Postcolonial Citizens and Ethnic Migration

The Netherlands and Japan in the Age of Globalization

Michael O. Sharpe

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137270542
• eBook ISBN: 9781137270559
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Globalisation
• Index: Social Sciences

This book provides a cross-regional investigation of the role of citizenship and ethnicity in migration, political incorporation, and political transnationalism in the age of globalization, exploring the political realities of Dutch Antilleans in the Netherlands and Latin American Nikkeijin in Japan.

1

Postcolonial Citizens, Ethnic Migration, and Political Incorporation in Liberal Democracies: Locating the Dutch and Japanese Cases

As far as the judicial system goes, and constitutional system, we [Dutch Antilleans and Arubans] are Dutch, full stop.

–Dutch Antillean Origin Official of the Dutch
Council of State, 9 January 2007

In any country, if people have blood ties or descendants from that nationality, the same nationality, then of course it is easier to accept those people. It is also true to say in Japan … This … is not limited just to the South American Nikkeijin [Japanese descendants], it also includes of course, the US, China, all around the world, anyone who has got Japanese blood connections.

–Japanese Official of Japan Ministry of Justice’s
Immigration Office, 1 August 2006

The Netherlands is said to be a ‘reluctant country of immigration’ and Japan a ‘latecomer to immigration’ (Cornelius et al., 1994). Both countries present critical cases because, in the last century, these ‘older’ (Dahl, 1989) liberal democracies have had contentious experiences with mass postcolonial citizen and ethnic migrations. If political incorporation is difficult for advantaged legal immigrants, it should be even more daunting for others. Hence, postcolonial citizens and ethnic immigrants in the Netherlands and Japan can act as miners’ canaries (Guinier and Torres, 2002) for all. This book is the first to comparatively shed light on the political stories of Dutch Antillean and Aruban citizens in the Netherlands, and Latin American Nikkeijin (Japanese descendants) in Japan, who inherit host state access as postcolonial citizens and ethnic immigrants. It is among a very few works to investigate cross-regionally the role of citizenship and ethnicity in migration, political incorporation, and political transnationalism in the age of globalization.

Several host states allow legal immigration for their overseas postcolonial citizens and co-ethnics. There is an intuition that legal citizenship or ethnicity will facilitate integration. However, between ongoing legislative attempts to limit immigration and stigmatization in the media, where they are often depicted as criminals, immigrants are often not made to feel welcome in their new homes (Castles and Davidson, 2000). This is the case for Puerto Ricans in the US, Dutch and French Antilleans in the Netherlands and France, Commonwealth immigrants in the United Kingdom, Aussiedler (German descendants) in Germany, and Nikkeijin in Japan.

As Dutch Kingdom¹ members, Dutch Antilleans and Aruban Dutch islanders are legal Dutch citizens/nationals with the right to live, work, and vote in the Netherlands. Latin American Nikkeijin have access to an ethnic visa (teijusha) that allows residence and employment in Japan. Commonsense notions of the Netherlands and Japan lend assumptions that these nations would effectively incorporate their respective overseas citizens and co-ethnics. Many of today’s debates about immigration have to do with arguments around the positive and negative effects of increased ethnic diversity and who should be entitled to legal membership. With 214 million migrants today, many legal residents of immigrant or minority background are effectively excluded from many political systems. By studying the political incorporation of legal immigrants who share either legal citizenship² or dominant ethnicity³ with those of their host society, we can learn a great deal about what impedes or facilitates the political incorporation of all new immigrants and marginalized groups. These issues are of particular relevance to the maintenance of democracy around the world. The book fills a critical gap in studies of globalization and migration.

Globalization and instrumental use of postcolonial Dutch citizenship and Japanese ethnicity

The post-1970s and post-1980s market liberalization associated with globalization⁴ and state policies produced a convergence in the use of citizenship and ethnicity in Dutch Antillean and Aruban (Dutch citizens) (henceforth Antilleans) and Brazilian, Peruvian, and other Latin American Nikkeijin (Japanese descendant) (hereafter Nikkeijin) ethnic migration to the Dutch and Japanese metropoles. In both cases, Dutch citizenship and Japanese ethnicity were used by the state as symbols of inclusion and affinity to solve an international or national crisis or problem that required the extension of some form of membership to appease important political actors. The Netherlands after a brutal Indonesian colonial war tried to improve its international image within the context of international decolonization. As a consequence, Dutch citizenship and equal membership in the Dutch Kingdom were extended to the Dutch Antilles (then including Aruba) with the hope of later independence for these islands.

Japan conceptualizes itself as a homogeneous society and consequentially bans unskilled foreign labour. In an attempt to satisfy its domestic need for low-cost unskilled foreign labour, a political compromise was made in the establishment of a visa for Japanese co-ethnics that provides them free access to the labour market. The actions taken by the Dutch and the Japanese governments have assisted to increase these postcolonial and ethnic migrations to the Netherlands and Japan. In each case, however, legal residence in these metropoles was predicated on a temporary stay and not the increasing permanence that has become more recently apparent.

There have been a number of excellent studies on globalization, labour recruitment, and accelerated illegal migration (Cornelius et al., 1994; 2004; Castles and Miller, 1998; 2003). Hollifield (2000) has noted the insufficient use of citizenship as an explanatory variable in political theory and, more generally, the lack of research on the relationship between immigration and incorporation in political science (Hollifield, 2000:168,175). Despite the obvious popularity of the subject matter, there is little comparative analysis of globalization and the political incorporation and political transnationalism of postcolonial citizen and ethnic legal immigrants. Moreover, there is a dearth of systemic cross-regional comparative analysis of the topic in the historically linked older liberal democracies of the Netherlands and Japan. This book’s analysis contributes new insights to scholarly and policy debates about migration, political incorporation, and political transnationalism of new immigrants and marginalized groups.

The Netherlands and Japan provide a unique opportunity for comparative analysis. They are wealthy, liberal ‘older’ democracies (Dahl, 1989) that share histories of colonialism, trade, and commerce but have different regime types, state policies, national ideologies, political systems, historical contexts, and experiences regarding immigration. The theoretical context of this research lies at the intersection of political science, sociology, and cultural studies and contributes important insights into the factors that produce migrations as well as what limits or facilitates immigrant political incorporation and political transnationalism.

The voices in this book include advocates, immigrants, parliamentarians, city councillors, government officials, bureaucrats, professors, researchers, lawyers, journalists, social workers, community and union leaders, business people, and activists. During interviews, I was often warmly welcomed and told I was the first to ask ‘political’ questions about the migrant groups of my study. My findings on the national, local, and civil society levels in the Netherlands and Japan suggest that the legal Dutch citizenship of Antilleans and the Japanese ethnicity of Nikkeijin that have enabled legal emigration have not necessarily led to their political incorporation or political transnationalism.⁵ Instead, a symbolic politics created around the extension of membership on the basis of citizenship or ethnicity in order to solve a political problem or to gain political leverage has facilitated migrations, but, in both cases, this has been without a clear accompanying policy strategy of accommodation. Political incorporation and political transnationalism are not necessarily based on sharing the same cultural background, legal citizenship, or class status. I argue shared citizenship with a common thread of ‘civic’ and ‘liberal’ ideology in the Netherlands, and ethnicity in an ‘ethnically exclusive’ and ‘conservative’ Japan does not necessarily lead to immigrant political incorporation. Based on six years of research, my analysis demonstrates that regime type, limited political opportunity structure, along with the difficulties of small group size, language, and a ‘myth of return’ hinders immigrant political incorporation. I contend home country level of dependency on migrant remittances, electoral rules and practices that complicate overseas voting, and a dearth of active host country ethnic advocacy organizations further limit the emergence of political transnationalism.

Re-ethnicization in the Netherlands and de-ethnicization in Japan?

In course of conducting interviews, I observe a marked contrast between the pragmatic, modest, sometimes open collared clothing worn by some Dutch politicians and the conservative dark suits and neckties of Japanese politicians⁶ in their parliaments, small details which bolster the impression that some take as reflective of the ethos of the two respective countries. However, in spite of generally held notions about the Netherlands’ civic and Japan’s ethnic orientations, my findings suggest that the traditionally liberal, tolerant, multicultural Netherlands seems to be re-ethnicizing (rein-forcing ties with emigrants abroad across foreign born generations) in ways that privilege Dutch ethnicity, while Japan appears to be de-ethnicizing (easing access for all immigrants) (Bartolini, 2000; Joppke, 2003). This is visible in the Netherlands in the classification of Antilleans and their descendants in official categories of ‘Niet Westers allochtoon’ or ‘non-Western’ ‘non-native’ Dutch, a reversal of previous multicultural policies, in assimilatory integration tests, and in home country remigration policies for ethnic minorities. Additional indicators are increased barriers to naturalization and dual nationality and eased access to Dutch nationality and dual nationality for overseas former Dutch nationals. In contrast, despite an ethnic visa and tendency towards revisionist history, Japan, which is commonly thought of as illiberal, conservative, and monocultural, appears to be in some ways de-ethnicizing. Signs of this include: obstacles to Nikkeijin co-ethnic inclusion, a recent program to repatriate Nikkeijin, decreased barriers to naturalization, rising naturalizations from the long-excluded Zainichi Korean and Chinese communities, some local government policy innovation for foreign residents, and a contentious recognition of an increasingly multicultural Japan.

Although racism and discrimination are important factors facing the Antilleans and Nikkeijin communities in the Netherlands and Japan, they do not appear to be the most important factors limiting political incorporation. Some Dutch Caribbeans, particularly Creole (African descent) Surinamese, are now counted as among the most socio-economically and educationally better off of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. A member of Dutch parliament echoed a sentiment raised by many that the issue in the Netherlands ‘is not black vs. white but more Muslim and non-Muslim’.⁷ Klausen (2005) points out that Muslims are simply an important ‘new interest group’ and ‘new constituency’ in European political systems (Klausen, 2005:3). In contrast to the increasing naturalizations of Zainichi Koreans and ethnic Chinese in Japan, most Latin American Nikkeijin in Japan lack Japanese citizenship and hence voting rights. In both the Netherlands and Japan, political parties prioritize and seek out older excluded and larger groups such as Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands and Zainichi Koreans and Chinese in Japan, rather than recent immigrant co-nationals or co-ethnics. This has much more to do with the relative size and status of these potential constituencies than a politics of affinity due to shared citizenship or co-ethnicity.

Factors limiting Antillean and Nikkeijin political incorporation

Some argue that a political culture engendered by the legacies of colonialism and slavery limits Antillean political incorporation and political transnationalism (Fennema and Tillie, 2001). However, I find this explanation relatively insufficient. Despite histories of colonialism and dependence, the two most populated Dutch islands Aruba and Curaçao have and maintain active and participatory civic cultures characterized by contentious elections and a rich associational life. The indicators of a contemporary liberal democracy are present including regular and peaceful democratic alternations of governing parties and coalitions, rule of law, independent judiciary, and guaranteed political and civil liberties. Ethnicity can be an important factor in Antillean politics. Although the Dutch media often portrays Curaçaoan as well as other Antillean and Aruban politics as plagued by clientelism, patronage, and corruption, these Dutch islands display medium to high voter turnout, as well as participation in local referenda and civil society organizations.

However, it seems Antilleans do not yet have enough of a shared political identity to present a cleavage in formal Dutch politics. In many interviews, the importance of organizations was pointed out. There are a few formal Antillean organizations headed by assimilated elites who are often at great social distance from the more recent lower class arrivals from the islands. Although there are many informal Antillean social cultural organizations, they are generally engaged in service delivery, are rarely political, and exhibit a characteristic lack of a shared Antillean identity. By the time Dutch political parties and immigrants found each other in the 1990s, there was only a fragmented Antillean political identity and limited available funding for Antillean political advocacy organizations under the Integration Policy. I contend that civil society has been restructured in the Netherlands through the transformation of the Dutch system of government funding for ethnic minority groups under the ‘Minorities Policy’ to an assimilationist oriented ‘Integration Policy’. This kind of policy tends not to fund ethnic organizations and provides few incentives for Antillean organizing around political advocacy. Moreover, Antillean ambivalence about a Dutch or an Antillean political identity compounds and undermines their political organizing.

Along with the fact the Netherlands has characteristic low trade union membership, my research indicates that there is much higher unemployment among immigrants and ethnic minorities in comparison to the native Dutch. My findings suggest that unions have tended to look out for the interests of their members and not necessarily Antilleans.

Similar to the Dutch case, I find there is very limited Nikkeijin political incorporation in Japan. Although there has been some policy innovation on the local level towards immigrants and ethnic minorities, this has been for most part inadequate and lacks central local policy coordination. There is a conspicuous lack of Nikkeijin civil society organizations that are dedicated to political advocacy. When asked why there are limited Nikkeijin organizations that engage in political advocacy, the responses varied. These ranged from cultural arguments, for example, a suggestion that Latin Americans are simply disorganized, to the belief that the Nikkeijin are fixated on repatriation to Latin America. I contend that the structure of Japanese civil society, which, up until recently, made it very difficult to incorporate and engage in political advocacy, has limited Nikkeijin immigrant political incorporation.

Formal electoral politics and party systems

Proportional representation and multiparty systems are argued to be particularly favourable for the inclusion of women and minorities (Lijphart, 1968; 1984; 1994; 1999). In the early 1990s, Japan reformed its former one-party dominated multimember district electoral system to a mixed-member system combining single-member districts and proportional representation. This has resulted in more long-excluded groups a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Postcolonial Citizens, Ethnic Migration, and Political Incorporation in Liberal Democracies: Locating the Dutch and Japanese Cases
• 2. Convergence? Globalization and State Policies in the Production of Postcolonial Citizen and Ethnic Migration
• 3. Old and New Nationalisms, Pre-migration Political Legacies
• 4. What Does Postcolonial Dutch Citizenship Mean in Political Terms? 1985–2008
• 5. Constructing the Nation: Japanese Emigration and Immigration from the late 19th to the 21st Century
• 6. Is Blood Thicker than Water Politically? Latin American Nikkeijin in Japan 1990–2008
• 7. Political Transnationalism in Question: What Limits the Political Transnationalism of ‘Transnational’ Groups in Liberal Democracies 1985–2008?
• 8. Conclusion – Inheriting the State: Contextualizing the Future of Postcolonial and Ethnic Migration and Political Inclusion
• Appendix
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index