Paper short abstract:

This presentation argues the characteristics of the new migration policy in Japan by analyzing the policy and media reports on the revision of the Immigration Law. It points out that the policy's dual characteristics reflect Japan's ambiguity with its own position between "West" and "Asia."

Paper long abstract:

In 2019, Japan introduced a new migration policy for accepting migrant workers in fourteen industrial sectors. It was the first time the Japanese government admitted the reception of migrant workers due to a labor shortage. This presentation will argue the characteristics of the new policy in Japan. As a late-comer among migrant-receiving countries, the reports about Japan's migration policy in the media tend to refer to similar policies in other countries. However, the major countries of reference over the thirty years have been changing, from European countries such as Germany to East Asian countries such as South Korea and Taiwan. It leads to a legitimization of the "quasi-" guest worker program for low-skilled migrant workers because, unlike in European countries, these Asian countries run the guest worker programs for low-skilled workers, and they do not allow family reunification or access to permanent residency (Seol and Skrentny 2009). On the other hand, Japan's new system opens the ability for migrant workers, though in the limited sectors, to bring their family and access permanent residency after they have worked for five years. This differentiates its system from the "pure" guest worker programs in other Asian countries. In this context, this presentation will trace the dual characteristics of Japan's migration policy by analyzing media reports on the revision of the Immigration Control Acts of 1990 and 2019, as well as the policy itself. It argues that the media reports deal with "Datsu-Ou Nyu-A" (脱欧入亜)—the change from Europe to Asia in the countries of reference. However, the actual policy that permits family reunification and access to permanent residency reflects Japan's ambiguity with its own position in the modern era.