A Comparison of Immigration Policies
Korean Minjok Leadership Academy
Table of Contents
References , June 26th 2011
Outline , Apr. 1st 2011
References . .
Go to Teacher's Comment
Immigration to the US
Canadian Immigration policy
+) I am planning to search for old articles on specific changes of immigration policies in each country.
+)I think it would also be useful if I could find a documentary/film/book which outlines the general immigration history of Japan or the United States
+)I have emailed a professor in Japan who had been doing a similar research with deciding the right model for immigration policy. It would be very helpful if he could give me some help.
+)I also bought a book on the specific, official details of Korean immigration policy.
Outline . .
Go to Teacher's Comment
Korea lacks an immigration model which best suits our circumstances, especially having to do with the unique feature of being a
single-race nation. Thus, this paper analyzed some of the immigrant issues among major power countries (for the past 150 years):
restriction in time 1850-2000-why the immigrants had to move, how the countries have treated them, how the immigrants and the
country sought integration, and some of the consequences-, in the hopes of finding out which model should Korea adopt.
- Substantial amount of effect immigration has on societies
- some of the major reasons for immigration/some of the major factors which have influence on immigration
1. Economic reason
1.i. To seek for jobs
1.ii. Government Policy to recruit large number of labor forces
2. Religious reason
2.i. For religious freedom
3. Political reason
3.i. In search for political system which suits one's ideology
4. Environmental reason
5. Incidents in history
5.i. Japanese oppression on Korea
5.ii. Nazis and the Jews
- How countries have responded (general introduction of the "two" different models)
1. Jus soil
- emphasis on the "place of birth"
- relatively free, liberal/open to diversity of culture
- practiced usually among countries with history "built on" immigration
Country with diverse nationality, culture, or language/ system developing as globalization is taking place
Ex. United States
2. Jus sanguinis
- emphasis on "blood"
- relatively conservative/promoting assimilation/strict immigration policies
- practiced frequently among countries which had recently started accepting immigrants mostly for economic reasons such as supplication of labor forces
Ex. Japan, Germany (most of European countries)
- Briefly explain the possibility of the reality gap between the legal stance of immigrants and the actual sentiment towards them
(due to unfamiliarity, racial discrimination, dispute over resources, historical incident) but emphasize that such subjective factors
will not be of consideration in the paper
brief introduction of situation in Korea
show a graph of increasing number of immigrants in Korea due to increasing demand for labor
show some of the ˇ°controversialˇ± policies concerning immigration
THESIS: EMPHASIZE INCREASING DEMAND FOR AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE/POLICY/MODEL AND EXPLAIN HOW THE MAJOR PURPOSE/GOAL OF THE PAPER IS
TO FIND AN APPROPRIATE MODEL FOR THE SITUATION IN KOREA, REGARDING ALL: a. Pros and cons of each model b. unique situation in Korea c.
expected consequences from adopting each model
1. USA model (Accommodation)
2. Japanese, German model (Integration)
3. Canada model (Accomodation + Integration) - enjoyed recent success
+ these models are going to be explained with following information/example
a. Reasons for adopting the model
- unique environment ?
- history ?
b. How the system is operating
- specific immigration policies
- court cases
c. Consequences of the model
- actual rate of immigrants moving in
- the statistics of actual GDP
- conflicts between immigrants and original inhabitants
Conclusion: Which model would suit Korea the most
(where I got inspiration - as you can see, there are mainly "two" types of social policies regarding immigration : jus sanguinis,
and jus soil, where the former puts emphasis on "blood", and the latter on the "place of birth")
a social policy by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having a parent(s) who are citizens of the nation.
It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil").
At the end of the 19th century, the French-German debate on nationality saw Ernest Renan oppose the German conception of an
"objective nationality", based on blood, race or even, as in Fichte's case, language. Renan's republican conception explains
France's early adoption of jus soli. Many nations have a mixture of jus sanguinis and jus soli, including the United States,
Canada, Italy, Israel, Germany (as of recently), Greece, the Republic of Ireland and others.
Apart from France, jus sanguinis still is the preferred means of passing on citizenship in many continental European countries,
with benefits of maintaining culture and national identity. Some countries provide almost the same rights as a
citizen to people born in the country, without actually giving them citizenship. An example is Indfødsret in Denmark, which
provides that upon reaching age 18, non-citizen residents can decide to take a test to gain citizenship.
Unlike France, some European states (in their modern forms) are post-empire creations within the past century. States arising
out of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires had huge numbers of ethnic populations outside of their new boundaries, as do
most of the former Soviet states. Several had long-standing diasporas that did not conform to 20th century European nationalism
and state creation. In many cases, jus sanguinis rights were mandated by international treaty, with citizenship definitions imposed
by the international community. In other cases, minorities were subject to legal and extra-legal persecution and their only option
was immigration to their ancestral home country. States offering jus sanguinis rights to ethnic citizens and their descendants include
Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria and, from 2009, Romania. Each is obligated by international treaty to extend those rights.