by Sanae Tanaka

Globalization and industrialization brought people moving around the world, and the issue of coexistence. In Europe, issue of international immigrants has been often discussed topic. Sweden is one of the countries known for accepting lots of international immigrants. Since issue and acceptance of international immigrants has been a delicate issue in many countries, Swedish government is making proactive approach towards the issue.

Since 2008, Swedish government has introduced the new policy that Sweden accepts more international immigrant workers actively. They support immigrants to get residence permits and even they have positive opinion about giving international immigrants permanent residency.

The reason why Sweden is taking positive position towards acceptance of international immigrants is because of the balance between domestic industry and government’s policy. Sweden has big land compare to other countries in Europe, however, they have fewer citizens, which is about nine million people, and to keep existing welfare policy and social security, the country needs to flourish domestic industry to the world. Also, usually international immigrant workers want to move in to the country which is low cost of living, having good weather throughout the year, and the country where speaks English as first language. Sweden is matching none of these three and in reality, it is hard for Sweden to get more international immigrants without having good conditions for them. Therefore, Swedish government gives out all decisions to the companies to decide how many international immigrant workers they hire and how many international immigrant workers they need. By letting companies to make all decisions, it leads the thriving domestic industry, Swedish government believes.

Unique point is that international immigrants policy in Sweden is all based on the idea of connection between domestic industry and labor power. Confidential relationship between government and company is making the country and policy together and this can be recognized as one of new model of building up the international immigrant policy.

by Ryo Tanaka

Japan is now in the process of becoming a multicultural country in many ways. But how? What is the goal of this process? Ideological terms such as “multiculturalism” and “coexistence” are often heard and perceived as positive. But does the frequent use of these words really indicate the positive future? Since multiculturalism and coexistence are the “process” but not the “outcome”, it is essential to consider what is going on in the process of becoming a multicultural nation.

In order to attain the positive future of multicultural Japan, I would like to consider its obstacles by focusing on how immigrants affect Japanese socioeconomic stratification. Generally, how a society is positive is measured by two criteria: economic fulfillment and people’s satisfaction. To put those criteria on migrant issues, it is needed to examine both the extent to which migrant workers support Japanese economy and they make favorable relationships with Japanese citizens. The balance of these two should be kept.

Economically speaking, accepting migrant workers is a rational, and in a sense, unavoidable way to prevent Japan from a “population crisis”. Hoffman (2012) emphasizes, by citing the government’s estimation of Japan’s future population, that Japan “needs a fountain of youth” (The Japan Times, Oct. 21. 2012). Indeed, the government estimates that 40% of the Japanese people will be 65 or over. This implies that Japan will suffer from a severe decrease in the workforce in the future. Even today, the Japanese labor market relies largely on low-cost laborers from abroad. For the future, Japan will have to accept more migrant workers to supplement the dwindling Japanese workforce. Thus, “it is no longer possible to live in peace in a closed world only among Japanese nationals” (The Japan Times, Oct. 21. 2012).

Socially and culturally, however, the process of becoming a multiethnic migrant nation is not acceptable for all the people. Hoffman emphasizes the result of a survey that “[a]sked if they would accept large-scale immigration in the interests of reviving Japan, 65 percent respondent said no; 26 percent said yes” (The Japan Times, Oct. 21. 2012). Why do the majority of respondents not want to accept a large number of immigrants even though they might know the importance of them? Cultural difference seems to be the biggest reason. For example, Hoffman reports some Brazilian children “dropped out of school” and even “turned to crime” because they had trouble adapting to the Japanese school environment. At school, “the Brazilian culture of exuberance” and “language barrier” often conflicts with Japanese culture and the dominant Japanese language (The Japan Times, Oct. 21. 2012). Therefore, despite the increase in the number of migrant residents, Japan has not prepared the appropriate educational environment and support for them.

In summary, while is has been argued that Japan should accept more migrant workers to supplement the decreasing workforce, its society and citizens are not prepared to really accept them. In particular, some aspects of the society such as educational environment have not been transformed to welcome migrant residents, and people are not educated to take accepting attitudes toward them. Coexistence does not mean just “existing separately” but “living together”. But the reality is just like “existing separately”. Thus, there is big room for further improvement of Japanese social systems and people’s attitudes towards immigrants both for Japanese economy and everyone’s happiness.

Reference 

Hoffman, M. (2012, October 21). “‘Only immigrants can save Japan’”. The Japan Times. Retrieved from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20121021x3.html

by Mihoko Sumitani

In this essay, I would like to talk about Mexican migrants in the United States. When I was in California, I saw many migrants there, especially Mexican migrants. I also found that most of them work for low wages as waiters or waitresses, bus drivers, cashiers, cleaners and so on. I was so wondering why there are so many Mexican migrant workers who work for low-wages. I could also see Mexican or other Latin nannies on TV or movies.

In historical view, southern parts of California were Mexican territories. The fact might make many Mexicans feel more comfortable to live in California. Also because of the fact that California is very close to Mexico, they can get easily reach to California.

Mexico represents the largest source of immigration to the United States. Of the 32.5 million foreign born, 9.8 million or 30 percent were from Mexico. This is the largest source. Now Hispanic is the largest minority in the United States over African-American. This current situation causes many problems in the United States.

Firstly, there are many undocumented migrants as it is said that Mexico is the single largest source of undocumented migrants in the United States. They came to work in the United States because they know they can get higher wages or salary than those which they can get in Mexico even though the work is low-class in the United States. Because of these Mexican migrants, many white lose their job. Employers prefer hiring those migrants than white as those migrants work for lower wages or salary.

Secondly, there are large number of Spanish-speaking population in those areas where have many Latino migrants. In fact, I heard from my host mother that if people want to work in supermarket or something like that, it is more likely that people who can speak both English and Spanish are hired because there are many customers who are Latinos.

These problems make white think that Mexican or other Latino could be their threat and they might break the societies that used to be. What is worse, Latino could be majority in the United States in the farther future. Those thoughts might cause many Latino victims for white criminals.

by Sherry Stanczyk

In light of the ‘failed’ multiculturalism in Europe and the growing fear of terrorism and the radicalism of minority groups such as Muslims, the question of whether multicultural policy is beneficial to society or not is currently a heated issue. Last year, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multicultural policy for fostering Islamic extremism, and in Norway, multiculturalism was the motive behind Anders Breivik’s mass killing.

Multiculturalism is the visibility of minority cultures, languages, and religions in a society, and multicultural policy is written law by a country’s government that seeks to preserve, sustain, and regulate this diversity. One of the most well-known examples of multicultural policy is the Canadian Multicultural Act, which was included in the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms in 1982, with the goal of preserving and protecting minority cultures and languages. The main goals of the act, as summarized by the government of Canada’s website, include guaranteeing all citizens the ability under law to preserve, develop and share their heritage and language, as well as the endorsement and support of activities that show the understanding and respect for diversity in society and make the use of languages and cultures of the “individuals of all origins”. The act applies not only to French Canadians and Canadian Aboriginals, but also to minorities of all religious and ethnic minority groups.

In theory, the idea of multicultural policy enforced by government sounds wonderful; the creation of a diverse and cultural society in which everyone is accepted and free to be themselves. However, multicultural policy has a growing number of dissenters who criticize it, and with some valid reasons. Kenan Malik criticizes multicultural policy for creating a society of ‘plural monoculturalism’ and a culture which imposes identities onto people. Instead of creating one whole and symbiotic society, multiculturalism forces different groups of people to remain separate and divided from each other, as well as stifles the individuality and dissenting opinions of individuals from minority groups. In this kind of environment migrants and minorities are not given a chance to fit in, and remain easy targets for hate crimes and racism. And if these immigrants never truly blend in with their host society, it is far easier for these groups foster hateful and radical views against the country they live in.

There are truths to these criticisms; if a society is segregated into little communities, differences are both kept and created. But if one were to look at the flip side of multiculturalism–assimilation, do we really foster a stronger and more united community? I would not only say that the answer is no, but that it creates an even less united community. This is namely because assimilation works far easier in theory than it does in real life; shedding one cultural or religious identity for another is neither easy, nor desirable for most people. Should we enforce to the children of immigrants that their heritage is something that is wrong and needs to be changed, and to other children that anyone different is someone to be ridiculed or afraid of? Instead, if we have multicultural policy that attempts to spread this diversity, instead of secluding it in their respective communities, it offers a way for the entire community to connect. The idea may sound too ideal against the realist views of anti-multiculturalists, but the idea that assimilation will erase racism or ethnic tension is even more idealist. It is also worth noting that multicultural policy does not mean that everyone is free to disregard a country’s written laws and rules if it does not suit their religion’s or culture’s.  Xenophobia can only move society back as a whole.

References:

Malik, Kenan. “What Is Wrong With Multiculturalism?”  Pandaemonium, 4 June 2012. Web. 11 Nov 2012.

“The Canadian Multiculturalism Act.” Parole Board of Canada, n.d. Web. 11 Nov 2012.

by Samuel Slaten

Immigration is a huge part of any developed or developing country’s everyday life. Immigration can be something looked at as a spread of culture and values and a phenomenon that helps bridges societies together. However, the subject has a darker side as well. Immigration also has a side of racism, discrimination, and the aspect of illegally entering a country. This article will focus on the idea of trying to find a balance between decreasing illegal immigration while at the same time giving opportunities to those who had no choice in the matter to remedy their own situation.

The first issue that can be found is that when a country has a large number of people living in an area and receiving pay yet because of no identification those people do not pay taxes on their income and  thus the local economy suffers making life hard on immigrants and natives alike. One example of this is how  in 2011 there was an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the US (The CNN Library ). Which it then can be deducted that non of them were forced to pay any state of federal income taxes thus in the end were actually hurting their own communities. That same concept can be applied to any country.

Another idea to keep in mind is that where there is a lack of identification there is a lure for crime. Though the issue does not just reside with the breaking of the law (though that is a very pertinent issue) but with what is occurring after. It was reported that in the late 1990’s 4-7 percent of the some 11.5 million prisoners in America were illegal immigrants. Each of these people were costing some $30,000 per year to sustain (Hagan, and Palloni 367). Given that since 2000 the illegal immigrant population in America grew by 27% ( The CNN Library ) it can be deducted that the number of illegal inmates has also increased, meaning that the US government is spending even more money on non American citizens in American facilities paid for by the American people (once again this concept can be applied to other countries as well). It is an issue that needs to be addressed at the roots. Illegal immigration paints a false facade that all immigrants are illegal or violent which is absolutely not the case.  I think if a country cuts down on illegal immigration it will find a decrease in discrimination by the native population against regular immigrants. I believe that should be the goal of any immigration department, finding ways to help immigrants adjust and prosper in their new home.

However, there is another side to the story. With many illegal immigrants there are countless children whom had no say in the matter and who at times have lived in the host country so long that they can not even speak their parents language. At times many have received education in their host country and so promise to become responsible law biding adults. These children deserve to not have to suffer for their parents poor decision making. That is why I agree with movements and bills like the DREAM act that target these type of people and try to help them legally become apart of a country they consider their one and true home. I think that there should be locations where children around the age of 16 can go, whom have already entered the country as younger children, and receive the proper documents and amnesty to begin the application to citizenship.

Thus in order to promote immigration yet limit the lure of illegal immigration it is important for a country to find the right balance. One example is Canada. One way they keep immigration procedures simple is via a points-based system; “To determine whom it should let in to live and work, Canada uses a point system. You don’t even need a job or employer, just skills. Applicants are awarded points for proficiency in education, languages and job experience,” (cnn.com). Procedures are simple insuring immigration flows smoothly thus a united identity seems to form which is exemplified by Canada’s first Muslim Mayor of a major city; “When I was running for office, it was only people who were not from here who said ‘Whoa, is Calgary ready for a mayor like that?’” he says. “The people in Calgary just said, ‘Ah, it’s a kid from the East End. We know him,’” (cnn.com). Thus finding the issues with a country’s immigration department and making them efficient and simple helps spur immigration and the the need for illegal immigration low (due to smooth flowing immigration procedures).

Thus in the end I believe that in order to stop discrimination against immigrants in the long run and help to provide more opportunities  is to focus on stopping illegal immigration. That being said I also think that helping kids of illegal immigrants achieve citizenship without deportation is a very  important goal. Immigrants and native citizens alike are essential to a countries future and should learn to live in peace with each other, in the end we all are human.

Bibliography

Hagan, John, and Alberto Palloni. “Immigration and Crime in the United States.” Trans. Array The Immigration Debate. Washington D.C: National Academy Press, 1998. 367. Print.

“Immigration lessons for the U.S. from around the world.” cnn.com. CNN, 10 2012. Web. 11 Nov 2012. <http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/10/immigration-lessons-for-the-u-s- from-around-the-world/>.

The CNN Library. cnn.com. (2012): n. page. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/15/facts-on-immigration-in-the-united-states/&gt;.

by Misato Okumura

There are many undocumented children in the States. This is because their parents brought them there when they were little. They were not born in the States but they have surrounded by American culture and grown up there so their identity is almost same as other American children. But they get to know they are not American citizen when they apply for university since their parents are illegal immigrants and they are undocumented. President Obama has been trying to give them a right to live in the States legally by so-called “Dream Act”. Because this is not the children’s fault. They didn’t choose to be illegal immigrant. Their parents did. But should the States really give them a right? Is it good for them? I don’t think this should happen.

First, if they allow them to get a right to stay in the country, more illegal immigrants move to the States to raise up their children. The parents might come to the US only for giving their children to get a right to live in the States. The parents might stay with them because these children might be able to get higher education and higher job. This will increase the number of illegal immigrant.

Second, if some people in the States have a tendency to attack illegal immigrants, they shouldn’t let them stay in their country. It might increase crimes even though illegal immigrants are less likely to commit to crime. If you think you need to protect the children, accepting them as US citizen is not an only way to do so since some people might attack them because of their faces. Even though the children get a citizenship it won’t be decreased because they attack people who look immigrant. So this might bring more crimes in the States.

These 2 points are important for thinking about illegal immigrants and their children in the States. If the United States allows immigrant children stay in their country, it will bring more illegal immigrant in the States and it will increase people who commit crimes. Do you still think you should accept immigrant children and give them citizenship? The answer is No.

“Dream Act” sounds very nice project but I don’t think immigrant children should be documented just because they have grown up in the States. Accepting them as their citizens will bring the country more crimes.