Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Resultant Property: Innovation

Goal-driven migrants pounce on loopholes in immigration control technology to achieve, first, entry, and then, second, legitimate (legal) status by whatever means (recall c1, d1, d2, e2 and f2 in Figure 11).  


Whether as fulfillment of demand for highly docile and tractable labor or as willing victims providing continuing business to facilitating organizations, migrant utilizers at both destination and source states continue to flaunt migration rules backed by an impotent legal framework.  Innovation inevitably translates to overstaying longevity (recall Gandi/Textbox 2) or emboldened disregard of the State's rules (recall Doble-doble/Textbox 1).



It is the suppression of this continuing innovation that is targeted by the APCCRS  strategies including, mainly, the fortification of immigration control technology, strengthening of the legal framework, the enforcement of compliance by migrant utilizers.

Moreover, it is similarly the innovation of these individual components, reacting to separate stimuli (wholly or partly unrelated to migrant illegality itself), that brought these constituting parts into their current configuration and relational schematics that, in turn, form the resultant properties of the migrant illegality whole.  One example of these lower-level innovation instances is, as I discuss in the section on ethnic pockets, how the legal framework adopted various types of resident statuses for Koreans in Japan in its attempt to either keep them at arm's length or achieve their full societal integration.  Still another example is how Japan's immigration control processes "anonymously" acquiesced to the changing activities of migrants applying for the same entertainer visa category(the official definition of which remained unchanged), beginning with established musicians playing instruments and ending with supposed prostitution and a host of other alleged illegal activities.



GO TO:  Resultant Property:  Value Negotiation

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Resultant and Emergent Properties of Migrant "Illegality"

Following my discussion of Emergence in Critical Realism, here below are the theorized resultant and emergent properties of migrant "illegality."

--------------------------

In the next paragraphs I will argue that the consistently decreasing numbers of overstayers reported by the government of Japan is the effect of its suppressant strategies on the resultant properties of migrant illegality.  Decreasing numbers of overstayers give no indication of the robustness of migrant illegality as seen in its emergent properties which are sustained by, actively thrive and re-interact with its own constituting parts.

In the critical realist theory, the concept of emergence plays a central role in its view of reality as ontologically autonomous (Lopez 2003, p.77), that is, that which makes reality persistently more than what we attempt to know of it is its continuous generation of various permutations at multiple levels.

The process and the result of this emergence is described as at once cumulative and synergistic – that “the operations of the higher level cannot be accounted for solely by the laws governing the lower level in which we might say the higher level is rooted and from which we might say it was emergent.” (Bhaskar 2008, p.113).

I thus apply emergence to help elucidate what I describe to be two of the resultant and three of the emergent properties of migrant illegality:  the former describing its cumulative or aggregative nature drawn from its component parts and the latter describing what has resulted from the synergy of its component parts.  The possibility of the more which the critical realist concept of emergence enables moves me to qualify that while my description of these five theorized properties of migrant illegality is drawn from the Empirical (what I observed – as I cite case snippets and other bases of my observations) that this may only be a subset of the Actual (what may be in addition to what I observed) and thus all my arguments will be describing, if at all,  only a part of what is Real (the Empirical and Actual and all other future emergent combinations) (Bhaskar 1975, p.13 cited in Collier 1994, p.34).  

Elder-Vass (2010) defines an emergent property as "one that is not possessed by any of the parts individually and that would not be possessed by the full set of parts in the absence of a structuring set of relations between them" and a resultant property as "properties of a whole that are possessed by its parts in isolation, or in an unstructured aggregation."  Properties then of a migrant illegality whole arising from the particular ways immigration control technology, the migration legal framework, compliant migrant utilizers, migrant productivity, collaboration with foreign entities, geographic focus, and blocking of housing access interrelate may be specific only to the migrant illegality or in both migrant illegality and each of these seven component parts individually.