Calderon.

In Japan, a lot of undocumented immigrants exist and they are often deported by the Japanese government. This is international standard and natural stream. However in Noriko’s case, many factors are connected with the problem of whether the government should deport her parents and her or not. Many people claim their opinions and thoughts. People in liberal side often claim that they have lived in Japan for more 15 years and have the basis of their life is in Japan. About Noriko, her identity is Japanese, and the Philippine is a foreign country to her. As the result of it, Japan is her mother country. Noriko has a lot of friends in Japan. It is said that even if Noriko goes back to the Philippines, she cannot assimilate into the society. As a premise, Japan ratifies “the Convention on the Rights of the Child” and “the International Bill of Human Rights”, so deporting them to the Philippines infringes on these treaties and deporting is incorrect way. In Europe, if undocumented immigrants have children, the governments overlook that the governments force them to leave there. Moreover, people in the liberal side claim that after they come to Japan, they don’t commit any crimes, so Japan should admit them to continuing to stay in Japan.

However people in the right wing also have a lot of opinions against Noriko’s case and undocumented immigrants. First one is that to forgive them results in the disorder that the number of undocumented immigrants increases quickly. To admit them means that once they come to Japan and rearrange the basis of their life, they can continue to stay in Japan forever in their lifetime. This results in the disorder of Japanese jurisdiction and becomes a beginning of proliferation of undocumented immigration. Japan is a constitutional nation and if people commit a crime, people must be banished.  This forms a trend that to make a child and free from their crime is triumph. This is not an argument based on emotion. Second is that the Japanese constitution is the highest one in Japan and treaties is the second highest, so international society should not blame Japan. Furthermore, it is unfair for the foreigner which legally came to Japan to admit them.

In conclusion, I think the undocumented immigrants commit a crime when they enter into Japan, but the Japanese government should also rearrange the laws about immigration because the government should take a responsibility that the officer of the Japanese government would kept not to arrest undocumented immigrants. According to it, the Japanese government needs to enact a new law in order not to increase misery children like Noriko. For example, the government punishes immigrants that spent 15 years after came to Japan for the illegal immigration. However the government doesn’t punish more about post entering Japan because they live in Japan for a long time. However the extent of this law is limited toward only immigrants that have already stayed in Japan for more 15 years. Japan faces the time to change the immigration laws. The Japanese government should respond to those problems flexibly. In my opinion, to admit those undocumented immigrants distorts the Japanese jurisdiction and it is an illegal conduct. However Noriko hasn’t committed a crime and has had no choice. According to it, the Japanese government should conducts flexibly in this case though the government also has to take steps in order not to increase the number of the undocumented immigrants.

Is the dream act a good solution for undocumented immigrants in the US?

by Ryohei Sugiyama

The DREAM Act is a law that was suggested in the US in 2000. The purpose of this law is to give young illegal immigrants the opportunity to get a higher education. In the US for a long time the treatment toward young illegal immigrants has been one of the largest sections of immigrant problems. Many of the young illegal immigrants do not have consciousness that they are illegal immigrants. They were taken with their parents and grew up most of their lives in the US. Therefore, there are few differences between these people and American citizens. Nevertheless, these do not get appropriate supports. At this point, the DREAM Act is the progress of the immigrant problem in the US.

If the DREAM Act is approved, young illegal immigrants can have the opportunity to live in the US legally. This is very good point of this law. Today there are a lot of illegal immigrants in the US. They are paying large amount of taxes each year, and actually they have a large influence on the economy of the US. Nevertheless, they get unfair treatment like not entering higher-level schools or not getting jobs because of their illegalness. Especially there is no reason for young immigrants to get unfair treatment. So long as there is no reason, the young illegal immigrants should get the same opportunity as the legal people in the US.

On the other hand, there are a few negative points in the DREAM Act. The article about the military is one of the examples of the negative points. In older for young illegal immigrants to get the legal status there are mainly two choices: one is the entering higher-level school for two years after graduating from high school in the US, and the other is the joining the military. Many of the young immigrants hope to advance a grade, however they sometimes cannot do it because they do not have enough money. In this case in older to get legal status they have to join the military. They may be sent to Iraq and be forced to engage in hard actions. In my opinion, it is an inhumane act. They have to get wounds so as to get rights.

In this way the DREAM Act has some good points and bad points. Therefore, I partly agree with this law and partly disagree. Bad points, of course, should be changed. For instance, in my idea, instead of joining the military, they should engage in public enterprises such as cleaning streets or works at public places. However, it is true that the government of the US intends to tackle with the problems of illegal immigrants. Dream act is the expression of the attitude of the government, and the governments should continue to tackle with the problems of illegal immigrants sincerely and positively.


Dream Act Portal. Retrieved June 26, 2013 from

Is the dream act good for the US? Retrieved June 26th 2013 fromドリーム法案は米経済にプラスかマイナスか?/#more-3416

Immigration, Development, and Human Rights

by Mei Satoi

In the documentary film of our class (The New Americans), we could see an immigrant family from Mexico. This family’s father worked in the United States separated from his family in Mexico. This situation made the Mexican family feel sad and uncomfortable life. Therefore they decided to move on the legal way to the U.S. On the other hand, the number of immigrants from Mexico is decreasing. As Mexico has been developing its economy and the U.S.’s development has slowed. So, Mexicans choose to get job and life in their homeland. It shows that economic development helps decrease immigrants. When you and your country want to decrease immigrant number, you should support the economic development.

In the Japan, there are some troubles between Korean schools and the government, or Korean schools and citizens. One example is that the Japanese government decided public high school in Japan will be free. However some people have insisted that Korean school do not have to be free and do not need support from the Japanese government. The reason why is that Korean school has settled under the North Korea system. So Japanese government said to make an exception so that Korean high schools will not be free. It means that only Korean school cannot get support from the Japanese government. However, the purpose of the free of high school law includes Korean schools. In the human rights view, Korean schools also should be free. However a lot of citizens have rejected this. This idea comes from discrimination, misunderstanding, and prejudge. The purpose of the free of high school law is protecting and respecting the children’s right to study. The Japanese government and citizen do not have the right to take the opportunity of education from children because of prejudice. In addition, the Japanese government is trying to produce more multicultural and global talented people in the Japanese educational system. Korean people help to feel and think what is multicultural to children.

There are some immigrant and Zainichi people in Japan. If Japanese wants to eliminate them, they should support their homeland’s economic situation. Then the number of immigrants would decrease. In the now, Japanese government has stopped economic support to the North Korea. Before Japanese complain about free Korean schools, they should help the North Korea situation. In addition, Japanese should protect and respect immigrant. To establish brush up education system with Japanese, immigrants, and Zainichi each other, talented people and high quality people are given from Japan.

Undocumented Immigrants and Their Rights to Family Life

by Kentaro Sakamoto

Is it OK to treat someone unfairly for something that is not his/her fault? Most people will probably answer “No” to this simple question, but in reality, many children of undocumented immigrant families are treated differently for something that they are not responsible for. Let’s see the case in the United States, where it has roughly 1 million unauthorized children (Passel and Cohn, 2011). Most of them were brought to America by their adult family members (Poe, 2012). They go to American schools and they are part of American society, but since they do not have American citizenship, they cannot do things that regular Americans can do, such as getting a driver’s license, getting a passport, getting scholarship for their education, and getting a job legally. Some of them had not even know that they were undocumented until they decided to get a job or a driver’s license. However, undocumented immigrants raised in the United States are now starting to stand up for their rights. Many organizations demanding equal rights for them have been formed, calling America to change its laws (Immigrant Youth Justice League, 2013). Thanks to their effort, President Obama announced that he will stop deporting certain young undocumented immigrants. He also supports giving them a chance to officially become legal residents if they go to college or serve for the military for 2 years, which can give them the qualification to apply for U.S. citizenship (Poe, 2012). The situation of undocumented children are starting to change, and more people are starting to recognize their rights.

However, they still cannot fully enjoy the rights that other ordinary Americans do. Their rights to family life are not guaranteed. Moreover, this right is not only a problem for undocumented children, but also for children with American citizenship who have undocumented parents. Families have been divided due to the difference of legal status within the family; the parents are deported while their children are allowed to stay in the country (Cave, 2012). These children have to make a very difficult decision, either to stay in America without their parents or to follow them to a country they do not know much about. This is not merely a problem in the United States, but it also became a sensation in Japan when the situation of Calderon family was reported in the news. They were forced to be separated because of the father and mother’s undocumented status. Noriko Calderon, the daughter of the family who was allowed to stay in Japan due to special measures, had two choices: staying in Japan by herself, or going to the Philippines with her deported parents. She eventually decided to stay in Japan, where she was born and raised and where she had all her friends, and in compensation, she had to make her farewell to her parents. Her right to family life was violated.

The right to family life is determined in Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) ratified by 193 countries and regions (Tanaka et al., 2013). The article says all children have the right to live with their parents unless it creates an environment that is bad for them, such as child abuse (Ibid). America hasn’t ratified this treaty yet (Ibid). Japan ratified, but it declared to interpret Article 9 from its own viewpoint to justify family separation caused by deportation (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, n.d.). This attitude is criticized by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, asking Japan to change its distinctive interpretation of the article (Ibid). Unfortunately the two major countries that call themselves the ‘champion of human rights’ are violating this right while many other countries are protecting it.

Since the right to family life is an internationally recognized right, countries such as the U.S. and Japan should protect this by ensuring children to stay with their family in the place where they are raised, regardless of their legal status. Children themselves are not responsible for what kind of legal status they or their parents have. Laws in general are made to protect human rights and ensure fairness, and this general principle of law should be applied to all community members contributing to the society, especially if they are raised in the community. Therefore, I think laws violating the community members’ rights (in this case, the rights of children who are raised in the community by their undocumented parents) should be changed immediately. Japan anyway needs more immigrants to support its economy, and the government is actually trying to accept more of them from outside of the country (Gi, 2000), but I think it will be much smoother if we accept those who are already living in Japan, those who know how to live in this country, and those who have their friends, husband, wife and even children here. Why can’t we protect the rights of our community members?


Cave, D. (2012, June 18). American children, now struggling to adjust to life in Mexico. The New York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from

Gi, H. (2000, June 9). Nippon de kurashitai: Huhou taizai kazoku tachi no kizuna [We want to live in Japan: The bonds of illegal immigrant families]. Fuji Terebi [Fuji Television]. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from

Immigrant Youth Justice League. (2013). About us. Immigration Youth Justice League. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (n.d.). Dai ikkai houkokusho shinsa: Jidou no kenri ni kansuru iinkai kara no shitsumon ni taisuru kaitou [Examination of the first report: The answer to the question asked by the Committee on the Rights of the Child]. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2011). New patterns in US immigration, 2011: Uncertainty for reform. University of California, Davis. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from

Poe, C. (June 16, 2012). DREAM Act: Obama stops deportation of children of illegal immigrants. The Washington Times. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from

Tanaka, N., Yakushiji, K., Sakamoto, M., Asada, M., Kiriyama, T., Obata, I., & Shibata, A. (2013). Beshikku Jyouyakushu [Basic documents of international law]. Tokyo: Toushindo.

The Issue of Migrants in the EU

by Ryota Ochiai

Do you know “Roma”? Not Rome, but Roma. It might be confusing, so I write it as “Romani”. Romani are an ethnic group living mostly in Europe. They are also called and known as “Gypsies”, maybe you have been heard that word. In 2007, the EU expanded in Central Europe, and as you know Bulgaria and Romania also have joined the EU. At the same time, we are recognizing that the Romani of 9 million constitute a “Fourth World” in the area. Moreover, Romani living in the EU are forced to survive the life in lower than standard necessary to still maintain human dignity.

Rumanian and Bulgarian of the Romani native place come over to the French city and suburbs, and they set up camping as the temporary house at there. In addition, most of them have not received school education and become the victim of  human trafficking networks. Such networks let elderly person and children beg by the roadside and forces daughters to prostitution and expands by doing an illegal act. Much camping was removed by a policy of the French Government, and the Romani of several hundred returned to Romania independently. However, this let the EU highlight a problem of “freedom of movement” written in the Treaties of the European Union. However, France is a country making much of “freedom of movement” from other countries because of experience shut in the other side of the Iron Curtain. Therefore France supported Bulgaria and EU participation of Romania at the very beginning.

However, since the freedom of the movement is valuable simply, France wants to take measures to prevent the crime network taking advantage of the poverty of Romani. This is what written down in EU treaty Article 3, and it means that the freedom of movement is not unlimited and this is carried out on one of the cooperation with “destruction measures criminal with prevention of crime”. In other words, the freedom of movement can never become the large-scale emigrant incurrent excuse.

Afterwards, France visited to Romania and agreed that both found a solution jointly. From there, the French thought, it is the most important that Romania and Bulgaria take responsibility for the own nation, since EU member states have a duty to protect the nation from own country. It is written down in Treaties of the European Union Article 2.

This problem is world and our problem not just a problem of the whole Romania, France and EU now. Most of people are irresponsibility about the issue of emigrant, however it is same to what add a new chapter to the sad history of the emigrant who has been oppressed. So I will be glad if even slightly many people are interested about the issue of emigrant by reading my blog post. Thank you.


France Roma Camps Demolished, Gypsies Forced Into Hiding

The Romani People and the Free Movement Directive

The Roma in France: “Is Hollande going to expel us all?”

EU Treaties