When ethnic returnees are de facto guestworkers: What does the introduction of Latin American Japanese Nikkeijin (Japanese descendants) (LAN) suggest for Japan's definition of nationality, citizenship, and immigration policy?

Abstract

Japan officially bans unskilled foreign labor. A 1990 change in Japanese immigration law provides Nikkeijin (Japanese descendants) a renewable visa that allows them to live and work in Japan on the basis of their Japanese blood descent. 1 Some argue this was a government initiated de facto guestworker program to satisfy demands for cheap labor under the guise of a policy to facilitate “ethnic return” migration. Since 1990, over 300,000 Latin American Japanese (LAN) descendants have emigrated to Japan. However, despite Japanese mythic notions of common ethnic ancestry and ethnic affinity, a spring 2009 program facilitates the paid voluntary repatriation of unemployed Latin American Nikkeijin workers. This article discusses these policies and programs what they imply for the realities of Japan's immigration policy and society. The findings suggest an emergent separation of the traditional notion of a simultaneous Japanese nationality and citizenship away from jus sanguinus with ethnicity less of a criteria for membership and point to a need for a more coordinated approach to Japanese immigration policy amidst the growing realities of an increasingly multicultural society. 1 There is some ambiguity as to the distinctions between definitions of ethnicity and nationality ( Castles and Davidson, 2000, pp. 12–13; Lie, 2001, p. 3; Castles and Miller, 2003, p. 41). Following Hobsbawn (1990, p. 8) and Lie (2001, p. 3), the terms nationality and ethnicity are defined here respectively as, “any sufficiently large body of people whose members regard themselves as members of a ‘nation’ as a national or ethnic group” ( Lie, 2001, p. 3). Citizenship is normally defined as legal membership that includes a broad range of civil, political, and social rights, i.e. in the “legal sense to designate the formal status of membership in a political community” ( Bosniak, 2001, pp. 240–241). As Castles and Davidson (2000, p. vii) note the “pivotal right is that of participation in law-making and government”. Although Sassen (2006, p. 281) points out that the terms citizenship and nationality essentially refer to the same concept and others note they are sometimes used interchangeably, I draw some distinctions in the Japanese case in this paper. As argued by Lie (2001, p. 144), in Japanese there is not an “intrinsic” distinction between shiminken (citizenship) and kokuseki (nationality). In his view, shiminken is generally regarded as a foreign concept and kokuseki is an extension of koseki (household or family registry) and thus denoting nationality as an “extension of the family”. Minzoku (ethnics) are also sometimes referred to as nationals ( Lie, 2001, pp. 144–145). Pak (2006, p. 85) suggests the term shimin (citizen) rather than kokumin (national) is a more inclusive term used by Japanese intellectuals, politicians, leftists, progressives, and some local governments to refer to “local citizenship” that is more reflective of participatory democracy. This may include foreigners (without formal legal Japanese nationality/citizenship), minorities, women, civil society, and social movements.