Uniqlo's refugee-hiring picking up steam; still problems ahead

The majority of Japanese don't want foreigners.

Even young people still have the mindset of Japanese uniqueness, blood, customs etc that are exclusionary.

That is why we don't see so many foreigners here and that is unlikely to change.

I think there is a problem with this article, though I can't confirm it:

The majority of these people working at uniqlo are not refugees, but asylum seekers, which means that at some point decided randomly by immigration, they're going to be arrested and deported. This generally happens between 1 and 3 years of landing in Japan as an asylum seeker. At that point these "refugees" will be given no chance to collect their belongings and move somewhere else - they'll just be unceremoniously locked in a cell and anything left in their apartment, pets, etc. will be destroyed at taxpayers' or friends of the deportees expense.

I'm not sure whether uniqlo is taking advantage of these people or genuinely trying to help them. Some details regarding their payment and benefits would have been a nice touch for the article.

Not wanting to be picky but if she (Addis) has married a Japanese man, wouldn't that mean she isn't a refugee anymore? At what point does one lose his or her refugee label or status?

It seems that most refugees choose to go to countries that have a high standard of living such as Western Europe,Scandinavia, UK,Australia,and the USA. Don't hear of many trying to make it to any of the African countries,Philippines or Indonesia. Papua New Guinea also does not seem to be popular.

Not wanting to be picky but if she (Addis) has married a Japanese man, wouldn't that mean she isn't a refugee anymore? 

If she fled her country in fear of her life and can't return there, she is always a refuge, whatever her visa status.

Don't hear of many trying to make it to any of the African countries,Philippines or Indonesia.

A little bit of Google suggests otherwise:

The central reception area of the Imvepi refugee settlement, in northern Uganda, is packed to the brim. ... A single settlement, called Bidi Bidi, hosts at least 270,000 refugees – more than any other place in the world.

Or

Dadaab is a semi-arid town in Garissa County, Kenya. It is the site of a UNHCR base hosting 245,126 refugees in five camps (Dagahaley, Hagadera, Ifo, Ifo II and Kambioos) as of April 2017, making it the second-largest such complex in the world.

It is just that we hear more about the smaller numbers that make it to our Western countries rather than the large numbers seeking asylum elsewhere. Because these other camps are rarely reported upon, we assume that they don't exist.

But unsurprisingly, if you have a choice about where to seek asylum, it is hardly surprising that you would opt for somewhere allowing a better standard of living. Of course some are really just economic migrants, but I don't assume that they automatically are because they happen to arrive in a prosperous country.

@Ah so

Refugees since time immemorial head to the nearest border areas, where their surging numbers can't be controlled by local authorities, and presto, they've got a refugee camp on their hands, whether they like it not. That's about proximity and little to do with humanitarianism. The assistance and other humanitarian efforts in those camps are mostly funded by the West, Japan. and other affluent countries.

Saudi Arabia is in the process of deporting around half a million Ethiopians, it should be noted.

The migrants who decide to go farther afield to Europe and other generous, affluent places, while skipping through less wealthy countries, are overwhelmingly seekers of economic opportunities not fleeing war or oppression. The huge number of Vietnamese boatpeople, for example, fled AFTER the war ended and after peace was restored in their homeland. into the 1980s. They were fleeing peace, not war.

Refugees since time immemorial head to the nearest border areas, where their surging numbers can't be controlled by local authorities

Well there we have nonsense for a start. A large part of Britain's Jewish population arrived as a result of pograms elsewhere in Europe, such as from Russia, Poland and Germany in the 19th century to those who arrived from Romania just before the second world war. They did not flee to the nearest border but a country that would accept them and allow them to settle.

And today your way out of a country is as likely to be by plane as any other way. After all, if you thought your life was in danger in Japan you would probably flee from Narita not from a ferry from Yokohama.

And yes, the Vietnamese boat people left after the war ended because an oppressive government had seized control of the entire country. The Vietnamese communist government put about 1 million people in re-education camps of which an estimated 165,000 died.

The end of the war was not the start of peace but the start of oppression.

To avoid straying off-topic, the point is that while some clearly do seek asylum for economic reasons, do not judge on superficial factors.

At what point does one lose his or her refugee label or status? probably never, just as gaijin will always be gaijin and halfu children will always be half Japanese, even if they were born in japan or naturalized. The Exception is if they become a sport/Olympic star playing for Japan or Nobel winner then theyre full Japanese.

Ah_so

It won't be by plane if you don't have a valid visa for the country you want to go to.

Ah So

The Vietnamese communist government put about 1 million people in re-education camps of which an estimated 165,000 died.

Your numbers are fantastical. up to 300,000 of the south's top military and political leaders were sent to camps for indoctrination, normally for a few years and then released. Their own past victims, by contrast, tended to quickly "disappear,." often after extreme torture.

Historians agree there was never a bloodbath in Vietnam after the war, Indeed, Ho Chi Minh stressed shortly before his death in public pronouncements that national reconciliation would be the order of the day.

Cambodia next door saw a bloodbath, and yet produced very few refugees. Refugee patterns are a very poor indicator of the degree or nature of oppression, and much more about people seeking better economic opportunities.