A reaction to 3 articles - Essay Example

Critical Response & 17 April Reaction to Chico Harlan’s article “strict Immigration Rules May Threaten Japan’s Future” (The Washington Post, 28 July 2010) In his article “Strict Immigration Rules May Threaten Japan’s Future,” published in the Washington Post of July 28, 2010, Chico Harlan tries to capture the dilemma facing immigrant workers in Japan, they want to stay and work and Japan badly needs their services, but a legislative hurdle requiring foreign workers to pass certain exams as a condition for their stay complicates the whole issue. What he seems to be categorical however is that despite Japan’s intransigence about foreign workers, they have to move with urgency and resolve legal hurdles deterring foreign workers coming to Japan as Japan is staring at a crisis soon to come of lack of workers in vital sectors as the Japanese population declines and becomes aged. At the beginning of the article, Chico says that for Japan to continue maintaining economic relevance in the next decades, it will “depend on its ability to-and its willingness-to grow by seeking outside help.”He cites the case of foreign nurses and the odds they face-they must pass a test that “almost no foreigner passes.” He explains that Japan has “deep misgivings about immigration and has tightly controlled the ability of foreigners to live and work” in Japan. He explains that with her declining population, the government will have but, to source foreign workers. The government is taking steps towards loosening of grip on immigration and in fact, it hopes to double the number of highly skilled foreign workers within a decade. He nonetheless observes that Japan is on course to have three workers for every two retirees by 2060.Noting that Japan has a program to that effect-the economic partnership program- with Indonesia and Philipines,he however observes that the program has a flaw. Throughout the article, he shows that Japan has a need for skilled labour but it is stuck with restrictive rules like on language. He indicates that a language test with a pass rate of less than 1 percent will always be criticized. Admitting that Japanese Premier’s goal for Japan to double the number of skilled workers seems reasonable enough, difficulties with the program especially for officials in the government and the medical industry, difficulties with the programme point to a larger dilemma confronting Japan since her complex language and resistance to foreigners still persist as hurdles. He cites a newspaper poll conducted in June asking about the Japanese’ acceptance of immigrants to “maintain economic vitality” and indicates that only 26 per cent favoured the idea. Efforts to make substantive changes in immigration policy also failed when Kan’s ruling Democratic Party “saw setbacks” in parliament. He then argues that political analysts paint a “grim picture” of a country at legislative impasse. “Foreigners such as Paulino will find it difficult to get here…to thrive and …stay”. He presents the prevailing sentiment among the advocacy groups that “there is a lack of urgency or lack of sense of crisis for the declining population in Japan.”He further presents the prevailing view that Japan lacks a “strong government” and “is in chaos.”Throughout the article, he shows that Japan has never been alive to the fact they need immigrants. Even when they struck economic pacts with Indonesia and the Philippines to attract nurses and caretakers, Japan’s “main objective wasn’t that but to seek duty-free access for its automakers to the south East Asian market.”He however underscores that Japan will need to double number of nurses and caretakers to 2.4 million by 2025, although the test will prevent this. He amplifies the fact that most Indonesia and Filipino nurses and caretakers are college educated and with several years experience. He shows the difference in treatment between nurses and other workers-nurses can stay for three years with three chances to pass the test while the others can stay for four years with one chance to pass. He shows the difficulties faced by immigrant nurses as they struggle to study Japanese while at the same time working. He however presents the widely held sentiment that the test is a hurdle, though necessary for nurses and caregivers. Through Paulina, a Filipino immigrant nurse, he captures the typical feeling of trepidation and apprehension that every immigrant has prior to coming to Japan, their culture shock upon arrival, and eventual integration. Throughout the article, the author adopts an apologist stance for immigrants while casting Japanese society as unwelcoming. But with issues of national security and priorities, one cannot just accuse a country without getting deeper to understand the reason for this. Every country his own ways of doing things and cannot be condemned for being different. Towards the end, he reinforces the view that Japan has unreasonably set high standards to lock out immigrants. Work Cited Harlan, Chico. “Strict Immigration Rules May Threaten Japan’s Future”. The Washington Post. The Washington Post 28 July 2010.Web. 28 July 2010. Critical response 2 (Student Name) (Professor’s Name) (Subject & code) 17 April 2012 A reaction to E.G. Austin’s article on immigration-“The United States V Canada”(The Economists,20th May 2011) In his article “The United States v Canada” published in The Economist of May 20th, 2011, E .G. Austin clearly indicates that as a matter of National policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. Throughout his article, he compares and contrasts how immigrants are perceived in America and Canada. But this is oversimplification of a complex matter since these two countries are quite different in terms of size and history and do not match in terms of the numbers of immigrants who call at their shores every year. At the outset, Austin clearly depicts that Canada is pro-immigrants in all ways, more than any other country. “As a matter of policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants”. He cites a recent poll where only a third of Canadians believed immigration is a problem than an opportunity. Their concern, albeit belated, is to do with ‘brain waste’ and with whether the foreign credentials are duly recognized and rewarded. He indicates that being immigrant in Canada is no barrier to being proper Canadian since even in a rent parliamentary election 11 per cent of the elected were not native.Further,he says,20 per cent of Canadians are foreign born. He proceeds to show why the Canadian public opinion on immigration is so different from that of Americans. He uses sociological explanations that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration; in fact, towns under economic duress are keen to promote immigration so as to be revived. He observes that even unemployed Canadians do not see immigrants as a threat. This fact is corroborated by the fact that most immigrants are very skilled-half have bachelor’s degree. Throughout the article, the writer suggests that immigrants to Canada are fully accepted and benefit from various services programmes including language training.Furthermore, Canadians value multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. He shows the historical basis of this national character by saying that until 1947 there wasn’t such a thing as purely Canadian passport; Canada was “psychosocially part of British Commonwealth until recently.”When it came to build a distinct Canadian identity, they included both Francophone minority and Anglophone majority; hence bilingualism birthed a commitment to multiculturalism. In the subsequent paragraphs, the author continues to elucidate why Canada is inviting. The US already acts as a buffer for masses of would be immigrants to Canada.Moreover, Canada has a low birth rate and population hence immigrants are not frowned upon. He suggests that though both Canada and US swear by multiculturalism, there are differences. While the US supports it, unlike in Canada, you won’t hear anyone advocate for it on grounds that it adds to social fabric. Towards the end, he suggests what the US should emulate from Canada. It should be more open to high skilled immigrants since “they are good for the economy.”Furthermore a rise in uncontroversial immigrants might control the anxiety about the entire immigrants. Though there is tacit approval of immigrants of all kinds as demonstrated by the existence of illegal immigrants, the Canadian approach is the best since it ensures no foregone opportunities such as integration through language training or other settlement programs. Work Cited Austin, E.G. “The United States v Canada”. The Economist. The Economist 20 May 2011.Web.20 May 2011. Critical Response 3 (Student Name) (Professor’s Name) (Subject & code) 17 April 2012 Reaction to Colin Butler’s article “Human Carrying Capacity and Human Health” (PLoS Medicine,28 December 2004) In his article “Human Carrying Capacity and Human Health” published in a peer reviewed open access journal, PLoS Medicine of December 28, 2004, Buttler Colin bemoans the silence over the issue of human overpopulation among demographers, economists, and epidemiologists, yet it has serious implications for public health; it prevents the global health community from making the necessary link between the planet’s carrying and health development crisis. He traces how the popular thinking on population has been shaped over the last 200 years, and how our failure to address the population explosion may be one cause of recent epidemics and social unrest. He suggests that the whole issue ought to be re-looked afresh. This is too alarmist a sentiment and too superficial look at the world problems if all of them are attributed to overpopulation. At the outset, he avers that the question of human overpopulation and its relationship to human carrying capacity has been controversial for over two centuries. He shows how in 1798 the Reverend Thomas Malthus put forward a thesis that “the population growth would exceed growth of resources leading to the periodic reduction of human numbers” by checks such as diseases, famine, and war or restrictions on marriage. Although this did not come to pass soon, the view was popular and acceptable until fairly recently. He says that food production largely kept pace with the growing global population until 1934 when advance in antibiotics, vaccines and technology saw a spike in population and life expectancy. Malthusian view however continued and peaked in the 1960s with writers such as Paul Ehrlich publishing a book The Population Bomb in 1968 predicting a world to be scarred by famine, epidemic and war. He proceeds to show the world concern and how the prediction galvanized action: “United States president Lyndon Johnson shipped wheat to India to avert famine”. This was however, “on the condition that the country accelerates its already vigorous family planning campaign”. He observes that like several other United States presidents, Lyndon Johnson was a part of the presidents concerned with the harmful effects on rapid population growth in developing countries. He however notes that the 1970s surprised population watchers. “Instead of being a period shadowed by calamitous famine,” the Green Revolution “caused a dramatic increase in the global cereal production”. This buoyed the world to proclaim “Health for All by the Year 2000”.He argues that average life expectancy “continued to zoom upwards almost everywhere-even in Sub-Saharan Africa.”He continues to suggest that although the introduction of contraception contributed to rapid population decline in many countries, the absolute increment in annual global population continued to grow. The worry and concern about global overpopulation continued to grow. There is evidence to show that these concerns were real. The father of Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug himself warned “the world that the success of the Green revolution would buy a breathing space for humankind for three decades unless equivalent action was taken to reduce fertility rates.”He shows how some countries heeded to this warning like China which “tightened its fertility policy introducing a one-child policy” in 1979. In the article, he shows that the concern about overpopulation in the Third World started to fade. “The social and economic milieu of many developed countries especially in the US started to fade.”He shows the US foreign aid as a percentage of the gross national product started to decline from the late 60s.He however speculates the reason for this to be probably due to Vietnam War and apparent success of development in the Third World. In the next paragraphs, he dwells on Keynesian policies, what they are-had hoisted value on full employment and social security- and how they started to come under attacks. He shows how the world oil shocks of 1973 led to “stagflation”, rising unemployment and higher prices and increased economic power for the oil producing countries of the Third World. He further shows the waning concern about overpopulation when he states that that subsequent United States president, Reagan considered the concerns about global population size to be “vastly exaggerated”. Hence, in the same year, the United States abdicated its leadership in promoting family planning. The author also suggests that as foreign aid budgets fell, the “Health for All” targets began to slip from reach. He says that instead, international agencies started promoting structural adjustment programs, health charges for patients and the “trickle down” effect as the best way to promote development. Admitting that the few public who remained concerned about the development of the Third world thought that these policies ought to be given a chance, the requirement for market deregulation, rather than aid left the Third World in a precarious position. Buttler appears sucked into the dominant reasoning when he says that “it is now clear that the market deregulation and generally high birth rates have proven disastrous in many Third World countries. He paints a gloomy picture “Health For All” is now seen as “absurdly optimistic.”He adds that life expectancy’s fall has led to failure of development in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere yet the causes of this decline are multiple and complex. The problem with his assertion is that all examples are drawn from countries long seen as the enemies of the West such as Zimbabwe, North Korea and Russia thus raising doubts about the author’s objectivity. Buttler also boldly says what is seldom acknowledged that whenever people talk about the causes for decline in total population and life ecpectancy, overpopulation is seldom considered except by dissident health workers. He bemoans Demography’s silence on the face of overpopulation in the developing countries. The focus instead has shifted to the population aging and European under population as the most important demographic issues of the 21st century.Either, the good demographic news such as demographic transition in China from large to small families.Sometimes, Butler makes unfounded allegations such as automatically linking the Chinese economic miracle to reduced family size. Yet he forgets that high population could also have been the main market for goods hence economic miracle in China. Towards the end, the writer questions if really overpopulation is the cause of crises in Africa. Using Rwandan example, he shows that overpopulation is linked to crises within a country, yet there could be other reasons. Wars in Africa like in Rwanda is Malthusian Check, he says.Sometimes,Buttler seems to celebrate horrendous acts such as the Rwandese genocide saying that it “was plausible not only because the total population was too large, but perhaps more importantly because the rate of population growth was faster than the capacity of Rwandan society to process the additional people.”He further suggests that HIV AIDS could be a Malthusian Check, yet there is less scientific discussion in support of this view. He rails at leaders in the developing world and Africa for their failure to devote resources and provide leadership required to quell the epidemic. This might sound a jaundiced view of the whole population problem in Africa as much as it sounds plausible. In concluding, Buttler harps on the silence on overpopulation. He argues that humans fear to confront the need for population control, due to “powerful social norms” as argued by Environmentalist Daniel Orenstein. He however, concludes by saying that whatever the cause of the scarcity of modern academic analysis, the issues of “human carrying capacity” and “overpopulation” need to be revisited. Work Cited Butler, Colins.”Human Carrying Capacity and Human Health.”PLoS Med online-only journal 1.3(2004): n.pag.web.28 December 2004. Read More