In September of this year, Japan’s prime minister told the United Nations that it would help the Syrian refugees by making another financial contribution of $1.5 billion. It would not, however, accept and house refugees fleeing the country.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in a news conference, according to the official translation:
“As an issue of demography, I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise (the) birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants.”
The nation’s help would be limited to monetary resources to help the country resolve the issues that resulted in the refugee crisis. This doesn’t mean they are uncaring or unwilling to help.
First, the government is addressing the bigger issue, which is to resolve the problems causing the crisis. That makes sense. Without solving the cause of the problem, the problem will only continue. Taking in Syrian refugees alone is not going to solve the crisis in Syria.
Second, Japan’s response to not accept refugees into the country makes sense — for Japan. Public comments made in response to the Prime Minister’s announcement are mixed, but most seem to reflect the idea that Japan is right in not accepting refugees and the United States should follow Japan’s example.
However, before taking such a drastic stance, it’s important to note that Japan is not the United States, despite the U.S.’s attempt at westernizing every other country. Japan is an Asian country with a deep culture long pre-dating the creation of the United States.
The United States of America, however, does not have the same deep cultural roots as Japan or any other country. As much as many Americans don’t want to hear it, the United States is an immigrant nation. Not only is it home to immigrants from every nation in the world, its very foundation is based on immigration. If not for immigration, the United States of America as we know it would not exist.
The very existence of this country depends on immigration, which is addressed in the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 8 – “The Congress shall have the power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” As such is currently written, laws prohibit discrimination in naturalization based on sex, marital status or race. The law also recognizes that those seeking naturalization are not necessarily the same as those seeking asylum.
The Refugee Act of 1980 defines the current laws pertaining to refugee immigrants. Under this law, the President of the United States has the authority to determine the number of refugees to accept into the country each year. The Refugee Act applies to all individuals with a real fear of persecution based on their religion, race, nationality, political opinions or social class. Under the same law, refugees who are settled in another country, convicted of murder or have actively persecuted other individuals based on religion, race, nationality, political opinions or social class can be denied refugee status.
Based on the very foundation of this country and the laws within it, the United States cannot deny refugee status to Syrian refugees simply because they are from Syria or because they practice a certain religion. The United States can, if the President chooses, limit the total number of refugees accepted per year. And it can deny refugee status to active ISIS members and supporters, to convicted murderers and to those who have found asylum elsewhere.
Now, to compare the decision of Japan’s Prime Minister to decisions made by the United States is an invalid comparison and one that, from a cultural perspective, holds no water. Japan — and just about every other country in the world — was not founded and built on refugee immigration. Whether Americans like it or not, the United States is an immigration nation.
