The Challenges and Opportunities of Transnational Migration for Local Governments in the...

The Challenges and Opportunities of Transnational Migration for Global Metropolises in the Asia Pacifi cCase Studies of Hong Kong, Tokyo and Vancouver

Stephen Robert Nagy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Abstract

Th e international Asia Pacifi c cities of Hong Kong, Tokyo and Vancouver have promi-nent roles in the movement of migrants, as they are fi nancial, employment and educational centers that both send and receive large numbers of migrants within the region. Each city harnesses the potential of migrants diff erently, resulting in diff erent degrees of control, in-tegration or exclusion of migrants. Employing international relations theories of migration, this paper examines the behaviors of the local governments of Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Vancouver in integrating migrants. In particular, this paper investigates the role of local governments in facilitating Asia Pacifi c migration into their localities in an eff ort to enhance local prosperity, and how that objective can be interpreted through international relations theories on migration.Keywords: Asia Pacifi c, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Vancouver, local governments, migration

Introduction

Hand in hand with the development of economies in East Asia, we have seen the tradi-

tional fl ows of migrants from East to West and South to North give way to more complex

transnational migratory patterns (Martin and Widgren 2002: 9). In the Asia Pacifi c, grow-

ing economic, political and cultural interconnectivity is exemplifi ed by the large volume

of multi-directional migration (Castles and Miller 1998: 38).1

In 2009, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pa-

cifi c (ESCAP) reported that the Asia Pacifi c was home to at least 53 million of the world’s

191 million migrants (United Nations 2010). Th is volume of migrants moving temporar-

ily or permanently in the region allows for the transfer of overseas remittances and cultural

exchanges, and it fi lls existing and predicted vacuums in employment.

Th ere are social, economic and political explanations for the prevalence of migration.

Castles and Miller (1998: 182) stress that migration is a natural by-product of a global-

Asia Pacifi c World 4(2), Autumn 2013: 55–80 © Asia Pacifi c Worlddoi:10.3167/apw.2013.040205

Stephen Robert Nagy

56 • Asia Pacifi c World • Volume 4 Number 2 • Autumn 2013

ized world, and that if we welcome the movement of capital, goods and information that

it is only natural to permit the movement of people as well. Other scholars divide their

migration analysis into micro and macro forms of neo-classical economic theory, stressing

the dichotomy between the macro-level pressures that compel or make migration possible,

and the micro-level aspect of individual choice (Massey et al. 1993). Still other academ-

ics have argued that no one theory can explain all the diff erent motivations, factors and

variables that explain why people migrate, and thus they advocate a more case-by-case

approach (Portes 1997).

Aside from explanations about the factors behind migration, other scholars such as

Lie (2008) highlight some of the consequences of migration in the Asia Pacifi c such as

diasporic nationalism, in which migrants of particular ethnic groups (for example, Koreans

in Japan) attach themselves to a territory (in this case Korea) in an eff ort to mitigate the

challenges of living in a foreign country.

Whereas Lie examines transnational identities of migrants, Cornelius et al. (1994)

introduce migrant scholars to the plethora of strategies used by states to control the move-

ment of migrants as well as migrant settlement. Comparing latecomers to immigration

(Spain, Japan, Italy) to countries with more experience with immigration (the UK, US,

Canada), they found that there were many migration models and integration schemes that

were attempting to address each countries’ migration needs. For these authors, regional

labor markets, free trade agreements, and economies shifting from a manufacturing-based

economy to a service-based economy have all been contributing factors in the movement

of people not only in the Asia Pacifi c, but globally.

Th e international Asia Pacifi c cities of Hong Kong, Tokyo and Vancouver have promi-

nent roles in the movement of migrants, as they are fi nancial, employment and educational

centers that both send and receive large numbers of migrants. Each city harnesses the

potential of migrants diff erently, resulting in diff erent degrees of control, integration or

exclusion of migrants. Each city is part of what Cohen (1981) and Friedmann (1986) argue

are cities that are integral parts of the way international capital fl ows (Findlay et al. 1996).

Aside from the rural-urban fi nancial gap, cultural, political, economic and social capital in-

creases the lure of these cities as migrant destinations (Friedmann 1986). Th eir geographi-

cal locations and agglomeration of head or regional offi ces have transformed these cities

into nexus points for globalization, making them meccas for professional and non-profes-

sional migrants, and starting points for the study of migration (Sassen 2001: 19–36).

Th is paper examines the behaviors of the local governments of Hong Kong, Tokyo,

and Vancouver in integrating migrants, and the congruity of this behavior with interna-

tional relations (IR) views on migration. It will investigate the role of local governments2

in facilitating Asia Pacifi c migration to their localities to enhance local prosperity. Th e fi rst

section will examine IR theories concerning migration to provide a framework to under-

stand the connection between migration and international relations, in particular how

states view migration in relation to their own national imperatives. Th e author recognizes

that other fi elds in the social sciences have also made contributions to theories related to

migration, but for the purpose of drawing a connection between state imperatives and

Asia Pacifi c World • Volume 4 Number 2 • Autumn 2013 • 57

The Challenges and Opportunities of Transnational Migration for Global Metropolises

migration policy, the author will limit this analysis to IR theoretical views of migration

while fully acknowledging that these theoretical views on migration are not unique to the

fi eld of IR. Th e second section will introduce empirical data related to migrants in the Asia

Pacifi c. Th e third section will then discuss the migrant/migration policies of Tokyo, Hong

Kong and Vancouver. Lastly, the three case studies presented will be analyzed using the IR

theories introduced in the following section.

By comparing the three Asia Pacifi c cities of Hong Kong, Tokyo and Vancouver, this

paper demonstrates that it is not only states which have a vested interest in adopting prag-

matic migration policies in line with national imperatives, but also local governments.

Th is paper challenges traditional notions that migration policy can only be developed at

the state level for national imperatives, and highlights that more harmonization between

the state and local governments in terms of migrant policies can provide for the needs of

localities by targeting local needs. Instead of treating international relations policy and mi-

gration policy as the sole purview of the state, this research asserts that local governments

can and should adopt migrant policies that refl ect their international relations impera-

tives. Th e case studies of Hong Kong, Tokyo and Vancouver, with their varied migration

history are useful as they exemplify how local governments can orient their cities’ devel-

opment trajectory to better refl ect their geographical position, migrant histories, trade

patterns and social priorities.

Th is research employed Japanese and English language government publications,

policy papers and reports to conduct a comparative policy analysis of local government

migrant policies. Moreover, from April 2002 to 2008, the author conducted fi eldwork in

Tokyo and Vancouver on local government migrant polices as part of the author’s PhD

dissertation, and also worked as an employee of a local government in Tokyo. Th is fi eld-

work included research on Canadian migrant policies at the state and local government

level in Vancouver to draw an international comparison of local responses to migrants.

Furthermore, it included discussions with local Vancouver city offi cials about their poli-

cies, while attending workshops and symposia. Hong Kong was chosen as the third case

study city as it has an autonomous migration policy and it has been both a sender and a

recipient of migrants since the 1950s. It is also the author’s current place of employment

since November 2009, providing the author access to government documents and offi cials

working in the Immigration Bureau.

International Relations Perspectives in Immigration and National Prosperity

When viewing migration/migrant policies, several diff erent paradigms can be utilized.

Th is paper focuses on IR theories of migration and how IR scholars relate IR theories to

migration and national prosperity. Th e analytical focus will be on prosperity at the local

municipality level. Th e discussion will be centered on local governments’ migrant policies

and how they maximize their local prosperity.

Stephen Robert Nagy


IR theories can conceptualize national prosperity through, among others, realist/neo-

realist, liberal/neo-liberal, neo-liberal institutionalism, and global world theory approaches.

Each perspective has a diff erent role for the state in securing state stability and prosperity.

Moreover, each theory links migration to national prosperity diff erently. For the purpose

of limiting the parameters of discussion, this paper will focus on fi ve IR views on mi-

gration, specifi cally, realism, liberalism, neo-liberal institutionalism, global world theory

and human security. In contrast to IR theories such as Marxism/Leninism which explain

international migration and colonialism as a natural consequence of capitalist develop-

ment (Luxemburg 1968), or an unequal capitalist world system of exchange (Portes and

Walton 1981), the above theories in the context of this paper will center their focus on

the migrant and motivation of the state/local government for integrating, excluding or

controlling migrants’ movements, and relate the discussion to how closely current migrant

policies at the local level resonate with the aforementioned IR theories.

Realists/neo-realists see migration policy as a tool to bring about national prosperity.

States open and close their doors to migrants in accordance to their state imperatives (Zol-

berg 1981: 11). Similarly, Teitelbaum (1984: 430–431), using the example of the United

States, asserts that security, economic, and ideological necessities are intimately linked to

migration and migration policies. Illustrative examples include Israel welcoming Jewish

immigrants as a counterweight to growing Arab populations, and migration into Canada as

a means of consolidating territory, enhancing agricultural production and fi lling a vacuum

in labor resources. In each case, states are choosing to accept or reject immigrants based on

national imperatives which include economic considerations, security and social stability.

Liberal/neo-liberal perspectives on migration and the state can be encapsulated in

states linking their national prosperity and stability to economic interdependence. In

short, security-based or military-based concerns related to migration go hand in hand

with social and economic considerations (Viotti and Kauppi 1987). A natural conse-

quence of that interdependence includes the free movement of people between partnering

nations. Th is movement of people brings with it capital that further deepens economic

relations and enhances national prosperity.

Neo-liberal institutionalists are best exemplifi ed by the European Union (EU)’s insti-

tutionalized freedom of movement for EU citizens. Here, states embed interdependence

in the region through weaving a seamless economic tapestry that acts as the highway for

the free movement of people. Th is is enhanced by agreements such as those of the Bolo-

gna Process which allow for one-year study abroad in EU countries, the right to vote in

local elections after a minimum residency period and the freedom to work in any of the

members states (Tanaka and Kim 2006: 76–77). Highly-developed institutionalization

facilitates the movement of people in the EU to increase prosperity.

Although partially successful in the EU, many scholars have argued that the lack of

institutionalization outside the EU is refl ective of strong ties to sovereignty and security

which decrease incentives for transnational institutionalization. (Zolberg 1991, 1992;

Hollifi eld 1992; Cornelius et al. 1994). Other scholars suggest that EU-like, neo-liberal

institutionalization runs counter to the national imperatives of the many states which



are preoccupied with maintaining sovereignty and protecting their non-interference prin-

ciples, both of which would be compromised if some form of international organization

were to mediate migration norms (Acharya 2007).

Global World theorists see globalization as an overwhelming phenomenon, making it

diffi cult for the state to fully protect the interests of its citizens from global crises. If states

cannot control the fl ow of capital in the world, how can we expect them to control the

fl ow of migrants (Soysal 1994; Strange 1996; Sassen 1996a; Castles 1998: 182)? Sassen

conceptualizes this free fl ow of capital as a consequence of economic globalization result-

ing in the erosion of “exclusive territoriality” (1996b: 9). In this sense, states cannot hope

to maintain liberal trade regimes while controlling migration, and as a consequence, states

must develop ways to leverage the migrants for national or local purposes.

Whereas the state has been made impotent by the forces of globalization from the per-

spective of Global World theorists, Human Security theorists advocate individual-based

security as part of state-based security, with migrants being empowered by the focusing

on individual security. Here, human security is widely understood as a policy that stresses

“freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.” Th e former stresses economic security and

stability while the latter emphasizes protection from state-sanctioned violence against the

individual. Th is distinction is important as the latter implies that other states who abide

by this interpretation of human security should intervene in some manner to protect

individuals from the perpetrating state. Th is obviously raises questions about sovereignty

and non-interference, norms that are heavily guarded by states around the world, making

human security a problematic policy to adopt when thinking about migration.

Human security as an approach to formulate migration policy has other drawbacks.

For example, Lizée (2002: 513) argues that “groups and individuals … could well want

to defi ne their hopes and priorities in terms of human rights or social welfare, and not

in the terms set by the state.” From this standpoint, policy makers seek to maximize the

individual security of the migrant through strong domestic policy enforcement as well as

cooperation with international institutions.

In short, human security-based migration policy can empower migrants by securing

their economic security and stability. States or local governments that design migration

policy employing human security can be said to be designing a policy that empowers mi-

grants to contribute to local or national prosperity.

Migration in the Asia Pacifi c: Hong Kong, Tokyo and Vancouver

Hong Kong, Tokyo and Vancouver were chosen as case studies because their geographi-

cal locations in the Asia Pacifi c region, patterns of trade, and interconnectedness of their

economies has created regional connectivity exemplifi ed in trade, business and invest-

ment patterns (Woo 2002). Furthermore, migration fl ow and demographic changes in

each city demonstrate that each city is becoming more Asian in demographic profi le, and

commentaries as early as 1997 have been calling Vancouver “Asia’s new capital” (Spaeth

Stephen Robert Nagy


and Kootnikoff 1997: 28). Although it would be problematic to claim that Vancouver is

geographically an Asian city, the dramatic change in ethnic distribution and its Asia Pa-

cifi c-oriented economy and trade patterns highlight Lowry and McCann (2011) and Ong

(2007)’s descriptions of Vancouver as an “Extraterritorial Asian City.”

Shifting our view to each individual city, in December 2010, the Tokyo Metropolis

(TM) was home to over 422,000 migrants (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Statistics

2010b). Th e increase in the number of migrants over the thirty-year period up to 2010

can be seen in Figure 1. Th is number includes Special Permanent Residents, Permanent

Residents, long term residents and residents who hold a foreign registration card, found

working in most sectors of the economy.

According to the Hong Kong Immigration Department, out of a total population of

6,864,346 in 2006, non-ethnic Chinese migrants comprised approximately 5.9%, and

included Migrant Domestic Workers (MDW), day laborers, construction workers and

migrants who work in various types of services industries (see Figure 2). Specifi c numbers

of foreigners residing in Hong Kong, over a fi fteen-year period, can be seen in Figure 3.

In 2006, immigrants made up approximately 39.6% of Vancouver’s population com-

pared with 28.7% in 1986, exemplifying the magnitude of Vancouver’s transition to an

immigrant city (see Table 1). Th e migrant population has boomed in Vancouver since

1986, owing to several factors including concerns related to Hong Kong’s return to China

in 1997, a pragmatic stance by the Canadian government to stimulate the Canadian econ-

omy with investor visas,3 and the fact that Vancouver already had well-established ethnic

communities, including Chinese, Punjabi and Japanese (Ley and Kobayashi 2005). Table

1 shows the specifi c numbers and percentages of immigrants residing in Vancouver, over

a twenty-year period.

Figure 1: Increase in Registered Migrants from the Total Population in Tokyo, 1980 to 2010

Source: Data from Tokyo Metropolitan Government Statistics 2010a, 2010b.



Table 1: Immigrant Population in Metro-Vancouver in 1986, 1996, 2001 and 2006

1986 1996 2001 2006

Total Population 1,362,025 1,813,935 1,967,480 2,097,960

Immigrant Population 391,515 633,745 738,550 831,265

Immigrants as Proportion of Total Population

28.7% 34.9% 37.5% 39.6%

Source: Data from Metro Vancouver 2008 and Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2005.

Figure 2: Nationality of Population in Hong Kong, 2006

Source: Census and Statistics Department [C&SD] 2007a: 12. Used with permission.

Figure 3: Foreign Population in Hong Kong, 1991–2006

Source: Calculated from the data of C&SD 2007b.

Stephen Robert Nagy


Local Government Migrant Policies

Each of these three cities has experienced an infl ux of migrants. In Tokyo, migrants initially

began percolating through front door, side door and back door routes to fi ll the vacuum in

blue collar work in the 1980s (Komai 1992). Front door migrants are legal migrants with

specifi c skills, abilities or capital. Th ese kinds of migrants fi nd work in overseas subsidiar-

ies, as investors or educators living in good working conditions and environments. Side

door migrants include trainees, students, entertainers, and Nikkeijin visitors (Tsuda 2006).

Th e so-called trainees usually come to Japan through government organized training pro-

grams that provide on-the-job training in small to mid-sized companies. Trainees receive

very modest compensation, a place to stay and in some cases food for their fi rst year. De-

pending on the program they take part in, they can renew their contract.

Students studying in Japan fall under two categories, pre-college and college. Both are

entitled to work if they have the correct permit, but they have diff erent limitations on the

maximum number of hours they can work.

Entertainers are migrants who come to Japan to work in the arts and entertainment

sector. Th eir number has been scaled back tremendously after Japan decided to reduce

human traffi cking into Japan after being placed on the United States State Department's

Tier 2 Warning List for Traffi cking in 2003.

An additional source of migrants stems from the 1990 Immigration Law revision al-

lowing those of Japanese ancestry to come and work in Japan freely (Vogt 2007). Since

that time, migrants have continued to fl ow into Japan until reaching a peak in 2008 (see

Figure 4).

Vancouver has seen a dramatic transformation in its ethnic landscape owing directly to

migration from Asia beginning in the 1990s. Migrants from East Asia, in particular Tai-

wan and Hong Kong, viewed Canada in general, and especially British Columbia’s Van-

Figure 4: Changes in the Number of Registered Foreign Nationals, and Their Percentage of the Total Population in Japan, 1950–20094

Source: Data from Ministry of Justice (MOJ) 2009: 22; MOJ 2010.



couver in particular, as an area within the Asia Pacifi c region that off ered geographic

proximity to their homelands, with a familiar pre-existing Asian immigrant population

with established transnational cultural, social and economic links between Canada and

Asia (Edgington et al. 2006). Vancouver was also a place to escape the political and insti-

tutional uncertainties of the handover of Hong Kong to China, the turmoil of the 1989

Tiananmen Square Incident and mounting tensions between Taiwan and China (Ley and

Kobayashi 2005; Li 2005). Migrants from the East Asia region with fi nancial resources

pragmatically choose to acquire Canadian citizenship for security and to benefi t from the

accessible higher-level education system off ered as part of Canada’s welfare state regime.

Th ese people “constituted the largest proportion of migrants who came to Canada under

the Business Immigration Program” (Froschauer 2001). Th e Canadian government, on

the other hand, saw migrants from Asia not so much as political migrants, but rather as

economic migrants who could fuel economic development and entrepreneurship, and

contribute to lowering unemployment rates both regionally and nationally (Canada Im-

migration Visa 2003).

Under the Business Immigration plan forwarded by the Canadian government in early

1976 (Harrison 1996; Ley 2003), business migrants could apply for residency and citi-

zenship under one of three schemes: (1) the Self-Employment Programme (SEP), (2) the

Investor Programme (IP), or (3) the Entrepreneur Programme (EP) (BCME/MRMHR

1994). According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), the IP and EP appli-

cants must “[c]ontrol a percentage of equity of a qualifying Canadian business equal to or

greater than 331/3%, [p]rovide active and ongoing management of the qualifying Canadian

business, and [c]reate at least one incremental full-time job equivalent for one or more Ca-

nadian citizens or permanent residents” (CIC 2011). Th e IP migrant must have business experience and have “managed a qualifying business and controlled a percentage of equity of a qualifying business for at least two years in the period beginning fi ve years before the

date of application,” or “managed at least fi ve full-time job equivalents per year in a busi-

ness for at least two years in the period beginning fi ve years before the date of application,”

and “must have a personal net worth of at least CDN $1,600,000” (ibid.). Lastly, the SEP

“must have relevant experience within the fi ve-year period immediately preceding the date

of application” in addition to a minimum fi nancial investment (ibid.).

Vancouver has been a top destination choice for many Asian migrants because of its

established fl ow of capital and people from East Asia since the 1980s, the province-specifi c

Business Immigration plan (Wong and Ng 2002), and climate (Statistics Canada 2003:

14). Th e Business Immigration system and its province-specifi c criteria facilitated large

volumes of migrants settling in Vancouver. To illustrate, in 2009, out of a total of 41,434

recognized migrants, 29,455 individuals hailed from East Asia (British Columbia Statis-

tics 2010). In terms of the overall population of Metro-Vancouver, CIC cites that more

than 50% of the population hails from Asian countries (CIC 2011).

Where Vancouver has attempted to create an attractive destination for migrants based

on its Asia Pacifi c location, identity and economic needs, Hong Kong has inculcated

a structural dependency for migrant labor beginning in the 1980s, as foreign domestic

Stephen Robert Nagy


workers were admitted into Hong Kong to allow Hong Kong women, especially mar-

ried mothers in average income households, to go back to work (Chan 2006). Infl uxes

of migrants from Mainland China have also signifi cantly increased Hong Kong’s migrant

population.

Th e treatment of migrants and migration in Hong Kong has evolved since the 1950s.

Initially, China did not recognize Hong Kong’s independent nature and interest in con-

trolling the fl ow of migrants, considering Hong Kong residents and mainland residents

to be the same (Dicks 1983; Mushkat 1986). Migrants simply could come and go freely.

Th e relative prosperity and political turmoil starting in the mid-50s including the “Great

Leap Forward” in China led to a great infl ux of migrants into Hong Kong and a change in

Hong Kong’s stance vis-à-vis migration. Hong Kong did not have the capacity to absorb

all the incomers, and had to close its doors to the free movement of people (Chen 1988:

638; Endacott 1964: 5, 1973: 310; Hong Kong Government Information Service 1952:

23).

Th e Cultural Revolution in the 1960s further cemented the idea that there was a

strong need to keep Hong Kong and the Mainland separated because of ideological and

economic diff erences and capacity limitations. Th e Mainland also imposed strict exit con-

trols on Chinese to Hong Kong in the 1950s and 1960s to prevent a continued unwanted

Table 2: Immigrants by Top Ten Countries of Birth, Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area, 2001 (number and percentage distribution)

Countries All immigrants Share

1 China, People's Republic of 101,770 14%

2 Hong Kong 85,990 12%

3 United Kingdom 69,110 9%

4 India 67,830 9%

5 Philippines 46,220 6%

6 Taiwan 43,760 6%

7 United States 23,070 3%

8 Vietnam 22,140 3%

9 South Korea 20,730 3%

10 Iran 17,620 2%

Top ten countries 498,240 67%

All other countries 240,310 33%

Total 738,550 100%

Source: Data from CIC 2005.



exodus of citizens from China to Hong Kong. As a result of restrictions on both sides of

the border and the eventual return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Hong Kong devel-

oped a migrant acceptance scheme that balanced growing interconnectedness with China

while maintaining its position in the global economy.

Migrant Policies in Practice

Japan’s approaches to migrant policies at the local level are intertwined with state migra-

tion policies, resulting in an accidental division of labor between the state and local gov-

ernments (Nagy 2008a). In short, the Alien Registration Law and Local Government Law

have made local governments responsible for the social welfare of migrants living within

their administrative boundaries, while the state remains in control of entry of migrants

through immigration laws, reciprocal economic partnership agreements (EPAs), trainee

systems and the establishment of front door, back door and side door migration policies

(Vogt 2007).

Within Tokyo, municipalities have initiated “multicultural coexistence” plans which

attempt to manage migrants. Th e primary aim of these plans is to provide migrants with

access to administrative services that they are legally entitled to under the Alien Regis-

tration Law. Leading local governments in Tokyo such as Shinjuku, Adachi and Tachi-

kawa are forging ahead with policies designed to facilitate the lives of migrants in their

communities through a policy plan based on four pillars: communication assistance, life-

style assistance, institutionalization of multicultural coexistence, and the creation of a

multicultural coexistent locality in line with the 2007 Ministry of Internal Aff airs and

Communications Report on the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence that articulates

multicultural coexistence in the following manner:

Local multicultural coexistence refers to people of diff erent cultures and ethnic backgrounds living alongside one another as contributors to civil society, and the building of bridges be-tween each other through the acceptance of each other’s culture (Sōmushō 2006: 5).

Centered on the provision of access to services for migrants for newcomers and rights-

based services for old-comers in their districts, local governments in Tokyo are attempt-

ing to make the lives of migrants living in Japan more manageable and less disruptive to

Japanese residents in the community (Nagy 2008b).

Beginning in the 1980s, local governments in Tokyo and Japan began to create oppor-

tunities for migrants to have access to the same rights and abide by the same obligations

as Japanese residents. Up to this period, migrants did not have access to national health

care schemes, unemployment insurance, health care and other services provided by local

governments because of “nationality” requirements. Th is was especially problematic in the

situation of Zainichi Kankokujin (resident Koreans). Th ese residents of Korean ancestry

can trace their roots to the Japanese colonialization period of 1910. Having lived in Japan

for generations, they have largely assimilated into mainstream society both linguistically

Stephen Robert Nagy


and culturally while at the same time many have retained their Korean (North or South)

citizenship, out of an apparent sense of what John Lie calls “diasporic nationalism” (Lie

2008: 116–117). Th eir political and rights isolation diff ered from the issues faced by

Zainichi Gaikokujin (resident foreigners, including those of Korean heritage) who began

coming to Japan in the 1980s, as the latter faced language and cultural barriers.

Local governments circumvented this nationality requirement in two ways. First, us-

ing United Nations Human Rights rubrics and the preamble outlined in the Convention

on the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families (CRMWF), local governments ar-

gued for the provision of social welfare programs for migrants living in their administra-

tive borders. Second, local governments supported their argument to provide services to

migrants using the Local Government Law, which stated that local governments must

provide for all legal residents, which included non-Japanese migrants.

In an incremental manner, local governments in Tokyo and across Japan have begun to

off er the same services to migrants as they ostensibly off er to Japanese residents. Th is fi rst

manifested itself as access to health care, unemployment benefi ts, child subsidies and pen-

sions in the early 1980s. After realizing that access, although no longer limited by nation-

ality limitations, local governments understood that language and cultural barriers were

the next hurdle to cross for local migrants. As such, in the late 1980s local governments

provided newcomers multilingual information, rudimentary language training and cultural

assistance, so that they could not only get access to the rights entitled to them under Japa-

nese law but also be cognizant of their obligations as residents. Th is included information

about school enrolment, vaccinations, child subsidies and how and when to pay taxes.

Th e convergence towards the provision of services for foreign residents came in the

form of local governments successfully lobbying higher levels of government to remove

nationality requirements from public housing. Local governments are now able to provide

housing to migrants at the same subsidized costs as Japanese citizens with no barriers or

obstacles for migrants owing to citizenship.

Th ere have also been movements in terms of access to start-up loans for legal migrants,

and opportunities to liaise and work with local chambers of commerce and be involved

in local urban planning as part of multinational committees that recommend policies to

local governments (Adachi Ku Kuminbu, Kokuminka 2010). Adachi has developed a

multinational Committee for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence, and cities are

considering whether local governments could include migrants in their legal elective pro-

cess in the same manner as Korea and the EU (Tanaka and Kim 2006: 76–77). In short,

migrant initiatives of local governments in Tokyo revolve around access to services for

migrants through the provision of multilingual information and consulting services.

Hong Kong has been able to remain autonomous vis-à-vis its immigration system

under the “One-country, two systems” mantra, which is part and parcel of this autonomy

and based on the Hong Kong Basic Law. Hong Kong has exclusive control of entry and

departure from Hong Kong of nationals from around the world, in addition to control

over the entry of Mainland Chinese passport holders. Th is includes issuing travel docu-

ments, visas, and identity cards, as well as registering births, deaths and marriages.



Th e Hong Kong Immigration Bureau’s functional role exemplifi es its central role in

maintaining Hong Kong’s population growth while at the same time ensuring that this

global city remains attractive to both skilled and non-skilled migrants. Th e rationale for

this is threefold. First, Hong Kong’s role as a fi nancial hub in Asia is dependent on hav-

ing a fl exible migration policy that allows highly skilled professionals to quickly insert

themselves into the local economy. Second, the economic growth of China and compet-

ing fi nancial centers such as Shanghai requires Hong Kong to adopt competitive policies

that facilitate and attract professionals and highly skilled workers. Th ird, to maximize its

geographic, cultural and historical location between China and the West, Hong Kong has

made the transition to a fi nancial and services-based economy a top priority. Th is priority

requires a migration policy that can insert globally competitive workers into the Hong

Kong economy with minimal bureaucratic red tape.

To accomplish these objectives, the Hong Kong Immigration Bureau is using a

“Quality Migrant Admission Scheme” (QMAS), a “Capital Investment Entrant Scheme”

(CIES), an “Entry for Employment as Professionals” scheme (EEPS), and an “Employ-

ment of Non-Local Students” scheme (ENLS). Th e QMAS attracts the best and brightest

talents to fi ll prominent roles as professionals, artists, sportsmen, etc. Th e CIES stresses

attracting investors that would help vitalize the local economy and contribute to Hong

Kong’s overall regional and global competiveness. Th e EEPS maintains a liberal stance

when it comes to professionals and those individuals that will add value to Hong Kong

through their experience, skill or education. Lastly, the ENLS strives to keep talented and

employable individuals who have been trained in Hong Kong as it strives to enhance the

overall human capital of the city.

Th is system is complemented by a migrant domestic worker (MDW) program which

permits very large numbers of MDWs to enter Hong Kong. Why is this program such a

germane component of Hong Kong’s immigration package? Th e reason is that it resonates

with overall objectives of Hong Kong of creating an economically dynamic, inclusive,

global city. Domestic workers are crucial players in the Hong Kong economy for two

major reasons: (1) they allow Hong Kong women to participate in the work force, and (2)

they fi ll the void in child care services which exists in Hong Kong (Oishi 2005: 25). With-

out MDWs, one family member, most likely the woman, would need to stay home from

work to take care of children. Th e eff ect of this, of course, is that an individual is removed

from contributing to the economy, less household income is earned, and less income tax

can be collected by the government.

Hong Kong has strict guidelines in terms of how many Mainland Chinese can settle in

Hong Kong. Settlement does not refer to study, investment or travel with the appropriate

documents. According to the Immigration Bureau, in 2009 around 49,000 Mainlanders

joined their families in Hong Kong under the One-way Permit Scheme (daily quota 150)

(HKSAR Information Services Department 2010: 412). As argued by Shipper (2010: 14),

diff erentiated citizenship confers diff erent positions, interests and rights for Hong Kong

residents and PRC residents, despite most sharing a formal citizenship with the PRC. Th is

diff erentiated citizenship and the associated economic benefi ts pulls Mainland migrants

Stephen Robert Nagy


to Hong Kong, creating a real need for an immigration policy that controls the fl ow of

Mainland migrants into Hong Kong.

Discussion

We can conclude that current approaches to migrants by Vancouver, Tokyo and Hong

Kong resonate to diff erent degrees with IR theories of migration, and subsequently dem-

onstrate that local governments are indeed tuning their local migration approaches to

maximize local prosperity.

Tokyo’s approach at the local government level resonates the least with IR theories on

migration, not solely because Tokyo has no direct control over migration policy. Rather, a

domestic migrant policy is absent at the state level and under-resourced at the local gov-

ernment level. Realist/neo-realists would argue for migrant policies that enable migrants

to fi ll labor shortages in the service, health care and other sectors. Tokyo’s low birthrate

and a rapidly graying population would compel policy planners to strongly argue for the

adoption of pro-migrant policies to maintain tax revenues to support the current entitle-

ment schemes such as health care pensions, maintenance of infrastructure, etc. (Goodman

and Harper 2007). Neither of these policies is being implemented at a local level to enable

migrants to fi ll these roles in society.

Japan and Tokyo’s status as a “latecomer to immigration” (Cornelius et al. 1994) and

longstanding cultural and ethnic homogeneity have not made it easy for Japan to adopt

migration strategies to meet their obvious needs. Th e state remains resistant to opening

doors to migrants over worries about social instability (Nishio 1989: 13–73). Th is resis-

tance to migration, either at the state or local level, refl ects a lack of synchronism between

what the state needs from a realist’s perspective and what the state or local government is

actually doing.

From the liberal/neo-liberal and neo-liberal institutionalism perspectives, we see that

Tokyo does not recognize a role for international organizations and that transnational eco-

nomic interdependence is not refl ected in how local governments are proposing and plan-

ning policies for migrants. Organizations such as the International Labor Organization

(ILO) and International Migration Organization (IMO) are left out of the policy-making

process despite both organizations having a track record of advocating for migrants in

Tokyo and Japan. Moreover, in spite of Tokyo’s status as a global city (Sassen 2001), it

appears unable to leverage its fi nancial and trade status within Japan and the world to

infl uence how migration policy might be designed to suit its particular needs and global

interconnectedness. Domestic opposition to abiding by regional or global migration re-

lated norms as set out by the ILO and IMO have made creating a need-based migration

system founded in institutional cooperation a distant goal.

Although international organizations have had little if any role in local government

migrant policy planning, local governments have been pro-active in recognizing the needs

of migrants before the state, especially access to social welfare, pensions, language training



Table 3: IR Perspectives on Immigration, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Vancouver

IR Perspective

City

Tokyo Hong Kong Vancouver

Realist/Neo-realist

Needs are not met by policies; labor shortage in service sector, health care sector, and other sectors.

Policies meet economic, social and political needs.

Policies meet economic, social and political needs. Immigrant policies complement state initiatives.

Liberal/Neo-liberal

No recognition of role for international organizations. Transnational interdependence not recognized. Immigrants by and large have a peripheral role.

Recognition of interdependence with sending countries (w/o MDW). HK women cannot work. National organizations have role.

Recognition of interdependence with sending countries. Role for international organizations, including transnational corporations (TNC).

Neo-liberal Institutionalism

None, although the ILO and IMO have been proactive advocates of migrants in Tokyo and Japan in general.

None, although the ILO and IMO have been pro-active advocates of migrants in HK.

None. Not necessary? Still a need for human security (HS) protection?

Global World Theory

Local governments recognized migrant needs before state did, e.g., social welfare, pension, language training.

Confl icts exist regarding citizenship for MDW. Labor problems still exist. Restrictive policies for MDW (2) (3) tier system.

Enabling of local government through globalization.

Human Security Still unclear. Transnational affi liation irrelevant as migrants permanently at the periphery. (Changing?)

Transnational affi liation of MDW has been leveraged to secure better working conditions.

Not necessary? Local government, private sector and state priorities in line with HS approach.

Source: Created by author.

Stephen Robert Nagy


and multilingual information. Th is pro-activity echoes the assertions of Global World

Th eory proponents in that it refl ects the inevitability of migrants coming to cities in

Japan, and as a result local governments taking the decisive lead in forging ahead with

policies for migrants that meet their local needs.

Th e human security viewpoint of migration illustrates that local governments are not

planning policy with an interest in the human security aspect of migration and that mi-

grants themselves are hedging their life in Japan by investing in transnational identities,

as Liu-Farrer (2009) aptly points out in her discussion on Chinese migrants in Japan.

Th e lack of a migrant-friendly environment at both the local and state level in Japan is

prompting migrants such as Chinese migrants to choose a transnational identity instead

of committing themselves to Japan through naturalization (ibid.: 116–117). In short, the

current service-centered migrant policies being developed and instituted by local govern-

ments in Tokyo are not congruent with local prosperity; rather, they are focused on local

stability, maintaining the status quo and providing the framework for equal services for

migrants. Th ey are not enabling mechanisms for migrants to embed themselves in the lo-

cal economy and society to contribute to local prosperity.

Th e one exception is Tokyo’s Adachi Ward, which has inculcated novel ways into their

multicultural coexistence policies to enable migrants in their community to liaise with

Japanese businesses and the local chamber of commerce, to provide start-up loans to qual-

ifi ed candidates, and to establish a business center to provide legal and business consulting

services (Adachi Ku Kuminbu, Kokuminka 2010: 16–19). Adachi has deemed it prudent

to forge stronger links between Japanese and non-Japanese businesses as a way to revitalize

the local economy. Also, Adachi has recognized that Economic Partnership Agreements

(EPAs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) concluded between Japan and Singapore, In-

donesia, and the Philippines will bring more migrants to Adachi, requiring mechanisms to

integrate them into the community and activate them economically (ibid.: 6–7). Adachi’s

policy response incorporates elements of each IR theory of immigration in that it aims

to revitalize its own local economy through strong interactions between Japanese and

migrant businesses, and it understands that liberal/neo-liberal economic interdependence

is increasing through EPAs and FTAs; subsequently, it is investing in migrant policies

now to prepare for an increase in migrants in the future. It also seems to accept global

world theorist views that with increased trade it is inevitable that more migrants should be

expected; with that in mind, Adachi has rationalized the need for strong, supportive and

systematic migrant policies in the form of its multicultural coexistence policies.

Th e Hong Kong case provides us with a contrastive example of how a local govern-

ment successfully embodies IR interpretations of immigration in its migrant policies, be-

cause of its autonomous immigration system established under the Hong Kong Basic Law.

For instance, in-line with realist/neo-realist agendas for accepting immigrants according

to need, Hong Kong maintains a diff erentiated citizenship (Shipper 2010) scheme with

Mainland China that ensures Hong Kong is not overrun by an infl ux of unskilled migrant

workers, while at the same time it keeps its doors open selectively to allow for profession-

als, and some skilled and unskilled workers, such as migrant domestic workers.



Hong Kong maintains this delicate balance through the aforementioned QMAS,

CIES, EEPS and ENLS schemes. Whereas these schemes target professional and skilled

migrants, Hong Kong has also adopted migration pathways for non-skilled MDWs. Here

again, Hong Kong is approaching migration policies at the local level from a realist/neo-

realist vantage point strongly oriented towards maintaining and enhancing Hong Kong’s

economy, inclusivity and global city status. Th e decision to allow MDWs to migrate to

Hong Kong for work directly contributes to Hong Kong’s economic prosperity by provid-

ing for a cheap source of labor in the case of construction workers and domestic workers.

Hong Kong’s migration policies are grounded in its interdependence with the regional

and global economy. Having been one of the benefactors of the current liberal/neo-liberal

economic system, Hong Kong’s migration stance echoes the liberal/neo-liberal conviction

that with liberal economic trade we should expect and need fl exible policies to allow for

the movement of migrants that will benefi t the economy. It has done this by attract-

ing professionals and skilled workers to fuel Hong Kong’s fi nancial and service sector,

it has created opportunities for investors to come to Hong Kong via various investment

schemes, and it has used MDWs in a fl exible and pragmatic way to ensure that both men

and women can be economically productive, and to fi ll the vacuum in social welfare ser-

vices and education.

Whereas Tokyo’s local governments provide no road map for residency because of the

division of labor between state and local governments, Hong Kong’s autonomous migra-

tion policy can confer permanent residency status on all migrants except MDWs. Per-

manent residency can be received after seven years of residence in Hong Kong. MDWs,

although not eligible for permanent residency, can remain in Hong Kong indefi nitely if

they have an employer who sponsors their visa or they can make enough income to spon-

sor their own.

Hong Kong’s approach to migration does not refl ect neo-liberal institutionalism in

that the role of international organizations is limited and we do not see the kind of free

movement of people as we see in the EU. In fact, diff erentiated citizenship limits the

movement of mainlanders to Hong Kong and a two-tier system exists for MDWs and

professional/skilled workers.

Th e human security and global world theorist views of migration vis-à-vis Hong Kong

demonstrate that Hong Kong has managed to maintain some degree of control of migra-

tion accounting for its two-tier system. On the other hand, that transnational advocacy

groups which focus on human rights, human security and labor rights have been success-

ful in advocating for the rights of MDWs, guaranteeing minimum wages and working

conditions, demonstrates the growing infl uence of these groups on the development of

migration policies (Hsia 2009). Th e ability of transnational advocacy groups to infl uence

migration policies vis-à-vis migrant workers is indicative of what Lizée (2002) argued, as

groups and individuals are cooperating transnationally to benefi t migrants on terms not

set by Hong Kong. In this case, the city’s migration policy is weakened by the transna-

tional advocacy of human security from the viewpoint of Hong Kong in that migrants are

dictating their working conditions, rather than solely the government.

Stephen Robert Nagy


Hong Kong’s migration policy approach embodies components of all IR migration

theories introduced in this paper. It demonstrates realist/neo-realist approaches with its

stance on skilled and non-skilled workers, while at the same time it accepts the reality that

it is economically interdependent in the region and globally requiring it to have a migra-

tion system that is permeable. In contrast to the global world theory views on migration,

Hong Kong has maintained control of migration based on diff erentiated citizenship and

a two-tier residency system, while it has had a challenging time dictating the working

conditions of MDWs because of transnational advocacy groups.

Vancouver provides an example of a local government working with local and state of-

fi cials to help create targeted migration policies that benefi t the region or locality econom-

ically as we saw with the province-specifi c business immigration scheme. Complementing

this approach is how Vancouver designs migrant policies not for what they expect to be,

but rather how they would like to see their city develop in the years and decades to come.

Vancouver is cognizant of the needs “of the inhabitants of their postmodern, multicultural

city” (Hiebert 1999), and as such is implementing initiatives that deal with the current

and predicted cultural diversity that exists in contemporary Vancouver (ibid.).

From a realist/neo-realist viewpoint on migration, Vancouver has demonstrated that it

is willing to create mechanisms to encourage the migration of immigrants that can directly

benefi t the economy of the city. Working in concert with the state and province, Vancou-

ver began luring business migrants to Vancouver in the late 1980s through the Business

Immigrant Program. Th is was a deliberate initiative to infuse capital into the sluggish

economy following the 1985 “Improving Greater Vancouver’s Economy Bulletin,” which

stressed that Vancouver and its surrounding area had a shortage of entrepreneurs and was

misunderstanding the potential of the Asia Pacifi c (Greater Vancouver Regional District

(GVRD) 1995; Ley 2003). Understanding the benefi ts that business immigrants could

bring to the city, Vancouver reacted promptly to this report by sending missions to Hong

Kong, Seoul, Taipei, Singapore and Tokyo to entice investors and entrepreneurs to Van-

couver. Th e end result was an infl ux of business migrants and an infusion of over a billion

dollars of investment in the Vancouver area, which created and maintained over 25,000

jobs from 1990 to 1998 (CIC 1999).

In terms of liberal/neo-liberal IR theories of Vancouver’s migrant policies, this article

argues that the fi ndings of the “Improving Greater Vancouver’s Economy Bulletin” urged

local policy makers and leaders to recognize the Asia Pacifi c region and the growing in-

terdependence that was taking place. Conclusions drawn from the report resonated well

with liberal/neo-liberal understandings of the need for immigration in an interdependent

economic relationship to foster trade and facilitate the movement of capital. Accordingly,

the province-specifi c business immigration scheme was strongly supported by Vancouver

to strengthen the local economy and leverage its Asia Pacifi c location.

Vancouver’s approach to migration cannot be explained through the neo-liberal insti-

tutionalism and human security IR views of migration. Th e reasons for this are twofold.

First, strong nationwide human rights and human security norms in Canada decrease the

need for international organizations to be involved in the immigration process. Second,



Vancouver and the province of British Columbia enjoy a dual tract immigration system in

which Business Immigrants and regular migrants apply via diff erent routes.

Th e Global World Th eory IR view on Vancouver’s migrant policies demonstrates that

globalization is enabling Vancouver to become more prosperous. As the Asia Pacifi c region

becomes more economically interdependent through the fl ow of capital and people, local

governments such as Vancouver can either benefi t or be harmed by this interdependence.

In Vancouver’s case, it decided to embrace the growing connections with East Asia by

supporting business immigration and aligning itself with Asia using the mantra of an Asia

Pacifi c city.

Rationalizing Migrant Policy Choices

In examining these three Asia Pacifi c cities and attempting to understand why they choose

to or not to adopt certain migration policies that refl ect their local economic and social

imperatives, we must consider at least three factors: (1) history of migration, (2) demo-

graphic change in terms of ethnic distribution, and (3) the harmonization between state

and local government migration policies.

In terms of history of migration, both Hong Kong and Vancouver were former ter-

ritories of the British Empire, which actively encouraged economic migrants to move

among their territories. Moreover, both Vancouver and Hong Kong have rich histories

of Chinese Diasporas escaping economic hardship, poverty and political instability they

experienced in Mainland China. It could be argued that the migrant histories for both

cities have set the preconditions for their Asia Pacifi c-oriented economies, transformation

of ethnic profi le and interest in creating transnational migrant linkages through pragmatic

migrant policies.

In contrast to Vancouver and Hong Kong, Tokyo’s status as a latecomer to immi-

gration or of having an “allergy to migration” refl ects both its period of seclusion from

the outside world during the Tokugawa Era (1603-1868) and its colonial history. On

the one hand, the Tokugawa Era’s seclusion policy isolated Japan and prevented it from

developing preconditions that would facilitate the integration of non-ethnic Japanese, in-

cluding shared language, mutual cultural understanding and experience with integrating

non-ethnics. On the other hand, the legacy of Japan’s colonial period left both potential

migrants from the region and Japanese uneasy with the idea of migration into Japan. For

migrants, Japan’s treatment of imperial subjects during its colonial rule was often brutal

and discriminatory, owing to a sense of nationalism and cultural superiority. Th e imperial,

multi-ethnic experiment left many Japanese with reservations about the possibilities of a

multi-ethnic Japan. Th is resistance was further reinforced by nationalistic movements and

ethnic and religious confl icts within the East Asian region.

Demographic change in terms of ethnic distribution in each city has also played an

important role in each city’s ability to adopt pragmatic migrant policy. Although Tokyo

has experienced a minor increase in the number of migrants within its boundaries since

Stephen Robert Nagy


1945, the amount still remains under 5% of the total population. Importantly, most of

this migrant population hails from China or Korea, and are nearly indistinguishable from

ordinary Japanese.

In Vancouver’s case, migrants have also mainly hailed from Asia, but the predomi-

nantly European-migrant city of the 1970s has been dramatically transformed to have

50% of its residents tracing their roots directly back to Asia. Th is ethnic transformation

of Vancouver’s demographics has come hand in hand with Vancouver’s trade and fi nancial

relations shifting toward the Asia Pacifi c.

Hong Kong’s demographic change in terms of ethnic distribution has been mostly

infl uenced by its relationship with Mainland China. First, concerns over reunifi cation led

hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens to migrate to Canada, Australia and other

countries. As part of this migration process, they invested abroad, particularly in the Asia

Pacifi c region, while retaining their connections with Hong Kong. Second, the develop-

ment of the economy towards a service sector-centered economy which included both

men and women required Hong Kong to adopt migration policies that fi lled the labor

shortage in particular sectors. As a result, Hong Kong opened its doors to migrant domes-

tic workers to work as maids, child care givers, construction workers and other blue collar

jobs. Most of these jobs were fi lled by Southeast Asians and Mainland Chinese migrants.

Th e harmonization between state and local government migration policies has also

been an extremely important factor behind the local migration policies found in these

three cities. Tokyo’s interests do not seem to be represented by the state, resulting in it

only being able to develop migrant policies as opposed to migration policies. Th is asyn-

chronous stance can partly be explained by the role of diff erent ministries in migration

policy. For example, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) primarily controls entry of migrants

into Japan, whereas the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI) includes migra-

tion policy in bilateral negotiations as seen with Economic Partnerships. Th e Ministry of

Health, Welfare and Labor (MHWL), on the other hand, is involved in accepting migrant

workers through the previously mentioned work programs. Th is trifurcation of migration

policy-making is a considerable hurdle in terms of allowing Tokyo to design or at least

infl uence its local migration policy needs.

Hong Kong’s autonomous migration policy based on the Basic Law and the one-coun-

try/ two systems concept was created during the pre-handover period, in consultation at

the time with the Mainland Chinese government and the British government. In short, it

was agreed that developmental and economic needs of Mainland China and Hong Kong

diff ered, and that in order to secure Hong Kong’s economic prosperity it was crucial to

maintain independent policies vis-à-vis migration. Th is mature decision to maintain sepa-

rate systems has allowed Hong Kong to continue to adopt migration policies that suit its

local needs.

Where the Hong Kong example illustrates the relationship between the state and a

special administrative region, Vancouver’s migration policy represents how states can ef-

fectively regionalize migration policy such that it can meet the local or regional needs in



question. Pre-existing ethnic Asian Canadians, an Asia Pacifi c trade orientation and an

attractive migrant policy led many Asians to migrant to Vancouver, and consequently led

to economic growth, jobs, and a further connectivity with the Asia Pacifi c.

Conclusion

Using IR theories of immigration, this article demonstrated that local government policies

can increase Asia Pacifi c economic, political, social and cultural linkages through migra-

tion policies that facilitate temporary or permanent movement within the region. It was

found that there is an important role for local government in shaping and infl uencing

migrant policies that refl ect their position in the global economy, their migrant pasts and

changing ethnic profi les. Leveraging these variables can not only enhance the ability of

migrants to integrate into the local economy, equally as crucial it creates a circumstance

for incoming migrants to contribute to local economic prosperity. Both Vancouver and

Hong Kong exemplifi ed this approach, attempting to leverage the skills, experience and

human capital that migrants bring with them in the migration process. Vancouver’s ap-

proach is centered on a business immigrant scheme to inject valuable capital and entre-

preneurship into the city. Hong Kong has engineered a migration pathway that includes

both skilled and non-skilled worker migrants to meet its city’s needs.

Hong Kong and Vancouver have diff erent migration routes for migrants. Hong Kong

remains diff erentially exclusive to both Chinese and non-Chinese, but leaves a window of

fl exibility for non-skilled, yet essential migrants such as MDWs. Th is article demonstrated

that local government migrant policies are linked to building local prosperity in the case

of Vancouver and Hong Kong, echoing the IR theories on migration. Th ey are attempting

to leverage their geographic location and the growing Asia Pacifi c economic interdepen-

dence to increase economic prosperity in their cities.

Tokyo has no independent migration policy, but its municipalities have begun to initi-

ate migrant policies that fall under the rubric of multicultural coexistence. Th ey are trun-

cated initiatives that ensure that migrants can access services to navigate through Japan

during their stay. Th ey are inclusive at the level of access to service, yet exclusive in terms

of employment security and political empowerment. Nevertheless, Tokyo’s local govern-

ment policies for migrants do not demonstrate a connection between local needs and

increasing prosperity to migration no matter which IR theory we use. Th is is problematic,

especially considering Japan’s rapidly graying population and low fertility rate.

Looking forward, Hong Kong and Vancouver demonstrate that local governments

who recognize the deepening interdependence in the Asia Pacifi c can benefi t and increase

prosperity through practical migration policies. Cities that do not, such as Tokyo, risk

being disconnected from the increasing prosperity in the Asia Pacifi c region, including

capital fl ows, investment, information, and the benefi ts that come from the movement

of people.

Stephen Robert Nagy


Acknowledgment

I would like to express my thanks to my Research Assistant, Ms. Helen Yim Ting Chan

for her contributions to the editing of this paper.

Notes

1. Th is article follows the usual defi nition of “migrant” as a person who has lived outside his/her country of

birth for at least 12 months.

2. “Local government refers to specifi c institutions or entities created by national constitutions (Brazil, Den-

mark, France, India, Italy, Japan, Sweden), by state constitutions (Australia, the United States), by ordinary

legislation of a higher level of central government (New Zealand, the United Kingdom, most countries),

by provincial or state legislation (Canada, Pakistan), or by executive order (China) to deliver a range of

specifi ed services to a relatively small geographically delineated area” (Shah and Shah 2006: 1).

3. See British Columbia Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human

Rights (BCME/MRMHR) (1994), which is a handout for entrepreneur immigrants; also see BCME/

MRMHR (1992), the brochure issued for Expo ’92 Seville.

4. Number of registered foreign nationals as of December 31 each year. Th e “Percentage of the total popula-

tion in Japan” is calculated based on the population as of October 1 every year from “Current Population

Estimates” and “Summary Sheets in the Population Census” by the Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal

Aff airs and Communications.

References

Acharya, Amitav. 2007. ‘‘Human Security and Asian Regionalism: A Strategy of Localization.’’ Pp. 237–252 in Reassessing Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacifi c: Competition, Congruence, and Transformation, ed. A. Acharya and E. Goh. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Adachi Ku Kuminbu, Kokuminka. 2010. Adachi ku tabunka kyōsei suishin kikaku: Ikiiki wakuwaku 2010-2012 Nendo “Tabunka kyōsei toshi Adachi” [Multicultural Coexistence Promotion Plan: Adachi, an Exciting, Enjoyable Multicultural City 2010-2012]. Tokyo: Adachi Ku Kuminbu, Kokuminka.

British Columbia Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Hu-man Rights (BCME/MRMHR). 1992. Building Your Future in British Columbia, Canada. Vancouver: Business Immigration Branch.

British Columbia Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Hu-man Rights (BCME/MRMHR). 1994. Welcome to the Business Branch. Vancouver: Business Immigration Branch.

British Columbia Statistics. 2010. “B.C. Immigrant Landings by Source by Class, January-De-cember, 2009.” (June). http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/mig/imm09t4a.pdf (accessed 22 January 2011).

Canada Immigration Visa. 2003. “Business Immigration & Visa to Canada: British Columbia Busi-ness Immigration Program.” http://www.canadaimmigrationvisa.com/bcbiz.html (accessed 1 December 2010).

Castles, Stephen. 1998. “Globalization and Migration: Some Pressing Contradictions.” Interna-tional Social Science Journal 50(156): 179–186.

Castles, Stephen, and Mark J. Miller, eds. 1998. Th e Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. Basingstoke: Macmillan.



Census and Statistics Department [C&SD]. 2007a. Hong Kong 2006 Population By-census – Graphic Guide. Hong Kong: C&SD.

Census and Statistics Department [C&SD]. 2007b. Hong Kong 2006 Population By-census – Sum-mary Results. Hong Kong: C&SD.

Chan, Annie Hau-nung. 2006. “Th e Eff ects of Full-Time Domestic Workers on Married Wom-en's Economic Activity Status in Hong Kong, 1981-2001.” International Sociology 21(1): 133–159.

Chen, Albert Hung-yee. 1988. “Th e Development of Immigration Law and Policy: Th e Hong Kong Experience.” McGill Law Journal / Revue de Droit de McGill, Montreal 33(4): 631–675.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC]. 1999. Vancouver Admissions. Vancouver: Business Unit, CIC.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC]. 2005. Recent Immigrants in Metropolitan Areas – Van-couver: A Comparative Profi le Based on the 2001 Census (April). Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Strategic Research and Statistics.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC]. 2011. “Application for Permanent Residence (Simpli-fi ed Application Process) — Business Class Applicants: Entrepreneurs, Self-employed Persons (IMM 4000 SAP).” http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/4000ESap2.asp#tphp (accessed 22 January 2011).

Cohen, Robert B. 1981. “Th e New International Division of Labour: Multinational Corporations and the Urban Hierarchy.” Pp. 287–318 in Urbanisation and Urban Planning in Capitalist Societies, ed. M. J. Dear and A. J. Scott. London: Methuen.

Cornelius, Wayne A., Philip L. Martin, and James F. Hollifi eld. 1994. Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Dicks, Anthony. 1983. “Treaty, Grant, Usage or Suff erance? Some Legal Aspects of the Status of Hong Kong.” Th e China Quarterly 95: 427–455.

Edgington, David W., Michael A. Goldberg, and Th omas A. Hutton. 2006. “Hong Kong Business, Money and Migration in Vancouver.” Pp. 155–183 in From Urban Enclave to Ethnic Suburb: New Asian Communities in Pacifi c Rim Countries, ed. W. Li. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Endacott, George B. 1964. Government and People in Hong Kong 1841-1962: A Constitutional His-tory. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Endacott, George B. 1973. A History of Hong Kong, Revised Edition. Hong Kong; London: Oxford University Press.

Findlay, Allan M., Lin N. Li, John Jowett and Ronald Skeldon. 1996. “Skilled International Migra-tion and the Global City: A Study of Expatriates in Hong Kong.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 21(1): 49–61.

Friedmann, John. 1986. “Th e World City Hypothesis.” Development and Change 17(1): 69–83.Froschauer, Karl. 2001. “East Asian and European Entrepreneur Immigrants in British Columbia,

Canada: Post-migration Conduct and Pre-migration Context.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(2): 225–240.

Goodman, Roger, and Sarah Harper. 2007. “Japan in the New Global Demography: A Compara-tive Perspective.” Japan Focus. http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2472 (accessed August 2008).

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). 1995. Improving Greater Vancouver’s Economy: Bul-letin. Burnaby, BC: GVRD Development Services.

Harrison, Trevor. 1996. “Class, Citizenship, and Global Migration: Th e Case of the Canadian Busi-ness Immigration Program, 1978-1992.” Canadian Public Policy 22(1): 7–23.

Hiebert, Daniel. 1999. “Immigration and the Changing Social Geography of Greater Vancouver.” BC Studies 121: 35–82.

Stephen Robert Nagy


Hollifi eld, James F. 1992. “Migration and International Relations: Cooperation and Control in the European Community.” International Migration Review 26(2): 568–595.

Hong Kong Government Information Service. 1952. Hong Kong Annual Report 1951. Hong Kong: Government of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [HKSAR] Information Services Department. 2010. Hong Kong Yearbook 2009. Hong Kong: Information Services Department.

Hsia, Hsiao Chuan. 2009. “Th e Making of a Transnational Grassroots Migrant Movement.” Critical Asian Studies 41(1): 113–141.

Komai, Hiroshi. 1992. “Are Foreign Trainees in Japan Disguised Cheap Laborers?” Migration World 20: 13–17.

Ley, David. 2003. “Seeking Homo Economicus: Th e Canadian State and the Strange Story of the Business Immigration Program.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(2): 426–441.

Ley, David, and Audrey Kobayashi. 2005. “Back to Hong Kong: Return Migration or Transnational Sojourn?” Global Networks 5(2): 111–127.

Li, Peter S. 2005. “Th e Rise and Fall of Chinese Immigration to Canada: Newcomers from Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China and Mainland China, 1980–2000.” Interna-tional Migration 43(3): 9–34.

Lie, John. 2008. Zainichi (Koreans in Japan): Diasporic Nationalism and Postcolonial Identity. Cali-fornia: University of California Press.

Liu-Farrer, Gracia. 2009. “Creating a Transnational Community: Chinese Newcomers in Japan.” Pp. 116-138 in Japanese Minorities: Th e Illusion of Homogeneity, 2nd ed., ed. M. Weiner. Lon-don, New York: Routledge.

Lizée, Pierre P. 2002. “Human Security in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.” Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Aff airs 24(3): 509–527.

Lowry, Glen, and Eugene McCann. 2011. “Asia in the Mix: Urban Form and Global Mobili-ties – Hong Kong, Vancouver, Dubai.” Pp. 182–204 in Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of being Global, ed. A. Roy, and A. Ong. Chichester, West Sussex; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Luxemburg, Rosa. 1968. Th e Accumulation of Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.Martin, Philip, and Jonas Widgren. 2002. “International Migration: Facing the Challenge.” Popula-

tion Bulletin 57(1). http://www.prb.org/Source/57.1IntlMigration_Eng.pdf (accessed 17 Janu-ary 2011).

Massey, Douglas S., Joaquin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and J. Edward Taylor. 1993. “Th eories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal.” Population and Development Review 19(3): 431–466.

Metro Vancouver. 2008. “2006 Census Bulletin 6: Immigration and Cultural Diversity.” http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/Census2006_Immigration_Bulletin_6.pdf (accessed 20 January 2011).

Ministry of Justice (MOJ). 2009. 2009 Immigration Control. Japan: Immigration Bureau, MOJ.Ministry of Justice (MOJ). 2010. “Heisei 21 nenmatsu genzai ni okeru gaikokujin tōrokusha tōkei

nitsuite” [Statistics of Registered Foreign Residents in 2009] (6 July). http://www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/nyuukokukanri04_00005.html (accessed 30 July 2010).

Mushkat, Roda. 1986. “Th e Transition from British to Chinese Rule in Hong Kong: A Discussion of Salient International Legal Issues.” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 14(2-3): 171–206.

Nagy, Stephen R. 2008a. “National Exclusion, Local Inclusion: Examining the Disconnect between National Immigration Policies and Local Integration Policies.” La Revue Européenne des Migra-tions Internationales (REMI) 24(3): 31–51.



Nagy, Stephen R. 2008b. “Searching for the Meaning of Multicultural Coexistence through Ideas and the Practices of Local Governments in the Tokyo Metropolis.” PhD diss., Waseda University.

Nishio, Kanji. 1989. Rōdō sakoku no susume: Gaikokujin rōdōsha ga Nihon o horobosu [An Encour-agement of “Labor Exclusion”: Foreign Laborers are Destroying Japan]. Tokyo: Kobunsha.

Oishi, Nana. 2005. Women in Motion: Globalization, State Policies, and Labor Migration in Asia. California: Stanford University Press.

Ong, Aihwa. 2007. “Please Stay: Pied-a-Terre Subjects in the Megacity.” Citizenship Studies 11(1): 83–89.

Portes, Alejandro. 1997. “Immigration Th eory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportu-nities.” International Migration Review – Special Issue: Immigrant Adaptation and Native-Born Responses in the Making of Americans 31(4): 799–825.

Portes, Alejandro, and John Walton. 1981. Labor, Class, and the International System. New York: Academic Press.

Sassen, Saskia. 1996a. Losing Control?: Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sassen, Saskia. 1996b. “Toward a Feminist Analytics of the Global Economy.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 4(1): 7–41.

Sassen, Saskia. 2001. Th e Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Shah, Anwar, and Sana Shah. 2006. “Th e New Vision of Local Governance and the Evolving Roles of Local Governments.” Pp. 1–46 in Local Governance in Developing Countries, ed. A. Shah. Washington, D.C.: Th e World Bank.

Shipper, Apichai W. 2010. “Politics of Citizenship and Transnational Gendered Migration in East and South East Asia.” Pacifi c Aff airs 83(1): 11–30.

Sōmushō. 2006. Tabunka kyōsei no suishin nikansuru kenkyūkai hōkokusho: Chiiki niokeru tabunka kyōsei no suishin ni mukete [Research Group Report Concerning the Promotion of Multicul-tural Coexistence: Towards the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence in Local Communi-ties]. Tokyo: Sōmushō.

Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu. 1994. Th e Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. Chicago: Th e University of Chicago Press.

Spaeth, Anthony, and Lawrence Kootnikoff . 1997. “Asia’s New Capital.” Time International (Can-ada Edition) 150(20): 28.

Statistics Canada, Housing, Family and Social Statistics Division. 2003. Longitudinal Survey of Im-migrants to Canada: Process, Progress and Prospects. Ottawa: Minister of Industry (October). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-611-x/89-611-x2003001-eng.pdf (accessed 22 January 2011).

Strange, Susan. 1996. Th e Retreat of the State: Th e Diff usion of Power in the World Economy. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tanaka, Hiroshi, and Kyong-duk Kim, eds. 2006. Nichi, Kan “kyōsei shakai” no tenbō [Th e Prospect of Japan/Korea “Multicultural Coexistence Society”]. Tokyo: Shinkansha.

Teitelbaum, Michael S. 1984. “Immigration, Refugees, and Foreign Policy.” International Organiza-tion 38(3): 429–450.

Tokyo Metropolitan Government Statistics. 2010a. “Gaikokujin tōroku jinkō” [Registered For-eigner Population]. http://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.jp/gaikoku/2010/ga10010000.htm (ac-cessed 25 May 2010).

Tokyo Metropolitan Government Statistics. 2010b. “Jūmin kihon daichō niyoru sedai to jinkō” [Household and Population based on Basic Resident Registers Population] (1 December). http://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.jp/juukim/2010/jm10ca0000.xls (accessed 21 January 2011).

Stephen Robert Nagy


Tsuda, Takeyuki. 2006. “Localities and the Struggle for Immigrant Rights: Th e Signifi cance of Lo-cal Citizenship in Recent Countries of Immigration.” Pp. 1–36 in Local Citizenship in Recent Countries of Immigration, ed. T. Tsuda. Oxford: Lexington Books.

United Nations. 2010. Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacifi c 2009. Bangkok: United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacifi c.

Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. 1987. International Relations Th eory: Realism, Pluralism, Glo-balism. New York: MacMillan.

Vogt, Gabriele. 2007. “Closed Doors, Open Doors, Doors Wide Shut? Migration Politics in Japan.” Japan aktuell [Journal of Current Japanese Aff airs] 15(5): 3–30.

Wong, Lloyd L., and Michele Ng. 2002. “Th e Emergence of Small Transnational Enterprise in Vancouver: Th e Case of Chinese Entrepreneur Immigrants.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(3): 508–530.

Woo, Yuen Pau. 2002. “Vancouver as an Asian City.” Canada Asia Commentary 24 (May). http://www.asiapacifi c.ca/sites/default/fi les/archived_pdf/cac24.pdf (accessed 17 November 2011).

Zolberg, Aristide R. 1981. “International Migrations in Political Perspective.” Pp. 3–27 in Global Trends in Migration: Th eory and Research on International Population Movements, ed. M. M. Kritz, C. B. Keely, and S. M. Tomasi. New York: Center for Migration Studies.

Zolberg, Aristide R. 1991. “Bounded States in a Global Market: Th e Uses of International Labor Migration.” Pp. 301–335 in Social Th eory for a Changing Society, ed. P. Bourdieu and J. S. Cole-man. Boulder: Westview Press.

Zolberg, Aristide R. 1992. “Labor Migration and International Economic Regimes: Bretton Woods and After.” Pp. 315–334 in International Migration Systems: A Global Approach, ed. M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, and H. Zlotnik. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Stephen Robert Nagy has been an Assistant Professor at the Department of Japanese

Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong since December 2009. He obtained

his PhD from Waseda University, Japan in International Studies/Relations in Decem-

ber 2008 and worked as a Research Associate at the Institute of Asia Pacifi c Studies

at Waseda University from October 2007 to November 2009. He is the author of

National Exclusion, Local Inclusion: Local Government Migrant Policies in Tokyo. His

research interests include regionalism in Northeast Asia, Japan-China relations, migra-

tion, non-traditional security cooperation and human security.

The Challenges and Opportunities of Transnational Migration for Local Governments in the...

Documents

Transcript of The Challenges and Opportunities of Transnational Migration for Local Governments in the...