Xenophobia in the Canadian Immigration Policy Towards Japan, 1907-1908

Volume 6 | Issue 1 | Article ID 2639 | Jan 01, 2008 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus

When the Geta is on the Other Foot: Xenophobia in the Canadian Immigration Policy Towards Japan, 1907-1908

Simon Nantais

When the Geta is on the Other Foot: permanent resident status are treated like Xenophobia in the Canadian Immigration criminals as they return to the country that Policy Towards Japan, 1907-1908 initially “permitted” them (thanks to the re- entry permit) to return in the first place. Simon Nantais Ironically, the only non-Japanese citizens not to suffer this fate, other than diplomats and children under 16, are “special-status Abstract permanent residents,” a code for the large, mostly Korean, zainichi population. For 40 A Canadian diplomatic mission led by Rodolphe years, from 1952 to 1992, under the Alien Lemieux in November 1907 shares anRegistration Law, the zainichi were forced to anniversary with the much-maligned Japanese submit their fingerprints until a campaign of immigration controls, introduced on 20civil disobedience, with the active support of several provincial politicians, ended the November 2007. The themes underlying the discriminatory measures. The zainichi would Lemieux mission - racial profiling, xenophobia, never allow such a measure to be enforced on discrimination in immigration, and claims of them again. The United States, under the US- unassimilability in the host country - resonate VISIT program, is currently the only other deeply with the current political climate in country to enforce such strict port-of-entry Japan. The anniversary of Lemieux’s arrival in procedures for visitors, including finger- Japan 100 years ago serves to remind us how printing and retinal scans, but even they little attitudes have changed in regards to exempt their permanent residents. immigration and racialization. Justice Minister Hatoyama Kunio claims that these strict measures will keep Japan safe from The furor over Japan’s new discriminatory acts of international terrorism. In a well- immigration procedures was palpable. [1] From publicised gaffe, Hatoyama said “a friend of a 20 November 2007, all visitors to Japan face friend of mine is a member of al-Qaeda” and rigorous screening tests. “Visitors to Japan” is a that the suspected terrorist entered Japan with rather dishonest term, one that underlines the false passports and disguises. [2] Though the Japanese government’s ambiguity, if notfoolish remark was dismissed by Hatoyama’s outright hostility, to immigrants. In theown Ministry, it nonetheless demonstrated the “Visitors to Japan” queue, nearly everyone who rather shallow premise for invoking such does not possess Japanese citizenshipdraconian measures. Furthermore, by undergoes the new high-tech (retinal scans), attempting to (falsely) demonstrate how easy it low-tech (finger-printing), and oral questioning was for foreigners to enter Japan illegally, the immigration control procedures. This means comment squarely placed the blame for a that all non-Japanese who possess spousal future terrorist attack on Japanese soil on visas, cultural visas, and even Japaneseforeigners, rather than on faulty Japanese

1 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF intelligence or lax immigration controls. [3] The now on the other foot. governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) have refused to back down in the face ofBackground to the Lemieux Mission international criticism that the measures are a violation of human rights. Furthermore, as the During the first decade of the twentieth measures treat every non-Japanese as acentury, Canadian society witnessed a boom potential terrorist or criminal, it is clearly a like no other it had experienced before. case of racial profiling of the highest degree. Tapping into this optimism, the Liberal Prime The mid-November 2007 implementation date Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier (1896-1911), marks a curious anniversary that Minister famously promised that “the 20th century will Hatoyama should note. On 7 September 1907, belong to Canada.” The population grew a mob of Canadian and American whites exponentially as new immigrants from Europe pillaged the Chinese and Japanese communities claimed their 160-acre parcel of prime prairie of Vancouver, British Columbia, a tragic event farmland. Canadian business and industry, known as the “Vancouver Riot.” [4] protected by a British Imperial tariff, enjoyed robust growth after a series of lean years in the Subsequently, in November 1907, the Canadian late 19th century. Although most immigrants Minister of Labour and Postmaster-General were generally welcome to Canada, skilled Rodolphe Lemieux led a small diplomatic labourers, such as engineers, were particularly delegation to the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo to sought after. request that the Japanese government severely curtail Japanese emigration to Canada. The Canadian attitudes to Asian immigrants, Japanese had recently confirmed their status however, were generally hostile. While cheap among the Great Powers with their military victory over Russia in 1904-1905 and their Chinese labour was invaluable in constructing alliance with Great Britain. They were now livid the trans-continental Canadian Pacific Railway that the Canadian government trampled over that would link the Atlantic with the Pacific, their treaty rights and that they were now they were no longer welcome to Canada after discriminated against solely because of their this project was completed in 1885. Successive race. With the successful conclusion of the Liberal and Conservative governments both “Lemieux Agreement” (also known as the imposed restrictions on Chinese immigrants, “Gentlemen’s Agreement”) in early 1908, the which, before the Lemieux Mission, culminated proud Japanese were crestfallen to be lumped in the $500 “head tax” of 1903. For Chinese in the same category of restricted andlabourers, this was equivalent to two years’ undesirable immigrants as the Chinese and salary and effectively barred their entry to “Hindoos” (who were in fact Sikh Indians). This Canada. Until 1907, Japanese migrants to paper examines the Lemieux Mission and its Canada were relatively few, as most settled in political background, with emphasis on how the Hawaii. Furthermore, as Iino Masako reminds issue of race in Canadian society and politics us, the Meiji government did not encourage dictated the pace of negotiations with the Japanese government. With the advent of large-scale immigration to continental North Japan’s new discriminatory immigrationAmerica until 1905-06. [5] Nonetheless, at the procedures, the Lemieux Mission offerstime of the Vancouver Riot, nearly one-quarter interesting lessons about the history of racial of British Columbia’s population, the Canadian profiling and immigration. It is a case where province bordering the Pacific, was of Asian the shoe (or the geta as the case may apply) is descent.

2 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF

would “have full liberty to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the dominions and possessions of the other Contracting Party, and shall enjoy full and perfect protection for their persons and properties.” [7] The British government invited the Canadian government to enter the treaty as Canada did not enjoy foreign policy autonomy in 1897. Laurier refused, not because of the prospect of unrestricted Japanese immigration, but rather on the grounds that the most-favoured nation clause would hurt the Canadian economy. Despite Canada’s non-adherence to the Anglo- Japanese Treaty, Laurier’s Liberal government Japanese lumberjacks in Vancouver c. 1900 disallowed B.C.’s anti-Asian statutes ostensibly to avoid embarrassing Great Britain and its Politicians of all political stripes in British important ally, Japan. [8] Pro-British Columbia never lost votes in calling for a imperialists were in a bind. They often loudly “White Man’s Province” and several claimed petitioned their elected provincial and federal active membership in anti-Asian groups, such representatives to enact policy that as the “Asiatic Exclusion League.” These anti- demonstrated Canada stood side-by-side with Asian associations claimed that thousands of Britain (such as sending troops to fight in the Japanese came from Hawaii and landed in the Boer War). Yet even though Canada would not United States, only to flood across the “porous adhere to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty until 1906, border” into B.C. At the turn of the century, the majority of B.C.’s white population was British- B.C.’s anti-Asian statutes drew the Japanese born or of British descent and they were strong government’s ire and reflected badly on pro-British imperialists. The B.C. provincial Canada as a member of the British Empire. government routinely passed anti-Asian legislation, aimed at restricting their entry in In light of the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance the province or barring them from employment and Japan’s stunning military victory over in certain sectors of industry. The federal Russia in 1905, the Laurier government government in Ottawa often had to declare decided it was time to forge closer ties with such legislation unconstitutional, citing not its Japan, the newest member of the Great Powers own displeasure with the province’scircle. In 1903, Minister of Agriculture Sydney discriminatory legislation, but rather the need Fisher, enticed by the commercial possibilities, to retain British imperial unity. [6] held talks with Foreign Minister Komura Jutaro that ended in failure. Fisher wanted a new Great Britain’s diplomatic rapprochement with treaty, but Komura would not consider it. The the Meiji government complicated matters for Foreign Minister did allow the Canadian British imperialists in Canada. In 1894, the government to join the existing 1894 Anglo- British and Japanese governments signed the Japanese Treaty if it desired, which the British historic Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Commerce Foreign Office permitted in 1905. As the and Navigation [hereinafter “Anglo-Japanese contents of the treaty would not change, the Treaty”], which began the process of reversing Foreign Office reminded Laurier that “Japanese the unequal treaties. The first article of the subjects” would have “full liberty” to enter treaty stipulated that subjects of either country Canada. [9]

3 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF

Vancouver Riot damage done by the Asiatic Exclusion Anglo-Japanese Alliance in a German cartoon image League to the store of K. Okada, 201 Powell Street

In a personal bid to change the provisions regarding Japanese immigration, Laurier The Japanese Foreign Minister, Count Hayashi decided to confer directly with the Japanese Tadasu, suggested avoiding “the usual Consul-General, Nosse Tatsugoro. Nosse diplomatic channels” and hoped Canadian assured Laurier in 1905 that “the Japanese authorities could settle the issue of damages government will always adhere to their policy and reparations “independently of the British of voluntary restrictions on their peoplegovernment.” [12] Laurier wasted no time in emigrating to British Columbia.” [10] Nosse sending his regrets to the Consul-General and was referring to the Meiji government’s the Imperial Japanese government, while he appointed Deputy Minister of Labour W.L. pre-1905 lukewarm position on emigration to Mackenzie King as Royal Commissioner to North America (excluding Hawaii). But, as investigate the damages in Vancouver. Lemieux would discover during his visit to Japan, Nosse failed to consult with the Meiji “The influx of Oriental labour,” in the popular Government whether this was still official phrase of the day, clearly violated Nosse’s policy. When Canada adhered “unreservedly” promises. Laurier considered sending a to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty in 1906, the diplomatic envoy to Tokyo and the Cabinet Consul-General’s promises were not appended endorsed Rodolphe Lemieux as the or mentioned in the official documents. government’s chief envoy. The French- Canadian Lemieux was one of Laurier’s most Almost immediately after adherence to the trusted ministers. The object of Lemieux’s treaty, thousands of Japanese arrived inmission was to obtain written assurances from Vancouver. Though some were in transit to the the Japanese that they would not allow more than 300 labourers and artisans a year to United States and some were returning from a emigrate to Canada. Even though the first trip to Japan, the sight of so many Japanese article of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty stated that angered various sections of British Columbia the Japanese enjoyed “full and perfect society. In Vancouver, fears of an “Asiatic protection for their persons and properties,” invasion” boiled over on 7 September 1907. and that the race riot had clearly been caused [11] A mob led by the Asiatic Exclusion League by Canadian and American agitators, by destroyed Chinese and Japanese property in sending Lemieux on his mission, Laurier Vancouver and there were many wounded. essentially shifted the blame to the Japanese.

4 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF

The large “unassimilable” Japanese presence in Canada had caused the riot, not the violent white nativists. If mother Britain were not dependent on Japan’s goodwill and military presence to protect its commercial and colonial interests in East Asia, Laurier would surely have made even more stringent demands on Japan to restrict emigration, in order to satisfy his B.C. constituents, or even the Governor- General of Canada, Lord Grey. [13]

The Lemieux Mission, November – December 1907

Lemieux set sail on 29 October 1907 and arrived in Yokohama on 14 November. The British Ambassador to Japan, Sir Claude MacDonald, lent the Lemieux team invaluable diplomatic help. MacDonald introduced Lemieux to Foreign Minister Hayashi and the first official meeting was scheduled for 25 November. Lemieux understood Laurier’s request but he also had a keener understanding Rodolphe Lemieux, 1909 of the difficulties of imposing such strict demands on a British ally and an emerging During his trans-Pacific voyage, Lemieux world power. As Lemieux observed, with the prepared for his meeting with the Foreign signing of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, “Jap[an] Ministry by reading a confidential report on the gained admittance [into the] Comity of Civilized situation in B.C. written by a W.E. McInnes, nations on a status of Equality.” [14] who was sent at the behest of the Minister of the Interior, Frank Oliver. The report had a major impact on Lemieux’s thinking on racial matters in Canada, as he had virtually no first- hand knowledge of anything Asian. The crux of McInnes’s findings, which Lemieux studiously jotted down, rested on the opinion that Japanese immigration to Canada, whether large-scale or not, was primarily a racial issue which threatened to destabilize Canadian society. Lemieux noted how the Chinese, while paradoxically unwelcome as immigrants, were actually highly desirable workers. “[The] Chinese [were] less objectionable” and “in demand” because they did menial, dirty, and dangerous jobs, which he listed as “domestic servants, laundry men, cooks, labourers in clearing forests, market gardeners, inside workers in canneries [and], above ground

5 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF workers in collieries.” [15] confine themselves to limited and subordinate occupations as do the Chinese and Hindoos. On the other hand, objections were raised The Japanese are competing with white against the “unassimilable” Japanese because merchants for white trade; they are competing they were doing too good a job at integrating in with white artisans and clerks for work and Canadian society. The Japanese, Lemieux wrote employment in every line of activity. I visited in his notes, were more competitive, had “more the town of Steveston, where formerly over energy,” and had “more independence than 3,000 white fishermen earned their living; they others.” He then listed the different sectors have been entirely supplanted by the Japanese. where Japanese were employing theirSteveston is now to all intents and purposes a “competitive” spirit: fisheries, lumberJapanese town.” [17] industries, boat building, mining industry, railways, sealing, domestic servants, market The Japanese work ethic and enthusiasm gardening), farming, land clearing, tailors, clearly represented the kind of labour Laurier waiters, and finally, the all-encompassing needed to fulfill his promise of a strong and “engaged in business.” [16] economically vibrant 20th century for Canada. However, their presence on Canadian soil manifested another unique, though ill-defined, problem. According to his notes, the large-scale presence of “Mongolians” in “an Anglo-Saxon country” was “fraught with danger.” These “races [were] unfamiliar” with “democratic institutions,” and thus threatened – though he never explained how – British and Anglo-Saxon civilization. Although he noted that the ratio of whites to Asians in B.C. was an alarming “1 in every 4,” he concluded that the “reason for restriction [was] far more compelling[.] Orientals belong to a civilisation radically different than ours. Well nigh impossible gulf between the 2[.]” McInnes invoked stronger Japanese miners in Vancouver c. 1900 imagery when he observed that “the whites fear that in a very few years, under existing The Japanese faced more hostility from whites conditions, that ratio will be so decreased as to in B.C. than the Chinese or Indians, even when make British Columbia an Asiatic Colony.” [18] they were employed in the same sectors, because the former’s enterprising attitude At their first official meeting, Lemieux’s represented a clear threat to established memorandum attempted to bridge the “well notions of the superiority of the white race. nigh impossible gulf” between the Canadian That threat is clearly demonstrated inand Japanese representatives. After insisting McInnes’s report: that the Japanese abide by the “Nosse promises” and limit emigration to Canada to “There is an uneasiness in British Columbia to- 300 labourers and artisans a year, Lemieux day that would not be felt if the Asiatic attempted to flatter his hosts by emphasizing immigration were confined to Chinese and the history of goodwill and cordial relations Hindoos, who are looked upon the whites as between the two countries. On this matter of greatly inferior races.[…]The Japanese do not “goodwill,” Lemieux pointed out that the

6 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF

Laurier-led federal government had disallowed Americans and other Westerners while Asian 22 of B.C.’s anti-Asian statues in the last ten “races” had the immigration “door shut in their years, including nine that specifically restricted faces.” [21] This example of American (and by Japanese immigration. As Iino Masako points extension Canadian) hypocrisy was not lost on out, Lemieux’s statement was disingenuous. Lemieux. He came to appreciate the tensions The real pressure to disallow B.C.’s legislation his government’s efforts to treat Japanese came from the Japanese government, via the immigrants as third-class (after the British and British authorities in London, rather than the other white Europeans) were having in Japan. federal government’s own sense of outrage over the discriminatory legislation. [19]Count Hayashi returned a week later to Furthermore, Lemieux was pleased toannounce that while the Japanese government announce that his government had approved a could not enter into a new treaty, it compensation package worth $9175 to the “acknowledged our difficulties in [Canada]” Japanese community and $1600 for theand was thus prepared to limit emigration. [22] Japanese Consulate’s legal costs. Lemieux’s In truth, bearing in mind its relationship with intention was to demonstrate that the Canadian Britain and the situation in British Columbia, government could and did differentiate racially the Japanese had very few available options. between the Japanese and the Chinese (if only Even though the Japanese government stood on for diplomacy’s sake), even if Britishthe legal high ground, it could not possibly ask Columbians only saw “Orientals,” “Asiatics,” for the status quo vis-à-vis Canada. To do so and “Mongolian hordes.” would invite more physical harm and discriminatory legislation against Japanese Hayashi and his Vice-Minister the Baron residing, or desiring to reside, in Canada. For Chinda dismissed the Canadian Minister’s case. the Japanese to go against the Canadian First, according to Chinda, Consul-General government’s express wishes might alienate Nosse was “not authorized to give such Great Britain, their powerful ally. Yet to accept assurance” in promising restrictions onCanadian demands would be to acknowledge emigration. This had been Lemieux’s strongest that, despite their newfound Great Power argument and Chinda’s remark suddenly status and alliance with Great Britain, they invalidated the diplomatic and legal grounds of were considered an “inferior race” and lumped Lemieux’s case. Second, Hayashi promised to in the same category of unwanted people as the study Lemieux’s memorandum but he warned Chinese and the Indians. Hayashi accepted the the Canadian that the Japanese people “were Canadian demands because while the high spirited and sensitive” and they would not restrictions were insulting and their treaty look favourably towards a treaty which limited rights violated, there were other places where their freedom to emigrate, and “that they could Japanese labour could emigrate and make a not tolerate being regarded as inferior to other valuable contribution, such as Korea, races against whom no other restrictions were Manchuria, and South America. [23] enforced.” [20] In this respect, Hayashi taught his Canadian and British guests a history Rodolphe Lemieux, Claude MacDonald, Joseph lesson. When the American CommodorePope (the Canadian undersecretary of State for Matthew Perry opened Japan to the Western External Affairs), and Ishii Kikujiro (then world in 1853, he told the Japanese that “the Director of the Bureau of Commerce of the only way” they would elevate themselves Foreign Ministry) drafted a proposal on among the world’s nations would be by December 4 that would become the basis for “welcoming all races to their shores.” Fifty the Lemieux Agreement. The wording of the years later, Japan’s ports were open toproposal conveyed a stronger sense of racial

7 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF exclusion than even Lemieux had originally Government will not in any event permit a suggested. Whereas Lemieux had demanded a foreign Government to discriminate against limit of 300 labourers and artisans per year, their subjects.” [29] according to the proposed draft, all Japanese emigration would be forbidden. Only four Stuck between his government’s refusal to exemptions were made: 1) current Japanese accept any proposal until it could speak with residents of Canada; 2) domestics for Japanese Lemieux and a Japanese government that residents; 3) contract labourers requested by would not include numerical limits, Lemieux Japanese residing in Canada or by Canadian left for Canada on December 26 disappointed nationals, who then needed the Canadian at not having completed an agreement in government’s approval; and 4) agricultural Japan. But as historian Patricia Roy notes, workers or miners for Japanese-owned farms based on initial despatches from Tokyo, British and mines. [24] Rather than change the treaty, Columbians were wary of the progress Lemieux the Japanese government would send a letter had made in Japan. Pressure from B.C.’s detailing these instructions to the British Members of Parliament required Laurier to Ambassador and the local Consular authorities. present a document outlining Japan’s firm [25] These four exceptions had a dual purpose. intention to restrict emigration. But after he Those few permitted to emigrate would be returned to Ottawa in January 1908, Lemieux working on the margins of the Canadian explained the details of the proposal. The economy. Furthermore, the restrictionsCabinet approved Lemieux’s arrangement with indicated a desire to segregate Japanese the Japanese government and this became workers and their community from the white known as the “Lemieux Agreement.” There community. Both Lemieux and MacDonald were some initial fears that the Japanese had urged their respective superiors to approve the ignored “the spirit and title of the agreement” proposals. [26] when hundreds of Japanese arrived at Vancouver in the first half of 1908. This led to Laurier was not satisfied and he replied with a the appointment of the ex-Liberal politician curt message: “Proposed arrangement not R.L. Drury to supervise immigration from satisfactory.” [27] While the terms seemed Japanese ports. However, from May 1908, agreeable, Laurier insisted on a writtenJapanese immigration ground to a halt and less document that he could introduce tothan 50 left for Canada over the next six Parliament that promised Japan would enforce months. [30] The Lemieux Mission, in the a fixed number for emigration. The Japanese opinion of B.C.’s white community, had clearly government, fearing a public backlash not been a success. unlike the 1905 Hibiya riots [28], would not sign such a document for public demonstration. Comparing Canada in 1907 with Japan in Lemieux relayed to his prime minister how 2007 important it was to approve the current proposal, as the Japanese government could Though on the surface, Canada in 1907 and not do more to satisfy Canada. As Laurier was Japan in 2007 appear to bear little in common, so far from Japan, Lemieux wrote, he could not the issue of race as a determinant in national appreciate that the Japanese were “very proud politics unites them both. Furthermore, the and very sensitive as regards the racial issue.” events surrounding the Lemieux mission and The press “was up in arms against any the new Japanese immigration procedures both proposed arrangement.” Finally, Lemieux made employ the rhetoric of fear, a false sense of it very clear the essential difficulty in realizing racial unity for political gain, and a disregard the goals of his mission: “[The] Japanese for treaty (or human) rights.

8 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF

It is significant that the Lemieux mission procedures that treat them as potential occurred during a decade when the federal terrorists and criminals. That such draconian government actively sought hard-working measures could be accepted with so little people to settle the vast, underpopulated political debate owes to this century’s new prairies. Even though the Japanese, inrhetoric of fear, the asinine “war on terror.” In particular, possessed the skills and the work Japan as elsewhere, the “war on terror” has ethic that a developing Canada needed, their inspired governments to scale back human race, their “unassimilability,” and theirrights in the name of protecting their borders. “competitiveness” were not welcome to a Coupled with the belief of Japanese superiority white, primarily Anglo-Saxon, country. and racial homogeneity (ware ware nihonjin [“We Japanese”] and nihonjinron [“Theory of It seems odd today that in a young country like Japanese-ness”]), the Japanese government has Canada, where there was a desperate need for created an immigration system that demonizes skilled labour, that politicians, newspapermen, all foreigners under the pretext of appearing and labour leaders would turn away the very “strong” in the fight on terrorism. people they needed because they were “evidently in some trades our superior.” [30] The issue of skilled labour is another area Yet the construction of a white Anglo-Saxon where Canada in 1907 and Japan in 2007 have country, rather than the construction of an similarities. Canada sought skilled labour to economically strong country which could develop its young country. Japan today is facing develop its vast natural resources and compete a skilled labour shortage, particularly in the with its American neighbours, dominated the health-care sector [32] and has already had the rhetoric of Canadian political and labour first absolute population decline in its modern leaders. With a large presence of French- history. Unlike the terms of the Lemieux Canadian Catholics, among other ethnic and Agreement, the new immigration procedures religious groups, an Anglo-Saxon Canada was do not automatically bar anyone from entering neither demographically nor politically feasible. Japan per se. But they have caused such Despite Canada’s multi-ethnic community, it hostility among human rights groups and was easy to play the race card for political gain businessmen, that Japan’s tactics might have in the era of Social Darwinism and “Yellow significant long-term consequences. The latter Peril.” This was particularly true case in British say they will consider moving their business to Columbia, which was on the front lines of Asian Seoul (Incheon), Singapore, or Hong Kong, a immigration. The white Anglo-Saxon leaders of decision that makes geographical sense as B.C. used the baseless rhetoric of fear (“hordes China and India experience explosive economic of Orientals” who drove down wages) to rally growth. It remains to see whether other skilled their fellow Canadians to the cause of Asian workers, particularly nurses and other health- exclusion and discriminatory immigration care workers, will turn away from Japan in legislation. While the Lemieux mission targeted search of opportunities elsewhere. only Japanese migrants, it was one part of a larger effort by provincial and federalIn the same vein, both 1907 and 2007 share the governments to bar Asian peoples from settling honour of incurring the wrath of the people of on Canada’s shores. Great Power/Western countries. The Japanese, having recently attained Great Power status, Japan’s new immigration policy, on the other protested vigorously at being treated in the hand, entails racial discrimination on a large same fashion as the Chinese or Asian Indians. scale, as virtually anyone who is not ofThey held rights enshrined in a British treaty Japanese blood now undergoes immigration that permitted them “full liberty” to travel and

9 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF reside in Canada. Thus the Japanese rightly to thank Takuya Tazawa for invaluable expected to be treated with the dignityresearch assistance. inherent of being subjects of an Imperial Power and allied to another Great Power, but they This article was written for Japan Focus and were rudely jolted from that notion very posted on January 21, 2008. quickly. In 2007, human rights groups like Amnesty International, ordinary “foreign Notes residents” of Japan, and frequent visitors to Japan protested loudly to the media and to their [1] In addition to dozens of letters to the editor, governments about this overt discrimination see Kevin Rafferty, “Not so welcome to Japan and infringement on human rights. Despite the any longer,” The Japan Times, 1 November Japanese protests in 1907, the Lemieux2007. Agreement remained in force until after the Second World War (the annual limits were [2] Jun Hongo, “Hatoyama in hot water over ‘al- actually tightened from 400 to 150 in 1923). Qaida connection’,” The Japan Times, 30 The Lemieux Agreement was initially enforced October 2007. to keep Canada, particularly British Columbia, “white” and to quell labour’s fear of “unfair [3] This is reminiscent of the post-9/11 “guilt competition.” It endured for nearly 40 years trip” the Bush Administration played on because there was no political will in Canada, Canadians. It was “Canada’s porous border” or elsewhere in the white Western world, to that allowed terrorists to enter the United end the measures. Similarly, in the current States; it was “Canada’s leaky immigration global political climate of the “war on terror,” it system” that admitted in terrorists who lived is unlikely that the new immigration next to the United States. Lawrence Martin, procedures will be repealed, for fear of “Spin game: the great Canadian guilt trip,” The appearing “weak” on terrorism. Nonetheless, Globe and Mail, 3 October 2001, p. A15. Justice Minister Hatoyama would do well to remember how the geta was once on the other [4] For the authoritative interpretation of the foot, when Canada and the United States indiscriminately targeted the Japanese as the Vancouver Riot, see Patricia E. Roy, A White source of their domestic ills for political Man’s Province: British Columbia politicians advantage. and Chinese and Japanese Immigrants, 1858-1914 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1989), chapter 8. Simon Nantais is a doctoral candidate in Japanese history at the University of Victoria [5] Masako Iino, “Japan’s Reaction to the (Canada). He is currently a Japan Foundation Vancouver Riot of 1907,” BC Studies 60 Doctoral Research Fellow at the Ritsumeikan (Winter 1983-1984): 36. Center for Korean Studies in Kyoto. His research deals with the Korean community in [6] Iino, 35-36. the Kansai area during the American Occupation of Japan (1945-1952). He would like [7] Honorius Lacombe, “La mission Lemieux au to express thanks to Professors John Price and Japon (1907-1908).” MA Thesis, University of Patricia Roy for helpful comments on an earlier Ottawa, 1951, 7. Originally quoted from British version of this paper, and to Professors Mark and Foreign State Papers, 1893-1894, vol. Selden, Nobuko Adachi, and Jim Stanlaw for LXXXVI, A.H. Oakes and Maycock, eds. their comments and suggestions. He would like (London: Willoughby, 1904), 40.

10 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF

[8] The Canadian government, however, had no officials can be found at 326-331, 2 October -28 diplomatic qualms about offending the Chinese, November 1907, F.O. 371/274, Public Record as the head tax attests. Office. I used British Foreign Office Japan Correspondence, 1906-1929 (Wilmington, Del.: [9] Robert Joseph Gowen, “Canada and the Scholarly Resources, 1988) to locate the Myth of the Japan Market, 1896-1911,” The McInnes report. Pacific Historical Review 39, no. 1 (Feb. 1970): 72-73. [16] Lemieux notes, 150, vol. 3, Lemieux fonds, LAC. [10] Letter from Nosse to Laurier, no. 97258, 8 May 1905, Sir Wilfrid Laurier fonds (MG26-G), [17] W.E. McInnes to Frank Oliver, 328, 2 Library and Archives Canada [LAC]. October 1907, F.O. 371/274, Public Record Office. [11] Three days earlier, there had been an anti- Asian riot in nearby Bellingham, Washington, [18] Lemieux notes, 151, vol. 3, Lemieux fonds, and there had been a number of anti-Asian riots LAC; McInnes to Oliver, 328, 2 October 1907, across the Pacific states in 1907. F.O. 371/274, Public Record Office.

[12] Sessional Papers, No. 74b, 165, quoted in [19] Iino, “Japan’s Reaction to the Vancouver Howard Sugimoto, Japanese Immigration, the Riot,” 35-36. Vancouver Riots, and Canadian Diplomacy (New York: Arno Press, 1978), 159. [20] Precis of interview with Count Hayashi at the Foreign Office, 255, 25 November 1907, [13] The Governor-General of Canada, Lord vol. 4, Lemieux fonds, LAC. Grey, took a keener interest in Canadian affairs than most of his predecessors. In an undated [21] Ibid., 256. letter sent to Lemieux prior to his departure, Lord Grey, ostensibly speaking on behalf of the [22] Precis of the meeting held at the Foreign British Crown, warned that “The real danger to Office at Tokio, 370-372, 2 December 1907, vol. B.C. and Canada will not come from the 4, Lemieux fonds, LAC. officially permitted influx [of] Passport [holding] Japs into the mainland of B.C. – but [23] Around the same time the Lemieux was in from the possible occupation by nonofficial Japs Japan, President Theodore Roosevelt’s of the rich and uninhabited Islands like Queen Administration and the Japanese government Charlotte Islands[.] I am much alarmed with exchanged a series of notes which effectively possible consequences of a Jap invasion of ended Japanese emigration to the U.S. (but not, these unoccupied lands.” Letter from Lord Grey for the moment, to Hawaii). Japanese to Lemieux, 140, vol. 3, Rodolphe Lemieux authorities did not issue passports to people fonds (MG 27 II D10), LAC. wishing to work in the United States. This [14] Lemieux notes, 148, vol. 3, Lemieux fonds, became known as the 1907 Gentlemen’s LAC. Agreement.

[15] Lemieux notes, 146, vol. 3, Lemieux fonds, [24] Precis of the meeting held at the British LAC. Menial, dirty, and dangerous jobs are the Embassy, 406, 4 December 1907, vol. 5, kitsui, kitanai, kiken (the 3Ks) that theLemieux fonds, LAC. Japanese today say they will not do. The McInnes report and comments from British [25] Telegram from Lemieux to Laurier, 472, 10

11 6 | 1 | 0 APJ | JF

December 1907, vol. 5, Lemieux fonds, LAC. [29] Telegram from Lemieux to Laurier, 468-470, 10 December 1907, vol. 5, Lemieux [26] Telegram from Lemieux to Laurier, 438, 6 fonds, LAC. About a week later, Lemieux sent December 1907, vol. 5, Lemieux fonds;Laurier another cable explaining how Japanese Paraphrase of telegram from Sir C. MacDonald feelings of maintaining racial dignity were at to Sir E. Grey, 421, 5 December 1907, vol. 5, the core of their refusal to include numerical Lemieux fonds, LAC. limits in any negotiated proposal. He wrote: “Japanese Government offer to insert in [27] Telegram from Laurier to Lemieux, 441, 8 confidential letter to [British] Ambassador December 1907, vol. 5, Lemieux fonds, LAC. expression of their confident expectation that united immigration domestic and farm hands [28] The Japanese public had been led to will not exceed four hundred annually. While in believe that Japan would get all of its demands opinion of Ambassador and myself they are at the Portsmouth Treaty negotiations, which perfectly sincere in this and in their fixed officially ended the Russo-Japanese War, when purpose voluntarily to restrict immigration in fact the Japanese government’s position was within limit acceptable to us, they cannot not as strong as it or the press claimed. When possibly give any written assurance of the disappointing terms were announced, a numerical limitation. Any limiting of treaty mass rally was held in Tokyo on 5 September rights would mean their defeat and perhaps 1905 against the Japanese government for lead to serious trouble. Feeling very high.” concluding the Treaty. The next day, the day Telegram from Lemieux to Laurier, 622, 19 the Treaty was signed, riots broke out across December 1907, vol. 6, Lemieux fonds, LAC. Tokyo and over 350 buildings were destroyed, including the official residence of the Home [30] Roy, A White Man’s Province, 211-213. Minister. In dealing with the Canadian immigration question, the Japanese[31] Ibid., 211. government refused to present a document to the public outlining restrictions imposed on its [32] See for example the following recent subjects. They feared similar violence if the reports: “OB-GYN career shunned by med terms were announced. For an analysis of the students,” Japan Times, 16 November 2007; 1905 Hibiya Riot, see Shumpei Okamoto, The “Coping with the doctor shortage,” Japan Japanese Oligarchy and the Russo-Japanese Times, 1 October 2007; “Japan physician War (New York: Columbia University Press, shortage serious: OECD,” Japan Times, 26 July 1970). 2007.