|

Humanize the dry debate about immigration

by Debito Arudou

Special To The Japan Times

Japan’s pundits are at it again: debating what to do about the sinking demographic ship. With the low birthrate, aging and shrinking society (we dropped below 127 million this year) and top-heavy social security system, Japan’s structural problems will by many accounts spell national insolvency.

However, we’re hearing the same old sky pies: proposals to plug the gaps with more Japanese babies, higher retirement ages, more empowered women in the workplace — even tax money thrown at matchmaking services!

And yet they still won’t work. Policymakers are working backwards from conclusions and not addressing the structural problems, e.g., that people are deserting the depopulating countryside for urban opportunities in an overly centralized governmental system, marrying later (if at all) and finding children too expensive or cumbersome for cramped living spaces, having both spouses work just to stay afloat, and feeling perpetual disappointment over a lack of control over their lives. And all thanks to a sequestered ruling political and bureaucratic elite whose basic training is in status-quo maintenance, not problem-solving for people they share nothing in common with.

Of course, proposals have resurfaced about letting in more non-Japanese (NJ) to work. After all, we have that time-sensitive 2020 Tokyo Olympics infrastructure to build — oh, and a Tohoku to reconstruct someday. And no self-respecting white-collar Taro wants those 3K (kitsui, kitanai and kiken — difficult, dirty and dangerous) jobs. Never mind that policymakers have rarely cared about the NJ already here investing their lives in Japan, long discouraged from settling via revolving-door visa regimes, and even bribed to leave in 2009.

So, come back! All is forgiven!

Predictably, the Shinzo Abe administration recently announced the expansion of the “trainee” program. You know, that exploitative, abusive and unmonitored system that has imported NJ since 1990, free from the protections of labor law? The one that causes dozens of NJ deaths from overwork and other “unknown causes” every year, and keeps many in conditions of virtual slavery? Despite a decade of criticisms from human-rights groups, parliamentarians and the United Nations, these three-year visas have been lengthened by two more so we can exploit them longer.

And then, a previously taboo word entered the discussion: imin (immigration). It made such an impact that prominent debate magazine Sapio made it June’s cover story. Michael Hoffman reviewed this spread in the JT in his Big In Japan column on May 24, “Will Japan be a country that welcomes all?”

Great. But I’ll answer Michael’s question right now: no — and not just for an obvious reason like Japan’s innate mistrust of outsiders. We also have a structural problem with how the concept of imin is being framed. It goes beyond constant othering and alienation: NJ aren’t even being seen as people.

Last time this debate came up, I lambasted the government for shutting NJ long-termers out of the deliberation councils drafting policies affecting them. I also mentioned how policymakers avoided the word imin.

So now imin has been formally broached — albeit while being stigmatized: The person in charge of the Immigration Bureau, Justice Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki, immediately said NJ would present “adverse effects on security.” (Note to ad agencies: Don’t hire Tanigaki to sell your product.)

But imin has also been dehumanized. Look up “immigrant” in an English-Japanese dictionary and you get words such as ijūmin, ijūsha, imin rōdōsha and, oddly, mitsunyūkokusha and fuhō nyūkokusha (illegal immigrant). But these aren’t immigrants: These are migrants, here temporarily, as properly translated by domestic NGOs looking out for NJ interests, such as the Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (Iju Rodosha to Rentai Suru Network).

The word for “immigration,” meaning something permanent, is imin — denoted on the Denshi Jisho dictionary site as a “sensitive” word (of course; that’s why the government avoided using it for so long).

But we still have no word for an immigrant as an individual person, such as iminsha, with its own honorific sha — in the same vein as ijūsha (migrant), rōdōsha (laborer), teijūsha (settler, usually a Nikkei South American), zairyūsha (temporary resident), eijūsha (permanent resident) and even (in a few government documents) kikasha (naturalized citizen).

It’s just the clipped imin. That means nobody gets to claim “I am an immigrant” in Japan. (Try it: “Watashi wa imin desu” sounds funny.) And this in turn means immigration remains a strictly statistical animal. Lost in this narrative is the idea that when we import labor, we import people. With lives. And needs. And voices to be heard.

This kind of framing damages the debate by taking away the immigrant’s voice. Take that Sapio special: From the very cover, you’ll notice that not one visible minority is featured among the talking heads. Almost all those speechifying inside are elite Japanese (including former Tokyo governor and professional bigot Shintaro Ishihara, which already signals where things are headed): the same old pundits defending their ideological camps with no real new ideas.

But more indicative of the framing of the debate is the main photo on Sapio’s cover: a hate-speech rally showing anti-Korean demonstrators vs. anti-racism counterdemonstrators. (A smaller inset photo shows South Americans at a labor-union rally. Their faces are visible, unlike those in the larger photo, which were blurred out to protect people’s privacy. More evidence of powerlessness: Apparently NJ aren’t people with privacy concerns.)

Hang on: An anti-Korean rally is not an issue of immigration; it’s got more to do with Japan’s unresolved historical issues with its neighbors.

If you define “immigrants” as NJ who have moved to Japan and made a life here as long-term residents (if not regular permanent residents, or ippan eijūsha) — i.e., the “Newcomers” — that’s a different group than the one being demonstrated against.

Being targeted instead are the “Oldcomers” — the Zainichi Korean and Chinese special permanent residents (tokubetsu eijūsha), descendants of former citizens of empire who have been living in and contributing to Japan for generations. The Oldcomers are not the “immigrants” in question — and from this blind spot, the debate goes askew.

Sapio’s editorial on discrimination towards NJ (pages 20-21) not only neglects to mention any examples of discrimination against Japan’s Newcomers; it also crosses its analytical wires by citing the Urawa Reds “Japanese only” exclusionary banner at Saitama Stadium last March as hate speech against the Oldcomers.

Hang on again: That “Japanese only” banner would not have affected the Zainichis. “Japanese only” is a narrative targeting Japan’s visible minorities, i.e., those who don’t “look Japanese” enough to pass an exclusionary manager’s scrutiny. Naturally, after several generations here, Zainichi can quietly enter a “Japanese only” zone without drawing hairy eyeballs. And while the historical wrongs done to the Zainichi in Japan are very worthy of discussion, they should not suck the oxygen out of the debate on immigrants.

But I believe this is by design: By entangling the debate in the same old Zainichi issues, the xenophobes can derail it with the same old paranoid fears about granting rights to potentially subversive North Korean and Chinese residents. This makes the true iminsha not only voiceless but invisible.

That’s exactly what the xenophobes want. A common theme in rightist writings is “more foreigners means less Japan,” and admitting more visible minorities (which inevitably happens when you import people) will always bring forth that tension. Best to just argue as if they don’t exist.

So what to do? Be Gandalf and say “That shall not pass!” Just as the Urawa Reds fans’ “Japanese only” banner forced the domestic media in March to finally admit that racial discrimination happens in Japan, we must force the nation’s elites to reframe the concept of immigration and humanize the immigrants behind the statistics. Allow the public to see a way to welcome Newcomers not only as individuals, but also as long-termers, immigrants and, ultimately, as citizens with the same rights and obligations as every other Japanese. The elites will resist this, because the economic incentives are clear: The more powerless and invisible you keep NJ, the easier it is to exploit them.

So, if you want to finally address one of Japan’s structural problems, start by popularizing the word iminsha. Let regular folk with regular lives attach that term to an NJ neighbor they know. Then give them a voice.

Otherwise, it’s same old debate, same old (and getting older) Japan.

Debito Arudou received his Ph.D. from Meiji Gakuin University in International Studies in April. Twitter: @arudoudebito. Just Be Cause appears on the first Thursday of the month. Your comments: community@japantimes.co.jp

  • phu

    There is no reporting here on anything except the author’s (consistent but impotent and increasingly incoherent) anger.

    Arudou cites himself three times, yet lines like “dozens of NJ deaths from overwork and other “unknown causes” every year,” which actually do warrant citation, receive none. No other actual citations are made. Two other articles are referenced; one, though, is another Japan Times opinion piece, and the other is a tangentially related example (the author’s only one) of the his latest pet peeve.

    A large part of this also revolves around what appears to be the author’s own skewing and misinterpretation of said article:

    “The Oldcomers are not the “immigrants” in question — and from this blind spot, the debate goes askew.”

    Considering the amount of space dedicated to the problems with the article he’s discussing, I can’t help but conclude that it simply was not written in the context of “the debate” Arudou refers to. He sees something about immigrants and immediately assumes that it is specifically about people in his situation (and, if it’s not, then it should be).

    It’s fairly amusing that the conclusion here is that if you don’t label something, no one will care about it (and, somehow, that giving something a label makes it suddenly real and relevant). Even assuming the author does in fact understand Japanese language well enough to draw his linguistic conclusions (he’s not a scholar of Japanese, nor does he cite or even mention any), the insistence on having a standardized term ignores the fact that such labels invite connotation and prejudice more than acceptance. At best they will do absolutely nothing to change perceptions of immigrants; at worst they’ll simply become the next evolution of the term “gaijin,” with the same uses and abuses. Sorry — “microaggressions.”

    The most (only?) insightful comment here relates to a picture of South Americans at a labor rally and the fact that their faces are not obfuscated the way Japanese faces are in the same publication. That in itself could be a great start to a treatment of racism in the context of Japanese media. Unfortunately, it’s relegated to a parenthetical comment, after which the article rambles on in less coherent directions.

    Another quizzically meandering issue of Arudou’s Monthly Immigration Soapbox.

    • blondein_tokyo

      Yes, because one must consult a linguist in order to make the claim that a word does not exist in a language. Which is why I can use words like “lsiethjrexuey” and you can’t tell me it’s not real.

      • phu

        You’ve entirely missed the point. My linguist comment was regarding the connotations around the relevant words they do have (the author lists many) and the reasons the specific word the author wants to use apparently does not exist in Japanese.

        And frankly, yes: If you’re not a native Japanese speaker, you should at very least be consulting someone who is if you’re going to make claims about the language and its usage. I could happily make claims about words that don’t exist in French, but my limited vocabulary and experience with that language makes it likely that I’d be making a mistake.

    • ScottyP

      I too felt that the most pointed comment of the piece was that of the faces of the South Americans not being blurred to protect their privacy. And, I agree wholeheartedly that reducing it to a parenthetical aside was an unfortunate decision by the author.

  • minami

    imin can refer to an individual, the same as kokumin, shimin, and other “min”s do. Please don’t post baseless nonsense when you don’t know. Describing “sha” as an honorific is also laughable.

  • Ron NJ

    The person in charge of the Immigration Bureau, Justice Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki, immediately said NJ would present “adverse effects on security.”

    Dear Tanigaki: according to the NPA’s own data, we’re less likely to commit crimes than your own citizens are. Fact. End of story. Get over it.

    (Source: http://www.npa.go.jp/english/seisaku/Crime_in_Japan_in_2010.pdf )

  • TLD_0819

    First three paragraphs were written and thought out well…kind of slid off the rails after that.

    I’d honestly like to see this side of Japan that you write about. In my 12 years here, I have experienced none of these problems. Is it an English teacher thing? Is it a particular part of Japan? If someone could tell me where I can see an example I’d really appreciate it.

    • blondein_tokyo

      Yes, that’s right. The only people who experience discrimination in Japan are English teachers. They are distinguishable from the rest of the foreign population by their brightly-colored tail feathers, which is what allows the Japanese to single them out for discrimination while treating the rest of the foreign population with the utmost deference and respect.

      Also, I think your premise that because YOU personally have never experienced something then it means that it cannot possibly exist, is very reasonable. No one can possibly deny the soundness of that logic.

      As for your request for examples, I’m afraid you are out of luck. You can’t see any examples of racism in Japan at all. For example, there are never any anti-Korean rallies, and there is no politician named Ishihara and Hashimoto who routinely spouts racist rhetoric. There are no racist banners ever erected anywhere, and there are no signs outside onsen or restaurants that say “no foreigners allowed.”

      Likewise, I’m quite sure you won’t be able to find any person (other than English teachers, of course) who can tell you a personal story about the discrimination they experienced.

      No, I’m afraid you’ll never be able to confirm the existence of racism in Japan. There simply isn’t any evidence that racism exists, at all, anywhere, in fact.

      • phu

        Reading your posts makes me feel bad for a lot of the angry internet rhetoric I’ve posted myself over the years. Is it really that hard to see someone who doesn’t understand something and reply to their questions in a civil manner, without the biting sarcasm?

        You could have very easily made exactly the same (valid and correct) points without being hostile or patronizing… but you chose not to. That’s a very common choice, but it does nothing to improve the quality of discourse, and it detracts significantly from the good your message could have done.

  • phu

    Certainly. It’s not my intention to downplay the issue itself; I think it’s important and should be discussed and addressed. However, this article (and pretty much everything Arudou writes) fails to address the problem in any useful manner and does not contribute to useful discussion. This author’s main contribution for years has been making it easier for gaijin to be dismissed as irrational and strident.