To compare the USA and Japan is a pretty huge leap. Better to compare the USA to more similar regions, though i admit this is tough to do. Do you compare them t

To compare the USA and Japan is a pretty huge leap. Better to compare the USA to more similar regions, though i admit this is tough to do. Do you compare them to South Africa or Brazil (they were all three colonies, they were all sources or recipients of slaves, immigrants, and refugees) or do you compare them to Australia and Canada (because White People seems to be both a self identifier and an accepted universal descriptor)? Either way, both yours as well as the other response (which i cannot reply to for some reason...) are missing the point. In his case it is neither the available opportunity for economic advancement nor is it the community posted signs that are relevant; it is the idea of state sponsored dynamic linguistic delivery of statutory information. In your case, you are picking two very disparate points on a continuum as if it were a balanced and logical comparison. More to the granular point, if you delve into Japan's history you will see that immigration and displacement are a relevant and undeniable factor just as they are in literally every recognized country on earth in terms of state formation and identity, be it racial, ethnic, cultural, or regional. The "nation of immigrants" argument is at its core a tautology. Establishing which nation is the most "immigrantish" would be akin to establishing a wetness scale to individual drops of rain. Edit: spelling