法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment
among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan
TAKENOSHITA, Hirohisa
Introduction
Immigrant assimilation, integration, and place attachment
The Japanese context of immigration
Analytical strategies
Data, measurement, and methods
Descriptive results
Relationships among place attachment
What shapes psychological integration?
Discussion and conclusion

Introduction
During the time of globalization, many countries have increasingly accepted alarge number of immigrants from other countries, thereby generating a lot of
tensions and conflicts across people in the receiving societies. We see the growthof anti-immigrant sentiment among native-born individuals in several countries
where many immigrants are accepted (Davidov and Meuleman, 2012; Hainmuellerand Hiscox, 2010; Semyonov et al., 2006). In addition, in several countries, such as

France, Germany, and Sweden, conservative political parties that strongly
advocate the exclusion of immigrants attract large numbers of voters and win
some seats in parliament (Finnsdottir, 2022; Jylha et al., 2022; Rustenbach, 2010).
Meanwhile, the labor market in the receiving country tends to have a strong
demand for immigrant workers, regardless of whether they are highly skilled or
unskilled. It means that the demand for immigrants in the receiving societies is
structurally embedded due to declining fertility rates and continued educational
expansion experienced by these societies (Cornelius and Tsuda, 2004) .
Technological development in transportation and communication has also(25)360

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

contributed to the growth in the flow of peopleʼs movement from one country toanother. People can move across national borders and keep ties with people who
remain in their local communities through the Internet and SNS (social network
services) (Levitt and Jaworsky, 2007; Tsuda, 2003).

The recent situation of transnational migration has altered how people
migrate and adapt to their country of destination. The assimilation andintegration theories nowadays try to identify the divergences in assimilation andintegration patterns and how they depend on the societal contexts of thesending and receiving countries (Alba and Nee, 2003; Portes and Zhou, 1993; Portes
et al., 2005; Zhou, 1997). These theories also need to account for immigrantsʼ

transnational engagement through which they can maintain ties with people intheir country of origin, although these immigrants are highly integrated into
their country of destination (Itzigsohn and Saucedo, 2002; Levitt and Jaworsky,
2007; Levitt, 2001; Vertovec, 2004). Thus, immigrantsʼ transnational activities

nowadays make the process of assimilation and integration more complex thanin the past.
To capture the complex mechanisms by which immigrant assimilation andintegration occur, we need to account for the multiple dimensions ofassimilation. For instance, Milton Gordon, who elaborated on the conventional
assimilation theory, distinguished assimilation into the seven subprocesses:
cultural, structural, marital, identificational, attitudinal, behavioral, and civic
assimilation (Gordon, 1964). Sociologists focused on socioeconomic assimilation
or integration among immigrants, using objective measurements: education,
occupation, and income (Waters and Jimenez, 2005). Meanwhile, psychologists
paid more attention to the psychological dimensions of assimilation andintegration (Berry, 2001). Given the current complex situations of immigrant
integration, we need to shed light on how the structural dimension of
integration is intertwined with its psychological dimensions and vice versa(Torunczyk-Ruiz and Brunarska, 2020). For instance, we suppose that individuals

who are highly embedded in and constrained by social surroundings make achoice for their actions from several options, and the chosen action influences
their trajectories of life courses (DiPrete and Eirich, 2006). From this perspective,
we need to look carefully at how immigrants consider their own migration
359(26)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

experience and their intention for settlement or return in the future because theirreflection shapes socioeconomic assimilation or integration of their own andtheir offspring.
Based on the issues discussed above, this study focuses on a sense of
attachment to different places and groups (place attachment) because place
attachment forms one of the crucial bases for immigrant identities (Ehrkamp,2005). According to the previous literature on immigrant place attachment, somestudies explore immigrantsʼ emotional attachment to a place in their country ofdestination (Torunczyk-Ruiz and Brunarska, 2020) . Nevertheless, theories oftransnationalism claim that immigrants can maintain a dual frame of reference
about their country of origin and country of destination (Levitt and Jaworsky,
2007; Levitt, 2001) . From this perspective, we should shed light on both

attachments to these two places. In addition, immigrants may also feel more
attached to ethnic communities than their origin or destination countries
because ethnic communities may form distinctive places where immigrants areprotected from competition with and discrimination by natives (Portes et al.,2005). It is thus important to elucidate and compare a sense of attachment todifferent places among immigrants.
This study aims to explore emotional attachment to different places orgroups among immigrants in Japan and to identify how socioeconomic andsocial integrations are linked to place attachment. In this study, we cancontribute to previous literature in two important ways. First, we focus on
immigrants in Japan, a recent destination country. Several previous studies
investigated this topic in European countries, which accept many immigrants
from other countries (Ehrkamp, 2005; Glorius et al., 2020; Hellgren, 2019;
Hernandez et al., 2007) . Meanwhile, Japan is a relatively new immigrantdestination. Igarashi (2021) exceptionally examined place attachment among
immigrants in Japan; however, there remain few studies that exploredimmigrantsʼ identities and attachment to different places using the quantitative
data set in Japan. Japan is seen as one of the recent immigration countries thatare highly reluctant to accept immigrants. However, the Japanese economy andsociety have a structural demand for immigrants to sustain and reproduce
themselves (Tsuda and Cornelius, 2004) . This situation makes Japanese(27)358

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

immigrants have distinctive characters in terms of their identities and place
attachments.
Second, we explore attachment to different places. Previous literature
regarding place attachment focused solely on emotional attachment toimmigrantsʼ destination country (Glorius et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., 2007;
Lewicka, 2010; Torunczyk-Ruiz and Brunarska, 2020). However, immigrants may

feel attached to other places, such as their origin country or their ethnic
community in their destination, as argued above (Ehrkamp, 2005). Furthermore,
the place to which immigrants may feel attached differs in scale. It includes
room, home, neighborhood, city, region, and state (Lewicka, 2010). Igarashi(2021) also examined attachment to the destination country and ethnic

communities but did not investigate attachment to the country of origin. This
study investigates what shapes attachment to the origin country, ethnic
communities, and the destination country and how it differs across three typesof place attachment.
In the next section, we review several theoretical arguments regarding
assimilation, integration, and place attachments. Then, we discuss the contextsof reception for immigrants in Japan compared to other countries. Next, we
describe the data set, variables, and methods employed in our analyses. We show
the descriptive statistics and results estimated with the multivariate analyses.
Finally, we conclude this article by discussing the findings and their implications.

Immigrant assimilation, integration, and place attachment
The conventional assimilation theory was initially established to explain patternsof adaptation among immigrants from Southern and Eastern European
countries at the turn of the twentieth century. Despite many criticisms of thistheory concerning a lack of assumption about variations in assimilation
patterns across immigrant groups (Alba and Nee, 2003; Portes et al., 2005), thetheoretical formulation elaborated by Milton Gordon (1964) still provides
significant insights for explaining recent conditions of immigrants. He divided
assimilation into seven subprocesses: cultural, structural, marital,
identificational, attitude, behavior, and civic. Cultural assimilation indicates the357(28)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

shift of culture from country of origin to country of destination. Structural
assimilation refers to large-scale entrance into primary group relationships withnatives. Identificational assimilation mentions the development of a sense ofidentity as the majority in the host society (Gordon, 1964) . This formula
highlights the multiple dimensions of assimilation, and we need to consider how
assimilation patterns differ by dimension and how one dimension of
assimilation relates to another.
Recent immigration studies explore increasing divergences in assimilation
patterns among several immigrant groups and how assimilation patterns andprocesses depend on resources held by and social circumstances surrounding
immigrants (Alba and Nee, 2003; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Portes and Rumbaut,2006). Portes and Rumbaut (2006) provide a comprehensive monograph on

immigrant assimilation and integration in the U.S. and describe different aspectsof immigrant incorporation, such as spatial mobility since their migration to the
U.S., occupational and economic advancement, identity and citizenship, mental
health and psychological well-being, the role of religion for immigrant
adaptation, acquisition of the host country language, and situations of the new
second generation.
Issues of immigrantsʼ identities have received remarkable attention among
many researchers: anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists. Among
several elements, place attachment is one of the critical components inconstructing immigrantsʼ identities because immigrants move beyond national
borders and adapt to a new social environment. Psychologists define place
attachment as the affective link that people establish with specific settings, where
they remain and where they feel comfortable (Hernandez et al., 2007; Lewicka,2010). In addition, we need to consider that the place where people feel attacheddiffers in scale, as argued above. It includes room, home, neighborhood, district,city, region, and state (Lewicka, 2010). Moreover, immigrants may feel attachedto their country of origin, but previous literature has emphasized theimportance of immigrantsʼ attachment to their destination country (TorunczykRuiz and Brunarska, 2020). Du (2017) proposed the need to elucidate immigrantsʼ

attachment to their origin and destination countries because the attachment totheir destination may depend on the one to their origin.
(29)356

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

Torunczyk-Ruiz and Brunarska (2020) proposed to view place attachment
as one of the critical domains in immigrant integration. They defined
integration as the process of inclusion of immigrants in the institutions andrelationships of the host society, and they proposed that integration can beapplied to the psychological domain among immigrants (Torunczyk-Ruiz andBrunarska, 2020). They also stated that emotional attachment to the country ofdestination is a crucial component in integration in the psychological domain.
Following their viewpoint, this study also treats place attachment as an indicatorof psychological integration.
From this standpoint, psychological integration would presumably depend
on integration in other domains. According to Van Tubergen (2006), integration
can be distinguished into several types: economic, social, and cultural.
Economic integration refers to achieving parity in socioeconomic status andfinancial resources between immigrants and natives. We can measure economic
integration in terms of unemployment, occupational status, income, and wealth.
Social integration refers to the extent to which immigrants interact socially withnatives. Cultural integration indicates the degree to which cultural values andpatterns are shared among immigrants and natives (Van Tubergen, 2006).
As the previous literature argued, psychological integration, measured byemotional attachment to immigrantsʼ destination country, depends on whether
and to what extent immigrants have a stable relationship with a place ofresidence. From this perspective, social integration, such as ties with natives, iscritical in enhancing psychological integration (Lewicka, 2010; Torunczyk-Ruizand Brunarska, 2020). Ties with people help immigrants perceive the long-lasting

relations between themselves and specific places. In addition, homeownership,
seen as an indicator of economic integration, is one of the critical predictors of
psychological integration because homeownership allows immigrants to live astable life for longer years in a specific place (Lewicka, 2010).
Meanwhile, the relationships between psychological integration and othersocial and economic integrations show inconsistent pictures. While a study
reported that higher socioeconomic status led to higher place attachment,
another study showed that the higher the socioeconomic status, the lower theplace attachment (Lewicka, 2005; Lewicka, 2010). The different patterns were355(30)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

identified due to other confounders. For instance, higher income allows people
to own housing (positive relationship) and move their residence more frequently
than poor people (negative relationship) (Lewicka, 2010). Empirical findings on therelationship between family and place attachment are also inconsistent. Brown
et al. (2004) documented that married individuals were more likely to feel
attached to home, but those with children were less likely to do so.
Based on the conventional assimilation theory, we assume that cultural
assimilation or integration is strongly connected to psychological assimilation(Gordon, 1964). The more familiar people are with the norms and customs of thehost society, the more attached people feel to the host society. Following
previous literature, we also use the host countryʼs language fluency and thelength of years in the host society as indicators of cultural assimilation or
integration (Chiswick, 1978; Waters and Jimenez, 2005).
In contrast, theories of transnationalism suggest different perspectives on
immigrant assimilation and integration. Some immigrants can often return totheir origin country if necessary (Tamaki, 2011), and they can maintain ties with
their family and friends who live far from their residence through online
electronic devices (Tsuda, 2003). Theories of transnationalism explore how
immigrant transnational activities complicate their settlement processes andhow people are attached to different places and spaces (Itzigsohn and Saucedo,
2002; Levitt and Jaworsky, 2007; Levitt, 2001; Vertovec, 2004) . From thetransnationalism perspective, immigrantʼs assimilation or integration into thehost society is not a one-way process, but it depends on the societal contexts ofboth the sending and receiving countries.
Following the transnationalism theories (Levitt and Jaworsky, 2007), even if
immigrants are deeply embedded or integrated into the destination country, they
can maintain their attachment to the origin country. We assume that other typesof assimilation and integration would not diminish immigrantsʼ attachment totheir origin country and that immigrants can keep both attachments to their
origin and destination country through their transnational engagement,
although they are fully integrated into the host society. Considering theories ofassimilation and transnationalism, we need to shed light on both attachments toorigin and destination.
(31)354

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

Moreover, we should look specifically at the immigrant identifications withethnic communities. The segmented assimilation theory demonstrates theimportance of ethnic communities or solidarity in achieving economic
integration in the destination country (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001). This theory
does not posit that ethnic communities or immigrant solidarity hinder
immigrant integration into the host society. Instead, ethnic communities enable
immigrants to achieve economic parity with natives or overcome discrimination
or obstacles against immigrants in the destination country (Xie and Gough,2011) . We consider that this situation can apply to attachment to ethnic

communities. Social ties with co-ethnic individuals or participation in co-ethnic
institutions may increase immigrantsʼ emotional attachment to ethnic
communities or groups.

The Japanese context of immigration
Since the 1980s, Japan has accepted many immigrants from other countries due
to demographic, economic, and social trends (Tsuda and Cornelius 2004). The
strong demand for immigrant workers in Japan occurred due to declining
fertility rates, which reduced the workforceʼs size, decreased population in rural
areas supplying labor to urban regions, and educational expansion, which
reduced the youth with lower education (Tsuda, 2006).
To cope with these challenges, the Japanese government revised the
Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act in 1990. Although the act
officially prohibits foreign, unskilled workers from entering Japan, it admits
second and third-generation Nikkeijin (i.e., descendants of Japanese emigrants).
The immigration policies in some countries tend to prefer immigrants with thesame ethnic origins. This policy change enabled the Japanese government tointroduce many unskilled migrant workers without contradicting thefundamental principles of its immigration policy (Tsuda and Cornelius 2004). In
addition, because of their shared ethnic ancestry, the Japanese government
assumed that the Nikkeijin would be culturally similar to the Japanese andwould quickly assimilate into Japanese society; however, in reality, most of the
Nikkeijin migrants in Japan do not speak Japanese well and are culturally Latin
353(32)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

American in origin (Tsuda 2006). According to foreign registration statistics, only
14,000 Brazilians lived in Japan in 1989, but the population exceeded 100,000 by
1991 and 200,000 five years later. In 2007, the Brazilian population in Japan
approached approximately 316,000 but declined rapidly, following the economiccrisis, to 230,552 in 2009. We did not see any remarkable increase in theBrazilian population in Japan afterward, and it became 209,430 in 2022.
We should mention how Brazilian migrants have been employed in Japan to
explain their incorporation into Japanese society. Many Brazilian migrant
workers have been temporary workers dispatched to client firms by contract
companies or labor dispatching agencies (Higuchi and Tanno, 2003). The Japaneselabor market is highly distinguished between the standard and non-standard
employment sectors. Unskilled migrant workers are likely to be incorporated
into non-standard employment. Unskilled workers in non-standard employment
engage in dead-end precarious jobs with lower pay. As native workers shun jobs
in such a periphery employment sector, this labor market sector has a structural
demand for migrant workers. Migrant workers are also willing to be temporary
workers if they identify as temporary migrants rather than permanent settlers(Piore, 1979). As argued below, many Brazilian workers intended to return totheir origin country rather than remain in Japan. The identification of Brazilian
migrants with temporary workers thus enabled them to accept unstable
employment contracts in Japan (Takenoshita, 2013).
American immigration studies demonstrate the importance of ethnic
communities in helping immigrants gain social support and resources fromother co-ethnic individuals or groups, thereby making upward mobility in thehost society (Portes and Bach, 1985). Meanwhile, this is not necessarily the casewith immigrant groups in different countries. In Japan, there exist ethnic
communities where many co-ethnic immigrants reside. However, fewer migrant
workers engage in self-employment or small businesses (Kataoka, 2015). Its
crucial reason is that migrant workers are strongly channeled into jobs in nonstandard employment (Takenoshita, 2013). Migrants need more resources andmotivation to start their small businesses than they do to find jobs in the nonstandard employment sector. A lack of economic resources would presumably
hinder ethnic communities from working to provide support and resources to(33)352

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japanother co-ethnic individuals.
Finally, we need to account for the role of transnationalism in shaping theincorporation of Brazilian immigrants in Japan. Recent technologicaldevelopments in transportation and communication enable Brazilian migrants
to maintain their ties or attachment to people in their country of origin. The
ethnic return migration policy in Japan also gives preferential treatment todescendants of Japanese emigrants up to the third generation. As the Nikkeijinmigrants in Japan have stable residence status, they can move back and forth
between Brazil and Japan more easily than other migrant groups. The
transnational engagement of Brazilian migrants in Japan helps to maintain theirties with families or friends in their sending communities. Meanwhile, thefrequent transnational movement between Brazil and Japan produced difficult
conditions for their integration into Japanese society. Takenoshita offeredempirical evidence showing that back-and-forth movement between Brazil andJapan had negative consequences for adult immigrantsʼ upward mobility andtheir offspringʼs educational attainment (Takenoshita, 2010; Takenoshita et al.,2014).

In addition, Tsuda (1999) reported that the transnational engagement ofBrazilian immigrants helped maintain their intention to return to their origin
country. Tsuda and Takenoshita also argued that transnationalism among
Brazilian migrants in Japan may block their integration into the destination
because they are reluctant to invest in not only developing their skills in thelabor market but also the educational attainment of their offspring due to theirintention to return to Brazil in the future (Takenoshita et al., 2014; Tsuda, 1999).
Let us summarize the arguments on how Brazilian migrants have been
received in Japan over several decades. The Japanese government and firms haveviewed these migrants as temporary workers who would finally return to their
origin country. This stance also influences how they perceive and interpret theirmigration experience and choice of future action. According to the 2007 survey
targeting Brazilian migrants in Shizuoka prefecture, 63 percent of Brazilian
migrants intended to return to their origin country in the future. Meanwhile,
only 19 percent of them intended to settle down in Japan. This situation would
probably shape their emotional attachment to their origin and destination
351(34)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

countries. In other words, Brazilian migrants would keep attached more strongly
to Brazil than to Japan, even if they lived in Japan for many years. The Japanesecontext of reception for migrant workers is characterized as a lack of efforts tointegrate immigrants into the host society. Therefore, we assume that there
might be weak or no associations between assimilation or integration into
Japanese society and emotional attachment to Japan.

Analytical strategies
In this study, we investigate how economic, social, and cultural assimilations or
integrations shape emotional attachment to the origin country, the destination
country, and ethnic communities. In this section, we propose several hypotheses
based on our discussions on immigrant assimilation and integration theories
and the Japanese immigration contexts. First, we suggest the hypotheses basedon straight-line assimilation theory. This hypothesis assumes that assimilation
would encourage immigrants to shift their identity from their country of origin
to their country of destination. In addition, the straight-line assimilation theory
assumes that assimilation would weaken immigrantsʼ identification with theirethnic community. We hypothesize the association between assimilation or
integration and emotional attachment to the three societies as follows:
Hypothesis 1a: The more greatly Brazilian migrants are integrated, the lesslikely they are to feel attached to the origin country.
Hypothesis 1b: The more greatly Brazilian migrants are integrated, the more
likely they are to feel attached to the destination country.
Hypothesis 1c: The more greatly Brazilian migrants are integrated, the lesslikely they are to feel attached to the ethnic community.
Second, we propose several possible hypotheses based on the segmented
assimilation theory. Segmented assimilation theory argues that there aredifferent patterns of assimilation or adaptation into the host society (Portes et(35)350

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

al., 2005). It discusses that the divergent pathways of assimilation depend on

resources held by and societal circumstances surrounding immigrants. This
theory highlights the critical role of ethnic communities in improving
immigrantsʼ socioeconomic resources. Based on this argument, ties with coethnic individuals and participation in activities of co-ethnic groups ororganizations encourage immigrants to strengthen a sense of emotional
attachment to other co-ethnic individuals. Immigrant entrepreneurs also dependon an ethnic community when they hire other co-ethnic immigrants and trade
their products to other co-ethnic customers. We assume that immigrant
entrepreneurship may increase their identification with an ethnic community.
Hypothesis 2a: Brazilian migrants who have ties with co-ethnic individuals or
institutions are more likely to feel attached to their ethnic community.
Hypothesis 2b: Brazilian entrepreneurs are more likely to feel attached totheir ethnic community.
In addition, if we apply this argument to their emotional attachment to theorigin country, we may observe similar types of association between variables
related to ethnic communities and emotional attachment to the origin country.
We draw the two possible hypotheses based on this assumption.
Hypothesis 2c: Brazilian migrants who have ties with co-ethnic individuals or
institutions are more likely to feel attached to their origin country.
Hypothesis 2d: Brazilian entrepreneurs are more likely to feel attached totheir origin country.
The segmented assimilation theory also emphasizes the importance of
discrimination in shaping the trajectories of immigrant assimilation andintegration. We assume that prejudice or discrimination against Brazilian
migrants would also strengthen their identification with their co-ethnic groupand produce a cohesive ethnic tie with other individuals. Given this349(36)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

consideration, we make several possible hypotheses;
Hypothesis 2e: Brazilian migrants who perceive discrimination are more likely
to feel attached to their origin country.
Hypothesis 2f: Brazilian migrants who perceive discrimination are less likely
to feel attached to their destination country.
Hypothesis 2g: Brazilian migrants who perceive discrimination are more likely
to feel attached to their ethnic community.
Finally, we discuss the hypotheses based on theories of transnationalism.
According to this theory, we assume that immigrantsʼ transnational ties withpeople in their country of origin and their transnational engagement allow
immigrants to keep attached to their country of origin. Conversely,transnationalism theories lack a consistent discussion on how transnational
practices shape immigrantsʼ identification with the country of destination or
ethnic communities. There are two possible scenarios for explaining immigrantsʼ
identities with their destination. On the one hand, transnational practices may
weaken a sense of attachment to their destination. In contrast, immigrantsʼ
transnational engagement with their country of origin encourages them tomaintain attachment to their ethnic community and other co-ethnic individuals.
Given this argument, we derive the following hypotheses;
Hypothesis 3a: Brazilian migrants who engage in transnational practices are
more likely to feel attached to their origin country.
Hypothesis 3b: Brazilian migrants who engage in transnational practices are
more likely to feel attached to their ethnic community.
Hypothesis 3c: Brazilian migrants who engage in transnational practices areless likely to feel attached to their destination country.
(37)348

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in JapanOn the other hand, transnational engagement with their country of origin
may not weaken identification with the country of destination. Previous
literature argues that immigrants can maintain a dual frame of reference
concerning the country of origin and the country of destination through theirtransnational activities (Gelatt, 2013; Levitt, 2001). Based on the arguments, wedraw the hypotheses as follows:
Hypothesis 3d: Brazilian migrants who engage in transnational practices are
more likely to feel attached to their destination country.

Data, measurement, and methods
We use the data derived from the survey on Brazilian immigrants in Shizuoka
Prefecture, undertaken in 2007, primarily because it measures how immigrants
feel attached to their country of origin, ethnic community, and country ofdestination. This survey has six indicators for measuring emotional attachment:
attachment to Brazil, hometown in Brazil, Brazilians in Japan, Japan, Shizuoka
Prefecture, and neighborhood. Using the indicators, we can ensure how these
items are correlated to each other.
This data focuses on Brazilian immigrants in Shizuoka Prefecture in 2007.
The author of this article helped the Shizuoka Prefectural government design
the questionnaire, check any errors in the data set, do statistical analyses, andwrite discussion papers for this government. After the end of this research
project, the Shizuoka Prefectural government allowed us to use the data set.
As the Shizuoka Prefectural Government implemented this survey, thesurvey assessed the extent to which Brazilian immigrants in Shizuoka were
integrated into Japanese society. The sample in this survey was not nationally
representative. Nonetheless, we believe we can illustrate Brazilian immigrantsʼsocioeconomic conditions in Japan with this dataset. Among the 47 prefecturesin Japan, 16% of Brazilian immigrants reside in the Shizuoka Prefecture. In
2007, more than half of the Brazilian immigrants lived in the Tokai region, thecentral area of Japan (which includes the four prefectures of Aichi, Gifu, Mie, andShizuoka). Manufacturing industries, especially export-oriented industries that347(38)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

produce automobiles and electronic appliances, are located in these prefectures.
Employers need temporary workers because the demand for these products
often fluctuates considerably. The demand for temporary workers attracted
many Brazilian workers to the region (Takenoshita, 2013).
This survey primarily employed a systemic sampling method to randomly
select samples from the alien registration records maintained by eachmunicipality within the Shizuoka Prefecture. After randomly selecting 3,861
samples from these lists, the government mailed the questionnaires to the
respondents. In total, 161 questionnaires did not reach their targets largely
because of address changes. The government received 1,090 responses from theparticipants―a rate of 29.5% (Takenoshita, 2013).
Table 1 lists the variables used in the multivariate analyses. To proceed withthe statistical analyses, we have two steps; first, we explore how different
attachments to places or groups are related to each other using the principal
component analysis. We assume that there are three dimensions to place
attachment among immigrants: country of origin, country of destination, andethnic community. The principal component analysis ensures how many
dimensions exist in place attachment among Brazilian immigrants in Japan.
Second, we examine what shapes place attachment among Brazilian immigrants
in Japan. In this analysis, we test several hypotheses, such as straight-line
assimilation, segmented assimilation, and transnationalism.

Descriptive results
Figure 1 presents the results of six questions regarding place attachment among
Brazilian immigrants in Japan. More immigrants reported that they felt very
attached to Brazil (43%) and their hometowns in Brazil (31%) than to otherplaces. Meanwhile, the proportions of those who felt very attached to thecurrent neighborhood, Shizuoka Prefecture, and Japan are relatively smaller
than that of their origin country. Less than 10% of respondents felt attached toother co-ethnic individuals in Japan. It means that a sense of attachment to theethnic community is much weaker than the one to their country of origin.
Table 1 lists the results of variables used in the multiple regression analyses.
(39)346

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of variables used in the multivariate analyses
Mean

S.D.

Dependent outcomes
Identity with an origin country
6.031
1.773
Identity with co-ethnic people in Japan
2.503
0.832
Identity with a destination country
8.461
2.202
Independent variables
Gender (1=female)
0.490
0.501
Age
37.74310.609
Education in Brazil (Reference: Compulsory)secondary
0.534
0.499
tertiary
0.199
0.400
Education in Japan
0.079
0.269
Employment status (Reference: Regular employment
part-time employment
0.063
0.243
dispatched employment
0.707
0.456
self-employment
0.031
0.175
unemployment
0.042
0.201
inactivity in labor force
0.026
0.160
Non-manual occupation
0.039
0.194
Household income
325.785 223.855
Home ownership
0.084
0.277
Length of years in Japan
9.447
5.431
Japanese language fluency
7.950
5.130
Perceived discrimination
1.853
1.065
Return to an origin country (Reference: No experience)
Once
0.332
0.472
Twice
0.181
0.385
Three times or more
0.123
0.329
Marital status (Reference: No spouse)
spouse living in Japan
0.702
0.458
spouse living abroad
0.037
0.188
Children living in Japan
0.466
0.499
Children living in an origin country
0.126
0.332
Participation into a co-ethnic festival or activity
0.432
0.496
Affiliation in religious organizations
0.346
0.476
Affiliation in co-ethnic organizations
0.086
0.281

Min.

Max.

0
0
0

8
4
12

0
16

1
63

0
0
0

1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1700
1
19.5
20
4

0
0
0

1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

We describe the characteristics of samples used in our analyses. Regarding the
distribution of education acquired in Brazil, 27% finished their schooling at acompulsory level, 53% at a secondary level, and 20% at a tertiary level. The
345(40)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

Figure 1. The descriptive results of place attachment
Current neighborhood

18.7

53.2

22.6

Shizuoka Prefecture

17.0

52.6

25.3

Japan

15.1

56.2

21.1

Brazilians in Japan

47.9

6.2

Hometown in Brazil

33.4
36.4

31.7

Brazil

39.6

43.8
0.0

10.0

20.0

17.7

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

13.0
70.0

80.0

90.0

very attachedsomewhat attachedneither attached nor not attachedsomewhat not attached

100.0

not attached at all

educational level of Brazilian immigrants in Japan is relatively lower than thatof the Japanese population. Only less than one in ten achieved their education in
Japan. We describe the distribution of employment status among Brazilian
samples in this study. 13% were employed as regular workers, and 70% were indispatched employment. Self-employed were only 3%. A large number ofBrazilian workers concentrated in the non-standard employment sector. In
addition, many Brazilian workers engaged in unskilled factory jobs, and only
4% were clerical workers. Turning to the homeownership, less than 10% owned
housing in Japan. A third of respondents have never returned to their countryof origin. Other two-thirds have returned to the origin country once or more.
Regarding family situations, three-quarters were married, and most lived with
their spouse in Japan. Less than half of respondents lived together with theirchildren in Japan, while 13% had children living separately in other countries(mostly their country of origin).

Relationships among place attachment
Table 2 indicates the result of the principal component analysis. The table on the(41)344

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

Table 2. The results of place attachment estimated by principal component analysis
Eigenvalue

Proportion

PC1

PC2

Uniqueness

PC 1

2.686

0.448

Brazil

0.010

0.856

0.267

PC 2

1.582

0.264

Hometown in Brazil

0.028

0.856

0.267

PC 3

0.708

0.118

Brazilians in Japan

0.450

0.471

0.575

PC 4

0.471

0.078

Japan

0.860

－0.032

0.260

PC 5

0.367

0.061

Shizuoka Prefecture

0.913

0.076

0.161

PC 6

0.186

0.031

Neighborhood

0.892

0.056

0.202

left side shows the extent to which each factor explains the variance of the six
observed variables. We estimated the six principal components using the six
observed variables of place attachment. The first and second principal
components account for more than 70% of the variances of the six observed
variables. A principal component is extracted if its eigenvalues exceed one.
Based on this criterion, we conclude that the first two principal components cansummarize the variances of the six variables.
The table on the right side lists the coefficients of the two principal
components, estimated after applying for varimax rotation. The result of thefirst principal component indicates that attachments to Japan, Shizuoka
Prefecture, and the current neighborhood have larger coefficients, nearly equal
to one. We can interpret the first principal component as a summary of
attachment to a country of destination. Turning to the second principal
component, Brazil and hometown in Brazil have the larger coefficients. The
second principal component represents attachment to a country of origin.
Meanwhile, attachment to co-ethnic individuals in Japan is relatively weakly
affiliated with the first and second principal components. Thus, attachment toan ethnic community is related to attachment to a country of origin and acountry of destination but not independent from both attachments.
This result is partly consistent with our prior discussions on migrantsʼ
identities because immigrantsʼ identification with a country of origin and acountry of destination are formed independently. Meanwhile, the result differsfrom our expectations regarding their identities with ethnic communities.
Attachment to co-ethnic individuals is not formed separately from the other two
343(42)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

types of identities.
However, I find it problematic that we will use the scores of the two
principal components in the regression analyses. By using the scores, we cannot
observe what shapes attachment to an ethnic community among Brazilian
immigrants in Japan. The concern of this study is to explore what shapes thethree types of immigrantsʼ identities: identities with a country of origin, acountry of destination, and an ethnic community. As our priority is to identify
what shapes the three types of attachment, we decided not to use the scores of
the two principal components. Instead, we calculated the scores on the threeidentities according to the results of the principal component analysis. The
measure of immigrantsʼ identities with their country of origin was calculated by
the sum of the scores regarding attachment to their country of origin andhometown. The measure of immigrantsʼ identities with their destination country
was calculated by the sum of the scores regarding attachment to their countryof destination, the prefecture of current residence (Shizuoka Prefecture), andtheir current neighborhood. Finally, we used responses to attachment to coethnic individuals as a measure for immigrantsʼ identities with their ethnic
community.

What shapes psychological integration?
Table 3 presents the results of regression analyses predicting the three outcomes:
attachments to immigrantsʼ country of origin, country of destination, andethnic community. We depict the results of the determinants of the origin
country. Regarding the stratification-related variables, education acquired in
Brazil did not influence attachment to their country of origin. Meanwhile, we
see the negative effect of educational experience in Japan on this outcome. In
other words, immigrants who enrolled in Japanese schools were less likely to feel
attached to their country of origin. This result seems consistent with thestraight-line assimilation hypothesis, such as Hypothesis 1a. We can find similar
results in the effects of the length of years in Japan and Japanese language
proficiency. The longer immigrants lived in Japan, the better they spoke
Japanese, the less likely they were to feel attached to their origin country. In(43)342Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

contrast, there were no significant effects on attachment to the origin country ofother socioeconomic status variables such as employment status, occupations,household income, and homeownership. Moreover, social capital with co-ethnic
institutions did not significantly influence attachment to the origin country.
We consider the roles of family in shaping emotional attachment to theorigin country. Those with spouses living separately abroad were more likely tofeel attached to the origin country. This result is quite reasonable from thetransnationalism perspective and consistent with Hypothesis 3a. In addition, we
observe that those with children living together in Japan were less likely to feel
attached to the origin country. We predicted this pattern based on the straightline assimilation theory.
Meanwhile, we also see that those with spouses living together in Japan
were more likely to feel attached to the origin country. This result deviates fromthe prediction of straight-line assimilation theory because familial lives in thehost society would presumably promote immigrantsʼ assimilation. Although we
did not distinguish married couples based on the spousesʼ nationality in thisanalysis, most respondents in this data set married co-ethnic partners. This
result means that marriage with co-ethnic individuals strengthened immigrantsʼ
identification with their country of origin. Turning to the results of thefrequency of returning to the country of origin, we see that return visits
promoted attachment to the country of origin. This result also highlights theimportance of transnational engagement with the country of origin in
maintaining immigrantsʼ identification with their country of origin. It supports
the claim of Hypothesis 3a. Overall, attachment to the origin country depends
on assimilation and transnationalism.
We describe the result of attachment to an ethnic community. One notablefinding is that the self-employed are more likely to feel attached to an ethnic
community. This result supports the claim of the segmented assimilation
hypothesis, which assumes that immigrant entrepreneurs depend on and obtain
economic resources from their ethnic community. In addition, linguistic
assimilation weakened immigrantsʼ identification with their ethnic community.
This result supports the claim of the straight-line assimilation theory. Hence,
Brazilian immigrants who speak Japanese well do not have to rely on ethnic
341(44)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

Table 3. The regression analyses predicting place attachments
BrazilCoef.
s.e.

Brazilians in Japan
Coef.
s.e.

Japan
Coef.
s.e.

Gender (1=female)
0.179 －0.109
0.090－0.230Age
0.010 －0.004
0.005－0.015
Education in Brazil (Reference: Compulsory)secondary
0.210 －0.004
0.106－0.112
tertiary
0.413
0.270 －0.039
0.136
Education in Japan
0.246
0.183
－0.822 * 0.354
Employment status (Reference: Regular employment
part-time employment
0.417
0.211
0.210
－0.359dispatched employment
0.275 －0.092
0.138－0.322
self-employment
0.126
0.553
0.680 * 0.278
unemployment
0.495 －0.014
0.248－0.012
inactivity in labor force
0.559
0.603 －0.228
0.315
Non-manual occupation
0.480 －0.114
0.241－0.772
Household income
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Home ownership
0.345 －0.136
0.173－0.168The length of years in Japan
0.010－0.056 ** 0.020 －0.010
Japanese language fluency－0.065 ** 0.021 －0.023 * 0.010
Perceived discrimination
0.085 －0.097 * 0.042－0.023
Participation into a co-ethnic
0.102
0.184
0.103
0.093
festival or activity
Affiliation in religious
0.248
0.188
0.078
0.094
organizations
Affiliation in co-ethnic
0.321
0.137
0.166
－0.317
organizations
Marital status (Reference: No spouse)
spouse living in Japan
0.509 * 0.226 －0.048
0.113
spouse living abroad
1.550 ** 0.512
0.323
0.258
Children living in Japan
0.153
0.098
－0.451 * 0.195
Children living in an origin
0.269
0.202
0.137
－0.123country
Return to an origin country (Reference: No experience)
Once
0.469 * 0.211 －0.019
0.106
Twice
0.697 ** 0.252
0.208
0.127
Three times or more
0.274
0.301
0.120
0.149
Constant
7.417 ** 0.566
2.986 ** 0.286

0.056
0.232
0.021 ＋ 0.013

NR2
F＋p ＜ .10382
0.152
3.62 *** p ＜ .05

382
0.028
1.42 ＋－0.120
0.161
0.240

0.275
0.353
0.461

0.495
0.543
0.338
0.357
1.381
0.719
0.262
0.657
0.911
0.785
0.625
－0.068
0.000
0.001
0.449
－0.5490.027－0.0330.025
0.027－0.528 ** 0.110
0.219

0.240

0.052

0.244

0.459

0.419

－0.670 *
0.096
0.130

0.293
0.667
0.255

0.463

0.351

0.275
－0.131
0.327－0.061
0.384－0.0628.745 ** 0.736
382
0.068
2.06 **** p ＜ .01(45)340

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

communities or ties with other co-ethnic individuals to obtain some resources orsupport, leading to their weaker attachment to the ethnic community.
Another interesting finding is that perceived discrimination weakened
attachment to the ethnic community. Based on the discussion of segmented
assimilation theory, we assumed that perceived discrimination would strengthen
immigrantsʼ solidarity with co-ethnic individuals, their participation in ethnic
institutions, and their identification with ethnic communities. However, wecannot observe the empirical evidence which supports this hypothesis. At thetime of the survey implementation in 2007, many Brazilian immigrants believedthat they would return to their origin country. Considering that temporary
migration hinders immigrants from helping each other and establishing theirethnic community, temporary migration would also weaken their attachment totheir ethnic communities.
Finally, we turn to the result of attachment to the country of destination.
One of the notable findings is that neither cultural nor economic assimilation
enhanced attachment to the destination country. Regarding the regression model
predicting attachment to the origin country, cultural assimilation andeducational experiences of themselves and their children weakened immigrantsʼ
identification with their origin country. In contrast, we did not obtain a similar
pattern of the results when observing their identification with their destination
country. Hence, cultural and economic assimilations did not strengthen theiridentities for the destination.
Conversely, perceived discrimination and having a spouse who lived
together in Japan had negative influences on attachment to the destination
country. We can understand that perceived discrimination discourages
immigrants from forming their identities with their destination. The effect of
having a spouse living together in Japan is viewed as quite similar to the results
predicting attachment to their origin. In other words, the fact that immigrants
live together with a spouse contributes to maintaining identities with the origin
country and weakens their identification with the destination country.

339(46)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

Discussion and conclusion
This study explores what shapes immigrantsʼ identifications with their countryof origin, ethnic communities, and country of destination among Brazilian
immigrants in Japan. To do so, we used three theories: straight-line assimilation,
segmented assimilation, and transnationalism. What we found throughexamining how assimilation, discrimination, and transnationalism form place
attachment are threefold. First, assimilation into the host society andtransnational engagement with the sending country weaken immigrantsʼ
identification with the origin country. As Figure 1 shows, Brazilian immigrants
felt more attached to their country of origin than to their country of destinationand ethnic communities. Hence, Brazilian immigrants overall maintain an
attachment to their country of origin.
Conversely, there are significant variations in identification with their origin
country, depending on a level of assimilation and transnationalism. Whileassimilation into Japanese society leads to a gradual decline in attachment totheir origin country, transnational engagement allows immigrants to maintaintheir identities in their origin country. Given the empirical findings, bothassimilation and transnationalism theories can explain attachment to the origin
country among Brazilian immigrants in Japan well.
Second, in contrast to attachment to the origin country, attachment to thedestination does not depend significantly on immigrantsʼ assimilation andtransnationalism. Brazilian immigrants felt less attached to their destination
country (Japan). Based on the results, assimilation was not an important driverfor shifting their identities from country of origin to country of destination. For
instance, even if they lived in Japan for longer years or spoke Japanese very well,they did not switch their identities from country of origin to country ofdestination because integration into mainstream Japanese society was blocked,
and immigrants themselves remained ambiguous in deciding whether to remain
in Japan or return to their origin country. Immigration control policy for
immigrants of Japanese descent allowed Brazilian immigrants to move to Japan
with relatively fewer constraints at the time of the survey. It means that even if
they return to their origin country after migrating to the destination for several(47)338

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

years, they can move again to the destination in the future. The permanence oftemporary migration was thus constructed by the immigration control policythat put relatively fewer restrictions on international migration across countries(Tsuda, 1999). The empirical finding supported this point; the survey resultshows that while only 13% reported that they would settle in Japan permanently,
more than 70% intended to return to Brazil in the future. As the Japanese
government also identified immigrants of Japanese descent as temporary
visitors, it justified a lack of integration programs that support immigrants inJapan (Takenoshita, 2015).
Third, we investigated how assimilation and transnationalism shaped
immigrantsʼ identification with ethnic communities. One of the significant
findings is that immigrant entrepreneurship strengthened their attachment toethnic communities. According to the ethnic enclave theory, immigrant
entrepreneurs depend on and mobilize economic resources from ethnic
communities. The entrepreneurs hire other co-ethnic workers or sell someproducts to them. Given this argument, it is unsurprising that their attachment
to ethnic communities is higher than that of employees. Nevertheless, this result
does not contribute substantially to changing lower attachment to ethnic
communities among Brazilian immigrants in Japan, mainly because theproportion of entrepreneurs is tiny among this immigrant group. As shown in
Table 1, only 3% were self-employed among Brazilian immigrants in Shizuoka
Prefecture.
Another significant finding in the identification with ethnic communities isthat except for immigrant entrepreneurship, immigrant assimilation andtransnational engagement are not crucial in shaping their identification withethnic communities. Segmented assimilation theory assumes that economic
assimilation or integration may enhance their ethnic identities or that theperception of discrimination may strengthen immigrantsʼ identification with coethnic individuals and other ethnic communities. Furthermore, transnational
engagement, such as return visits to origin countries, may also make immigrants
attached to their country of origin and ethnic communities. Nevertheless, we did
not find any empirical evidence which supported the role of assimilation andtransnationalism. This finding is predictable, given the weaker role of ethnic
337(48)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

communities among Brazilian immigrants in Japan. Many Brazilian immigrants
in Japan are incorporated into the unstable segment of the labor market, such as
temporary employment controlled by labor brokerage agencies. Althoughmigrant temporary workers are more likely to be jobless, they could also findsimilar types of temporary work quickly. Consequently, immigrants did not haveto start entrepreneurial activities by themselves. A lack of immigrant
entrepreneurs impeded the development of the ethnic enclave and ethnic
communities.
Based on the data derived from the 2007 survey of Brazilian immigrants in
Shizuoka Prefecture, the critical finding in this study is that assimilation andtransnationalism were not significant contributors to the transformation of
immigrantsʼ identities in Japan. However, this finding is derived from theresearch on Brazilian immigrants in Japan, using the quantitative survey datacollected over a decade ago. The future study should ensure whether this finding
can apply to other immigrant groups at different times.
References
Alba, Richard D. and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream:
Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Berry, J. W. 2001. “A Psychology of Immigration.” Journal of Social Issues 57: 615-631.
Brown, B. B., D. D. Perkins and G. Brown. 2004. “Incivilities, Place Attachment andCrime: Block and Individual Effects.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24:359-371.
Chiswick, B. R. 1978. “Effect of Americanization on Earnings of Foreign-Born Men.”
Journal of Political Economy 86: 897-921.
Cornelius, Wayne A. and Takeyuki Tsuda. 2004. “Controlling Immigration: The Limits
to Government Intervention.” Pp. 3-48 in Controlling Immigration: A Global
Perspective, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius, Takeyuki Tsuda, Philip L. Martin andJames Frank Hollifield. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Davidov, E. and B. Meuleman. 2012. “Explaining Attitudes Towards Immigration
Policies in European Countries: The Role of Human Values.” Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies 38: 757-775.
(49)336

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japan

DiPrete, T. A. and G. M. Eirich. 2006. “Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for
Inequality: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Developments.” Annual Review
of Sociology 32: 271-297.
Du, H. M. 2017. “Place Attachment and Belonging among Educated Young Migrants
and Returnees: the Case of Chaohu, China.” Population Space and Place 23.
Ehrkamp, P. 2005. “Placing Identities: Transnational Practices and Local Attachments
of Turkish Immigrants in Germany.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31:
345-364.
Finnsdottir, M. S. 2022. “Radical women? Explaining the Gender Gap in Radical Right
Voting in the Nordic Countries.” European Journal of Politics and Gender 5: 341360.
Gelatt, Julia. 2013. “Looking Down or Looking Up: Status and Subjective Well-being
among Asian and Latino Immigrants in the United States.” International
Migration Review 47: 39-75.
Glorius, B., S. Kordel, T. Weidinger, M. Buerer, H. Schneider and D. Spenger. 2020. “IsSocial Contact With the Resident Population a Prerequisite of Well-Being andPlace Attachment? The Case of Refugees in Rural Regions of Germany.”
Frontiers in Sociology 5.
Gordon, Milton Myron. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race,
Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hainmueller, J. and M. J. Hiscox. 2010. “Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Lowskilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” American Political
Science Review 104: 61-84.
Hellgren, Z. 2019. “Class, Race - and Place: Immigrantsʼ Self-perceptions on Inclusion,
Belonging and Opportunities in Stockholm and Barcelona.” Ethnic and Racial
Studies 42: 2084-2102.
Hernandez, B., M. C. Hidalgo, M. E. Salazar-Laplace and S. Hess. 2007. “Place
Attachment and Place Identity in Natives and Non-natives.” Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 27: 310-319.
Higuchi, Naoto and Kiyoto Tanno. 2003. “Whatʼs Driving Brazil-Japan Migration? the
Making and Remaking of the Brazilian Niche in Japan.” International Journal ofJapanese Sociology 12: 33-47.
Igarashi, Akira. 2021. “A Sense of Belonging among Immigrants in Japan: Levels and335(50)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

Determinants.” pp. 186-207 in Immigrant Integration in Japan: Current Status andChallenges, edited by Kikuko Nagayoshi. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.
Itzigsohn, J. and S. G. Saucedo. 2002. “Immigrant Incorporation and Sociocultural
Transnationalism.” International Migration Review 36: 766-798.
Jylha, K. M., J. Rydgren and P. Strimling. 2022. “Xenophobia among Radical andMainstream Right-wing Party Voters: Prevalence, Correlates and Influence on Party
Support.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 45: 261-286.
Kataoka, Hiromi. 2015. “Ethnic Economy of Brazilian Residents in Hamamatsu City.”in International Migrants in Japan: Contributions in an Era of Population Decline,
edited by Yoshitaka Ishikawa. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Levitt, P. and N. Jaworsky. 2007. “Transnational Migration Studies: Past Developments
and Future Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 33: 129-156.
Levitt, Peggy. 2001. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lewicka, M. 2005. “Ways to Make People Active: The Role of Place Attachment, Cultural
Capital, and Neighborhood Ties.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25: 381395.
Lewicka, M. 2010. “What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City? Effectsof Place Scale on Place Attachment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 3551.
Piore, Michael J. 1979. Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies.
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Portes, A. and M. Zhou. 1993. “The New Second-Generation - Segmented Assimilation
and Its Variants.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
530: 74-96.
Portes, Alejandro and Robert L. Bach. 1985. Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican
Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Portes, Alejandro, Patricia Fernandez-Kelly and William Haller. 2005. “Segmented
Assimilation on the Ground: The New Second Generation in Early Adulthood.”
Ethnic and Racial Studies 28: 1000-1040.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant
Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2006. Immigrant America: A Portrait. 3rd(51)334

Immigrant Integration and Place Attachment among Brazilian Immigrants in Japaned. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rustenbach, E. 2010. “Sources of Negative Attitudes toward Immigrants in Europe: A
Multi-Level Analysis.” International Migration Review 44: 53-77.
Semyonov, M., R. Raijman and A. Gorodzeisky. 2006. “The Rise of Anti-foreigner
Sentiment in European Societies, 1988-2000.” American Sociological Review 71:
426-449.
Takenoshita, Hirohisa. 2010. “Circular Migration and Its Socioeconomic Consequences:
The Economic Marginality among Japanese Brazilian Migrants in Japan.” pp. 156174 in Asian Cities, Migrant Labour and Contested Spaces, edited by Tai-Chee
Wong and Jonathan Rigg. London: Routledge.
Takenoshita, Hirohisa. 2013. “Labour Market Flexibilisation and the Disadvantages of
Immigrant Employment in Japan: The Case of Japanese-Brazilian Immigrants.”
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39: 1177-1195.
Takenoshita, Hirohisa. 2015. “Labor Market Structure, Welfare Policy, and Integration:
Brazilian Immigrants during the Economic Downturn.” pp. 234-255 inInternational Migrants in Japan: Contributions in an Era of Population Decline,
edited by Yoshitaka Ishikawa. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Takenoshita, Hirohisa, Yoshimi Chitose, Shigehiro Ikegami and Eunice A. Ishikawa.
2014. “Segmented Assimilation, Transnationalism, and Educational Attainment ofBrazilian Immigrant Children in Japan.” International Migration 52: 84-99.
Tamaki, Emi. 2011. “Transnational Home Engagement among Latino and Asian
Americans: Resources and Motivation.” International Migration Review 45: 148173.
Torunczyk-Ruiz, S. and Z. Brunarska. 2020. “Through Attachment to Settlement: Socialand Psychological Determinants of Migrantsʼ Intentions to Stay.” Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies 46: 3191-3209.
Tsuda, T. 1999. “The permanence of “Temporary” Migration: The “Structural
Embeddedness” of Japanese-Brazilian Immigrant Workers in Japan.” Journal of
Asian Studies 58: 687-722.
Tsuda, Takeyuki. 2003. Strangers in the Ethnic Homeland: Japanese Brazilian Return
Migration in Transnational Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tsuda, Takeyuki. 2006. “Localities and the Struggle for Immigrant Rights: theSignificance of Local Citizenship in Recent Countries of Immigration.” pp. 3-36 in
333(52)

法学研究 97 巻 2 号（2024：2）

Local Citizenship in Recent Countries of Immigration: Japan in Comparative
Perspective, edited by Takeyuki Tsuda. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Tsuda, Takeyuki and Wayne A. Cornelius. 2004. “Japan: Government Policy and
Immigrant Reality.” pp. 438-476 in Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective,
edited by Wayne A. Cornelius, Takeyuki Tsuda, Philip L. Martin and James
Frank Hollifield. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Van Tubergen, Frank. 2006. Immigrant Integration: A Cross-national Study. New York:LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Vertovec, S. 2004. “Migrant Transnationalism and Modes of Transformation.”International Migration Review 38: 970-1001.
Waters, M. C. and T. R. Jimenez. 2005. “Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New
Empirical and Theoretical Challenge.” Annual Review of Sociology 31: 105-125.
Xie, Y. and M. Gough. 2011. “Ethnic Enclaves and the Earnings of Immigrants.”
Demography 48: 1293-1315.
Zhou, M. 1997. “Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on
the New Second Generation.” International Migration Review 31: 975-1008.

(53)332