A comparative analysis of three East Asian democracies that represent what is commonly characterized as an “exclusionary” model of immigration and citizenship regimes draws attention to the gaps between policy intent, interpretation, and outcomes. Whereas national immigration policies established the parameters for legal entry, employment, and length of stay, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan’s civic legacies presented the opportunities and hurdles for migrants and their supporters to give voice to their interests, make claims to the state, and form solidarity networks. While national culture, political elites, and civil-society actors are critical for understanding differences in immigrant incorporation patterns among similarly situated countries, we need to further examine the ideas, networks, and strategies of previous struggles for democratic inclusion to explain how some migrant claims lead to structural reforms, which migrants get included and excluded, and why civil-society actors differentially impact immigrant incorporation.