Requiring proficiency in the language is reasonable, but requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane. That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
> requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population
In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors. I can't find what the same statistic is for Japan. I don't believe it's wrong for there to be an expectation that they be a net contributor.
> Across the UK, 53.3% of people lived in households that were net recipients in FYE 2024. This means that they lived in households that received more in benefits (cash and benefits in kind) than they paid in taxes (direct and indirect).
Isn’t this just a reflection of wealth inequality though? A “net negative” tax payer is just working a job that makes one of the net positive payers richer thus still bringing in more income for the country.
Most countries need both VAT and income tax to fund their budget. Importing well off immigrants means they subsidize the VAT part only and likely do not generate income from Japan salaries. This is basically same problem as with digital nomads: they use the infrastructure which they do not fund proportionally compared to regular citizens.
I do. It's like needing a credit check to get a job. It's a horrible death spiral: Japanese jobs can decrease wages from more supply, which can out you under the line, which makes it harder for you to contribute to the economy.
That stat is bogus though when used in this context. The least payed workers contribute the most to every day life of society in my opinion and pay the least tax.
If we consider outright slavery, would that statistic count a slave as a "non-contributing" member of society? After all, they must be fed, and housed, but pay no taxes. What a burden they are!
The US has something like this, but the income threshold is lower.[1] US immigrants in most categories have to show that they will not become a "public charge", that is, need US welfare benefits.
The US requirements are so much lower that calling them similar does a disservice.
The proposed requirements in Japan require earnings to exceed Japan's average and also for them to have an equivalent of 30 years of pension payouts saved up.
The US requirements are not as specific, but for comparison one of the numbers is that that families need to have an income requirement 25% higher than federal poverty guidelines, which very low compared to average US incomes.
they don't require 30 years saved up, only showing (somehow) that you will be able to generate such a pension equivalent over time. I suspect that will be very squishy in practice.
That's reasonable too. People who move to a new country should be able to support themselves there and have a good chance to thrive in their new home. If the average income of the population isn't enough for that to be possible, your country has bigger problems than immigrants
Manu tings are reasonable but not done. For example, it seems unreasonable that one country can print any amount of money due to being called the reserve currency and use it to influence countries around the world.
If you want fairness, start from the top and don’t punch down. I’m not against any definitions of immigration but generally most definitions aren’t reasonable. They are just downstream and issues of an upstream systems problem.
* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal
Shipping liner companies were charged to return ineligible passengers to their origin (the same is true with airlines today), so they had every incentive to verify ahead of time that they could enter the destination country. The "only 2% of immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island" statistic often bandied-about by the pro-open borders side elides the restrictions that caused the rate to be so low in the first place.
I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
Technically true, extremely misleading. The law placed vastly fewer restrictions on who was a legal immigrant for much of that period. Of course, it is true starting in 1921, and 1924, legislation was put in place to limit immigration by "undesirables" such as Asians, Italians and Slavs.
Curious...which one of those regimes do you want to bring back?
I'm not sure people should be forced to live with those they feel xenophobia towards, even if one grants that the feelings of xenophobia have no basis in reality.
OK, so considering Sweden, if Sweden is flooded with immigrants, where should the Swedes who just want to live with other Swedes go? Australia??
Also you do realize that your preferred migration policy will lead to microaggressions (and possibly macroaggressions) against immigrants? If people don't have democratic means to keep out disliked foreigners, they may be tempted to try alternatives. The ballot box is ultimately an alternative to violence.
Your preferred policy also leads to microagressions, where the mere presence of someone who doesn't 'look' swedish would set these 'people' off.
It seems more like 'xenophobia' is the real culprit here, and should be tackled directly instead of 'granting' it as a preference that doesn't need to be interrogated.
1) Only 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island in 60 years.
2) 30-40% returned home
3) The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
4) Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York. And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York and Chicago today.
Now do a realistic summary of what it took to pass these checks, eg how details of a medical inspection or what level of resources (inflation adjusted) were required. Equating past practices with current standards is a bait-and-switch.
Something like two thirds of the US federal budget is spent on some form of welfare. Assuming you want to keep that ratio you could spend more per person with fewer people withdrawing from that system.
Completely wrong, except possibly if you're defining Social Security as welfare, in which case honesty would compel you to note that no one draws Social Security except based on having previously made contributions via dedicated taxation for social security.
I agree that Social Security is not plain welfare, but it has significant welfare components. Simplifying some, you get back something like 90% of the first $15,432 income per year but only 32% of income above that up to $92,988. (And above that, it's 15%.) Only getting 32% back of what you pay in so that the rest can be redistributed to others who made less could be considered partly welfare. Also, if you die too young, you don't get the money back, nor can you give it to your children. It's redistributed to other people. I'm not saying it's bad (I think it's probably good overall), but I can see how it's partly welfare.
Just a reminder... Social Security requires 40 quarters (ie, 10 years) of income to even qualify for a pension. And the pension is based on what you earn, which is what you pay into the system.
The US doesn’t lack the capital for welfare. The country decides to instead waste its resources fighting wars, fighting its allies, fighting its trade partners. The money is here, there is no will to allocate it to welfare. You could reduce the number of people on welfare by a massive amount and none of the savings from that would get distributed to the remaining recipient
The US economy did great prior to 1900 or so. During this period, we did not have significant military action outside of the Americas, and we avoided peacetime alliances. From 1820-1900 the US economy exploded from about 40% the size of the UK economy to about 200% the size of the UK economy.
Switzerland has a per capita GDP exceeding the US while pursuing isolationist foreign policy. They are the world's most popular country in opinion polls.
I hate to break it to you, but the world of pre-1900 has been dead and gone for a solid 120+ years, it was killed off by Europe getting itself into two stupid wars that the Americans had to come over and save them from. Nothing works the same anymore.
All those European countries get to invest in those nice social programs and isolationism because the US has at least up until now acted as world police and handled their foreign affairs for the most part.
>"Those wars are essential to protecting our economic interests"
Translation - we bomb people for money. well thanks for being frank anyways. otherwise it is sick to hear all that moralizing about "us being a good guys"
No, they're essential to protecting Benjamin Netanyahu's ass. No more and no less.
Less vindictively, the only economic interest the US has in the Middle East is oil. Relying on oil for your energy needs is, in 2026, a choice and not a requirement. Wind, solar, and the batteries you need to store them are continuously getting cheaper. And for the people who are net consumers of energy - primarily the US, Europe, and China - renewables are better for everything, but especially they're better for energy independence!
The only things that require oil are airplanes, plastics, and industrial chemical processes (like we make asphalt out of oil and certain inks out of naphtha). Eliminating most of the energy demand for oil would mean a significantly reduced dependence on foreign oil, and more specifically, the political dependence on low gas prices. America rebuilt all its cities in the image of the car and, as a result, made gasoline/petrol a necessary ingredient of urban mobility. This was, again, a choice - we absolutely could have retained and grown our dense urban cores and we can still rebuild what was destroyed.
But this requires an entire governing body at every level that is not a corpse paraded by the ghosts of Tammany Hall, Standard Oil, and Hitler. The primary crisis in America that is driving these wars is a fundamental lack of political will for alternatives.
This is a statistic that is technically true but has some hidden nuance.
Depending on what gets counted, "public assistance" stats like this usually include medicare and social security. (Social security gets debated because of how it's paid-in, but I'm not here to argue that. The fact is, it gets included in these stats). Those two make up the dominant consumption of public assistance to the point that things we hear about in the media like food stamps are kind of a rounding error.
Medicare and social security are collected primarily by older people. Foreign born populations have much lower numbers of people in that age bracket than the general popualtion.
Combine those two facts and it's not surprising that when you look at charts of foreign born vs native born, the foreign born population uses less public assistance.
It's a statistic that is more about age distribution than anything. Like when you one of those bad maps trying to prove a point but really just showing population density of big cities.
I'd love to see some source for this, because from what I've seen, 59% of undocumented immigrants receive some form of welfare (the state of California spends roughly $10 billion a year alone on this) and documented migrants are at roughly the same rate, double the native born population's rate of 28%.
> I'd love to see some source for this [proceeds to throw out a bunch of source-free numbers]
I looked up the source for these numbers.
It's the Center for Immigration Studies, and they are notorious for being a right-wing think tank used to dress up up anti-immigration policy using misleading statistics.
How notorious are they? Well, they are listed as a hate group with the Southern Poverty Law Center[1].
The numbers you're citing aren't 'welfare,' the biggest thing is using the education system. The thing that, long term, makes they into productive taxpayers. CIS doesn't figure the long-term benefits into their numbers because that would destroy their thesis.
The HUD secretary mentioned the number, and the number was also included in a Congressional report, though it ended up being through testimony, also from that same source, which I hadn't realized. I'd been under the impression the one claim was independently sourced from actual federal data, rather being from CIS.
In any case, none of this amounts to immigrants using less welfare than native born residents, which is what I was asking sources for.
> That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
That’s not the standard. The standard is making sure someone is really a huge contribution to the society such that it offsets the burden of immigration.
I wonder how big the population of people that know enough Japanese, would be a huge contribution to Japanese society and wouldn't be able to get a better deal somewhere else really is. Can't imagine it's more than a million people. And putting in the effort seems quite futile as you could lose your status at any point in time for political gain.
Just because some people want something that doesn't suddenly make it reasonable or wise. In this case it's a problem for many already successful people living in Japan currently who will be forced to leave. It's also a problem for Japanese companies who have hired those people or who want to attract foreign talent to positions that pay well, but don't typically leave someone fabulously wealthy compared to most of the people living around them. It's also a problem because the policy is coming in at a time of increased xenophobia and overt racism and while this policy is likely to reduce the total number of foreigners living in Japan, it's unlikely to address the problems people have with the foreigners who will remain, and it could actually make those problems worse.
I don't think anyone plans on trying to step in and intervene, but I hope people also don't shy from talking about how foolish this move is, the problems it won't solve, the problems it's likely to cause, and the people whose lives are being negatively impacted by it.
> I am not sure in understand the issue, if Japanese want this, what’s the problem?
The problem is I’ve built my life here and they keep treating foreigners as a lesser life form. People here can unironically be standing next to me bitching about foreigners. Then turn to me and say something like “not you, you are fine.”
Clearly Japanese feel like they don't want immigrants or want very few of them, which is fine.
With these laws, they are pushing 99% of people out while saving face from being called racists.
I think every country should have a right over their borders. Japan wasn't built on multiculturalism like United States or Canada, so I'm not surprised.
That being said, I would probably think twice about traveling to Japan as a tourist.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do it!
Just because something can be done doesn't make it good for the society. Japan has a shrinking population and is currently dependent on immigrants for low wage work. Plenty of actions can make the current problem worse and have unintended consequences. Whether they happen or not is a political question, not a moral one.
Who determined "what they want?" Did you want your government to attack Iran? Are you responsible for it? Why not?
That's their problem to solve however they want, if they want. The population shrinking by some large percentage doesn't seem to be inherently bad to me, and probably is good.
It's so laughable to me when people say "BUT THE SHAREHOLDER VALUE!" when we talk about things like the important life trends of millions of people.
A few generations ago they were enslaving people [0]. This is what racism can lead to. Maintaining our heritage, our way of life, some would say.
Hopefully their population decline doesn't hit them too hard. But that, and their lack natural of resources, could lead to bad things. Fascists and their ilk thrive in such situations.
Absolutely. They’ll just go through a period of a bunch of social workers discovering a new corpse every three days. Whole towns dying because there is nobody to maintain the public services. The people will get exactly what they were asking for, and they’ll die for it.
It would be fine if it was a well documented recurring issue that plagued society. As is it, it feels more like a canary in the coal mine, for dirtier times to come.
In practice, most visas are short term, and none of them will allow you to benefit from social aids for very long. At most I imagine you could extend your working visa to 5 years, get sick the first year and be at charge for the remaining 4 years ? There will be ink spent on these cases, but statistically how often does that even happen to need stricter laws ?
The current political climates needs the gov to look "Japan First" and these kind of rule change are very cheap to do, especially as the people directly impacted don't vote nor can complain. It goes well with the very anti-foreigner sentiment, especially as the current wave of tourists is very unpopular despite the money coming in.
The longer view is Japan getting less workers in total, yet more of the worse immigrants as they're calling for people who either don't need Japan (have enough money to go anywhere and don't need to think long term) or are willing to take more risks (high return grifts etc.), in a time where Japanese salaries and productivity are already lower than surrounding countries.
They're basically making a bad situation worse, just for short term political play, giving in on the worse trends.
Because it's super fucking cruel, are you a human?
This is cruel, populist politics designed to blame foreigners for all the problems and corruption the Japanese government has allowed to go on which has ruined their economy.
There has been a hard right swing by some radical minority parties which gained a lot of popularity fast by spreading Xenophobia online and the major parties have now adopted some of that to stay relevent.
It hurts innocent people just so those in power can stay in power.
Also Japan is a country which basically 100% relies on foreign countries to survive, so maybe the government there should be a bit more careful. For example they get most of their Natural gas from Australia for free..
I agree, but unfortunately, looking at the news from Japan, far-right support rates are higher than one might expect.
So it's true that those in power are harming innocent people in order to maintain their power, but it's also true that Japanese people believe they are being harmed by foreign immigrants.
And some of it is actually true. Of course, conversely, there's also the problem of many Japanese companies hiring Southeast Asian workers at low wages and mistreating them.
But whether it's me as a Korean or Japan, both tend to have a certain authoritarian mindset instilled based on "ethnic" identity. So one aspect of this policy is "we only welcome rich foreigners who spend money and leave," and the media responds accordingly.
Strictly speaking, if you look at these policies strengthening restrictions on foreigners from a third-country perspective, you can see them from the angle of far-rightization. That is, sanctions against outsiders for the sake of internal cohesion[1]. But considering the severe aging population in Japanese industry right now, it's effectively cutting off one's own nose to spite one's face.
However, East Asians receive a somewhat different education from you, so that's how it is.
The real cause is the failure of Abenomics and the resulting weak yen, which benefits financial companies and exports but sacrifices the Japanese people—the incompetence of the regime is the problem. But because it's hard to grasp all of that complex background, people want to attack something else that's near them.
And also, because the morality of some underdeveloped countries (I know it's an example...) differs from that of developed countries, friction often occurs. Just as the sense of time differs between agricultural regions and cities, for instance.
telling a person that has build a successful life after eight years, is assimilated and speaks the language and can support themselves that they have to leave on completely absurd conditions that virtually nobody could meet, including native citizens, is cruel by just about every definition of that term.
Those people have only ever paid in, have much better options than Japan at this point economically given how far the country has fallen behind, and the logical terminus of this is basically being some kind of ethnic chauvinist second world clown country.
If you're even turning skilled tech workers and law abiding people away your immigration problem is solved by virtue of being poor in another 10-20 years. Japan fell below replacement fertility in the 70s, 35% of the population is over 60, good luck caring for those tens of millions of people about to retire.
They don't want to risk someone coming for a job, getting fired and becoming a drain on the social safety net. Able to care for themselves not just now, but for a while. It's a reasonable position.
Reasonable, but they're going about it in irrational ways. For example, a person on a student visa is allowed to set up a company in Japan, but technically they're not allowed to put in any hours managing it. There's a strict 28-hour/week working limit, and a person is allowed to operate as a sole trader performing very specific tass, but the moment they rent an office or hire an employee they're in violation of their visa.
So while it's very rational to demand strong language skills, and very rational to expect people to go with a certified school given the unique difficulty of the language, potential residents are essentially limited to earning part-time wages (typically much lower than full time) during that period, and virtually barred from proactively engaging in any other kind of economic activity. They could transition to a business manager visa after that, but it will have to be a new business set up from scratch which must include at least one Japanese hire as well as minimum language skills; essentially requiring business activity/know how and business planning which the person was barred from doing during the language acquisition phase.
It's not impossible to meet these criteria by any means, but it actively discourages bootstrapping and efficient use of available time.
To qualify to long term residence means that they worked for years and contributed with taxes during that period, so it’s only fair that they get protection in case they happen to lose their jobs.
For the government, the cost for any worker in the same circumstances would be the same. On the other side, the foreigners cost less to the government overall when they were educated and raised elsewhere.
I’m not saying you are wrong, just that the previous rules are already in place in that very direction, and the changes are being placed instead to please and gain political support.
That's not how good risk analysis works. You also have to consider the alternative that you exclude someone coming for a job they excel at while becoming a net benefit to society just because they couldn't support themselves in an eventuality that didn't come to pass.
The more welfare you have, the better of an idea this is. An aging country especially cannot afford to risk more wards of the state.
> and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years
It's a confusing guideline but this isn't accurate. You need to show an expected future pension (could be savings) equivalent to a salaried worker who paid into an employee's pension for 30 years. That's strict, but there will probably be a bunch of ways to show that.
From the article: In an announcement detailing the changes, Japan’s Immigration Services Agency stressed the need for foreigners to “live independently” and have “a stable life without the risk of becoming a burden”.
Their new requirements far exceed what is needed to meet that stated goal
How is that "between the lines"? Yes, that is the goal. If your argument is that it's just because of simple racism or something, then make that argument.
There really needs to be a term like "racism" without the negative connotations that it now carries. Yes, in the strictest sense, Japanese people wanting fewer foreigners in their territory is "racist", but it's not racist.
I've heard "culturalism". It's devastating that this game even needs to be played. It should go without saying that rejecting foreigners under certain circumstances is not automatically "racism" in the petty sense.
That's just the word we use for racism when the "other" isn't primarily a single visually distinct race. They're both low-quality words used mostly as insults rather than literally.
The 30 years thing is insane for sure. Making more money than the average might be insane, it depends on how much more (which I didn't spot in the article, maybe I missed it).
It's not about being reasonable, it's about having a good reason to kick basically everyone out who isn't 100% Japanese, or who has enough money to prop up their aging population and get almost nothing in return.
If the goal is to preserve their culture I doubt that insisting that everyone who moves there have "fuck you" money is going to help as much as they think it will. At least some percentage of those who meet that bar will be people who are selfish and very accustomed to just doing whatever they want.
The more money people have, the greater their ability to reshape the environment and culture around them to suit their individual preferences. Rich people aren't moving to remote villages in bumblefuku nowhere either. Having a bunch of rich foreigners concentrated in the major (and culturally influential) cities will only make it worse.
They have a rapidly aging society and a high national debt load (which also means a more shallow economic growth curve into the future), it’s reasonable to exclude anyone who might even have a chance of being a burden. High value immigrants always have value, either in wealth or economic potential, anyone else is charity if they cannot provide surplus economic value once their own needs have been met or support themselves off of wealth or income they bring with them.
It’s unfortunate when we don’t get picked for the dodgeball team. Life is inherently unfair and mostly a lottery.
(not against foreign aid charity by any means, but delivering it distinct from immigration policy is potentially more efficient and optimal in many ways)
I'm not certain. In an aging society, the thing they'd need are young laborers. People with 30 years of savings are unlikely to be either young, nor laborers.
Maybe those wealthy immigrants are very talented people who are very good at, say, managing an insurance company or researching pharmaceuticals, but Japan has a glut of 55-year-olds who can do that stuff very well. They're running short of young people who can be nurses, junior machinists, and construction workers.
In a macroeconomic sense, wealthy people might be able to pay for the services they need from their own pockets, but functionally it's not that different than being unemployed (unless they choose to work). They would be almost purely adding demand to the economy. The wealth they are bringing represents supply that they added into the economy in the past and abroad, and now they have a wallet full of paper with which they can buy services for the next 30 years in Japan without having to do any further productive work.
I don’t disagree, and a lot of this discussion is about the future of automation and having sufficient nation state capacity to meet an aging populations’ needs. With that said, you want to attract the right young immigrants to come and stay: willing to integrate, supportive of their adoptive culture, and a net positive to the economy and community. They are a guest until chosen to become a fellow citizen.
The percentage of the global population with fuck you money is so vanishingly small that a nation of 100 million such as Japan, could import them all with almost zero impact on their culture.
Furthermore, it’s deeply disingenuous to suggest that inconsiderate people only exist on the upper end of the income distribution. Assholes who want to take over and control others are found at every income level. If you want to keep your country from descending into Marxist dystopia then making fuck you money a requirement for immigration is not a terrible idea.
50th percentile + 30 years subsistence is not "fuck you" money, but regardless, income has multiple effects, not only cultural. They don't want to be financially supporting foreigners, of course.
That's fine, it's just a semantic argument about how people use the term, which doesn't affect my actual assertion, which is that it's not an unreasonable bar.
It's really unfortunate that they have approved these changes. I know at least 7 people that have decided to leave Japan because of it. They were making enough money to support themselves, but under the rule they basically gave no chance of ever reaching that new income requirement. Some jobs just don't have that much upward financial mobility. Which is fine if you live outside the city without a large family, but these rules are harsh to anyone that isn't working a high pay job. Permanent recidency would have allowed them to work outside their visa category, easily start a business, and utilize their Japanese language skills in a larger market.
Its quite a shock since historically the government has moved extremely slow when implementing policies that have a large impact. But the last 6 months have been extremely anxiety inducing with a new immigration change being announced and approved every month.
The requirements are essentially that you're either upper-middle class or better from a developed country (or a resource rich one like those in the Middle East) or from the ultra-wealthy of a developing/underdeveloped one, and you put in enough effort to learn the language. I doubt the ultra-wealthy will really be required to have language proficiency in practice. This is basically to gatekeep all but the wealthiest black, brown and "lesser" Asian peoples as expected of Japan, but the 30 years savings requirement will keep at bay quite a few white people who may have dreamed about immigrating there too. I don't wish the Japanese people ill, but I hope they'll find some solution for all those aging, near-destitute, and sometimes abandoned elderly folks instead of telling them to suck it up for the sake of cultural identity.
Side note, but it's always funny to me that whenever (and frequently) Japanese immigration policies are discussed on sites like HN and Reddit, there seems to always be a large number of clearly white people from America and Europe coming in to display their Japanese nationalism.
Making this about "black" and "brown" is bullshit, given that this is clearly about economics, not skin color. The Japanese have a remarkable society that is clean and orderly. The only way anybody has figured out how to maintain orderliness despite immigration is to filter heavily by economic status, like Dubai. If the immigrants in Japan were behaving exactly the same as Japanese, just saving money on sunscreen, you wouldn’t be seeing these measures.
For Dubai specifically, there is a mix of foreigners, a large percentage being labourers from South Asia. The orderliness we see, I think is largely due to strict* and harsh laws.
As a resident of Japan, this is particularly funny to me since those two countries are exactly the ones the authorities are trying to limit immigration from. Japan is _very_ racist when it comes to Korea, and China "buying all the land" these past decade is a frequent trope of the news.
Then of course you have crime (Vietnamese) and the right-wing idea that the Fililinos, Indonesians and Malaysians come here to still Japanese (low wage) jobs (that nobody wants to do).
Nobody gives two fucks about immigration from north America, Europe or Australia.
Oh please, everyone not in denial can certainly see there is a racial component to this. I also didn't only include "black" and "brown," some kinds of Asians are also being gatekept. Do you deny that Japanese society (like countless others) have a racism/xenophobia problem? Isn't it commonly known information that even people of other races/ethnicities who have successfully immigrated there or are just visiting as tourists are sometimes not allowed in certain venues with explicit messaging? And that this is commonly tolerated there? Isn't Japan the same country that barely 80-odd years ago was on a brutal campaign across several parts of Asia where they targeted non-Japanese with massacres, torture and live human experimentation among other things? Many of those people are still alive (ironically, some are probably among the elderly and isolated who need help right now). Isn't Japan the same country that still regularly denies their well-known and documented atrocities during that period?
??? There's literally a white person in the article that is also reconsidering their situation? Why do you keep making this about "black, brown and east Asian" people?? They are xenophobic to literally everyone on Earth.
Who brought up the question of tying behavior to race? Whether race exists is not the question being discussed here, regardless of the biological existence of race or not, there is a social perception of it existing and that is commonly used in the society in which (and I presume this is true for most of us) I live. I was asked an implied question about bringing up race and thus answered with the social perception in mind. You might need to ask yourself what or whom you are actually arguing with, because it doesn't appear to be me.
Most immigration seems to me as some form of wealth differential to attract the relatively poor foreigners giving them less rights than local population.
Middle East runs on poor people from the subcontinent and Africa.
Hong Kong depends on live-in foreign labor who have to camp out in public spaces on their day-off.
America is built on poorer labor of every kind - enslaved African cotton farmers , indentured Chinese railway workers, famine stricken Irish, or more recently Latin American or H1B Indians in tech.
Some countries try to attract the richest percent like New Zealand, however it is not economically meaningful nor is major portion of immigrants globally or within their countries even.
Countries may not like foreign poor immigrants, but they certainly need them to work harder for less pay and rights.
> as they definitely work harder for less pay and rights than the local poor.
Why would I want to support the introduction in my country of what is virtually modern slave labor practices by abusing and exploiting the poor and desperate foreigners so that some business can get richer because they don't want to pay or provide decent working conditions or invest into automation?
Especially that a lot of those cheap laborers without rights aren't even doing work to the benefit of the community (elderly care, construction etc) but to the benefit of a few wealthy and unscrupulous business owners (Amazon, Uber Eats, etc) who are addicted to cheap exploitable labor.
That, of course, is the actual real question in this debate and all the other similar debates. Some people benefit from an influx of very low-pay people, and some people don't.
> everyone already has their own poor population to deal with
Yikes, that is quite the dehumanizing framing
Edit: A person commented "why?" before deleting their comment, which I had started responding to. I still want to give my response:
Because an enlightened government is for the people (and an unenlightened government is not worth having). The purpose of a government is to care for the welfare of the people, not to be the securer of private wealth for the wealthy. The above comment frames it as "dealing with" an undesirable population. That population is the people, and it is a perversion to think otherwise.
I said nothing about that, it’s not news to me. That might be the case today, but there was a time when countries in the western hemisphere like America were importing massive numbers of the poor and destitute, not to mention even enslaved people. Not that I’m arguing for a return to indentured servitude and slavery, but there are clearly times when poor people are wanted or at least tolerated en masse. Such as when you are building a new country and need settlers and frontiersmen, or when your population is struggling to keep the economy up due to an aging native population with hardly anybody to look after them.
You're misunderstanding the immigration requirements: who is considered doesn't necessarily mean everyone that fits the requirements will be accepted. It's a requirements list for exclusion, doesn't say fitting the requirements implies inclusion.
I mean, to get the Japanese take on immigration, you could go to 5chan and check out the temperature over there. Japanese don't frequent this board, so what you will get is mostly North American and Western European (not even eastern European)
I'm not saying I'm surprised it's largely western people (like myself) that are commenting here, what's surprising is how much nationalism they have for Japan without living there or being ethnically Japanese.
This is certainly going to conflict with their moves to make it easier to attract aged care workers to the country. Perhaps all the elderly people are expected to patriotically look after themselves?
Perhaps they have simply realized that no political decisions are without downsides, including unchecked immigration, and that on balance, they’ve decided it’s not for them?
It’s silly to claim that immigration is the only way to care for old people. We have been caring for old people for the entire history of the human race. We can start doing it again anytime.
It’s true, that it’s inconsistent to demand no immigration and simultaneously defendthe right to produce no children. But it is Japanese people who need to square that circle, not people who want to immigrate to Japan, nor people outside Japan, who feel Japan should allow immigration.
It’s the rate of increase in immigration, which makes it harder for a country to “take it in and give room for assimilation”. Same problem in Canada, and a good chunk of pathways have been rolled back.
It’s not a simple issue, but very obviously citizens of countries where immigration rate has gone through the roof aren’t happy. Also the usual hatred starts when low income immigrants move into the country, as they’re more likely to work in public-facing jobs (markets, hotels, etc).
I just find it odd so many non-Japanese media and commentators weigh in on this.
Japan is not a multicultural country. You can't become Japanese through paperwork. It is very much through blood heritage, your language and cultural proficiency.
The bar to be Japanese is much higher than say Canadian or French. So why shouldn't they create laws that is aimed at benefiting themselves and their country without depending on foreigners?
Also if you have a business and you don't have $125,000 you are not going to make it in Canada or America either.
You literally can become a Japanese citizen through paperwork. Only other requirement is 10 years of residency (used to be 5) and fluency in the language. I don't even think there's a cultural test. Know a few people that went through the process and it's pretty simple, just tedious providing all the paperwork.
It feels normal in a globalized world for commentators around the globe to observe and weigh in on the decisions of any country, especially one of such economic importance and cultural significance as Japan.
That being said, I wholeheartedly agree on your points regarding Japan not being a multi-cultural country. And this, indeed, is rarely (if ever) mentioned in articles such as the one posted here.
Japan is an island. It has always been and not just from a geographical perspective. Its very culture and history are ones of isolation. The restrictions are not new, the perspective "Japan first" is not new - these have always been there, they are at the very core of the nation.
> Japan is an island. It has always been and not just from a geographical perspective. Its very culture and history are ones of isolation. The restrictions are not new, the perspective "Japan first" is not new - these have always been there, they are at the very core of the nation.
That's not at accurate from what I know of Japanese history. You seem to be over-indexing on the (relatively) brief Tokugawa-era sakoku policy and ignoring the thousands of years surrounding it where Japan was an active importer of culture.
Kanji, government structure, Buddhism, law, art and more were all imported from China and hugely influential in Japanese history. After the the Meiji Restoration, Japan explicitly set out to Westernize and went abroad to study European and American institutions, invited Westerners in to help build European-style banking systems and government systems, adopted Western clothing, architecture, military organization, legal codes, etc. etc.
If anything the Japanese are masters at importing the things they like of foreign culture and then modifying to make it their own. They have always been importers of culture.
There lies the thesis you pointed out. The point of these articles and coverage seems to be aimed at "Why isn't Japan multicultural yet, so racist!" which makes no sense. Japan has been inhabited by Japanese language, culture and homogeneous people for thousands of years.
There is absolutely no need for Japan to become multicultural or any other country for that matter because not being multicultural isn't a fault or a sin.
I don't know why so many in the West demand this on other countries. There's just something very unnatural and unrealistic and scary to expect a homogeneous country like Japan to suddenly start calling a clearly non-Japanese looking person Japanese. It's going to create huge problems for Japan that won't benefit it or its people by any measure.
Hot take: I think immigration and multiculturalism is going to be the the biggest and the defining issue of this century. The history books will have "AI" and climate change in the margins as 'exacerbating factors'. We've started to see it in the US, and we're beginning to see the start to it in the EU. Japan--rightly or wrongly--might be averting a future disaster here. Japan is lucky in that they are still a very homogeneous society, and also unlucky in that they are ahead of the curve in population decline. I think the western world is in for a bad time over the next 50 years.
I don't think there's a limit to the animosity people feel (rightly or wrongly - what's "correct" has no bearing on people's feelings) and we will end up in a place where previously unthinkable force or actions are now permissible due to nasty politics. The US is getting a small taste of that now.
I don't think it takes much imagination to connect the dots... it wasn't that long ago in European history where people were systematically eradicated by the millions.
There are Ceuta like events of a smaller scale every day at every border of western europe. Dont need to wait 50 years. Not a single european voted for this. French people also voted no to a european economy but those who seized power didnt care
If there were a significant amount of such people coming in it would push up the cost of living for the average-(or below-average)-income Japanese citizen.
Look at any of the Western cities that became attractive for retirement or "investment properties" for wealthy international folks... it makes everything more expensive for everyone already there.
If the concern was just about preventing things from changing for existing citizens, restrictions across the income band would seem to make much more sense.
From the article
“Japan needs foreign workers because of labour shortages. But if the conditions for long-term settlement become substantially more difficult, this could potentially reduce Japan’s attractiveness to foreign workers who are considering Japan as a place to build their long-term lives,”
Specifically, Japan needs workers in human services to physically care for the very large elderly population. They need them so badly that they are in the process of implementing easier work visas for them. But do you think those jobs pay more than the national average?
No, but that's the point. They don't want long-term residents, they want short-term labor. This has been the goal for a long time, and if you move to Japan expecting anything else you'll be disappointed.
"Labour shortage" is just the business's perspective on "plenty of jobs!"
If there truly is a shortage of outstanding jobs, then they can compete and raise salaries and the least significant roles ultimately won't get filled, which is optimal.
Think of the US - the reduction of low wage immigrants has been a large factor in our economy lately. Food prices have gone up, and in the long term there's fewer young families getting added to the social security system.
While it's cute to think that suddenly these jobs are going to Americans, but these are mostly undesirable jobs that pay less than typical jobs. To the extent that they even get filled by native workers, it drives real wages down and not up.
Meanwhile, only allowing immigrants from the top of the income bracket crowds out the top side of the job market.
This is very one-sided. There are plenty of low income and working class people who have suddenly found more work than they have had in years due to reductions in immigration.
What's the empirical evidence that proves this? If the economy gets worse as a result of lack of immigration, its going to reduce opportunities for low income and working class people.
It restricts immigration to cities where the high wages are, ie. Tokyo which is itself already too crowded, and forces foreigners living in less populated parts of the country to leave, further depopulating it.
I acknowledge and sympathize with the pain this will cause, but in regards to Japan itself: Good for them. Not because it is a rightward shift, but because it is a shift toward pragmatism in the face of the inherent tension between respect for all people and respect for one's own people and culture.
In my humble opinion, an ideal world is a liberal one with cherry-picked, tightly controlled, practical conservative elements that boldly take on the intimidating job of maintaining the balance between love and reason.
This is a shift away from pragmatism; pragmatism would be acknowledging Japan's economic need for immigration.
Whether Europe or North America have a problem with too much immigration and not enough integration is debatable, maybe - and I suspect that's where your perspective comes from - but Japan decidedly does not (maybe too much tourism, and I feel at least some of the antagonism towards foreigners comes from that, but no matter). Immigrants still make up a very small percentage of the population, mostly in Tokyo; given the existing challenges with immigration, they tend to be extremely diligent, respectful, appreciative of Japanese culture, and hard-working.
This is just a populist conservative government pandering to the some of the worst aspects in society to distract from their failures.
Pragmatism could just as easily be a decision by the public collectively to have more babies. There’s nothing about immigration that makes it inherently pragmatic. It could be, with the agreement of the electorate, away to compensate for the electorates decisions to have fewer babies. But it’s not up for us outside of Japan to lecture them on whether or not they are being consistent on this.
Technically you're probably right, since most people are not terribly rational. Most people believe their values are the only correct ones, in which case there is exactly one "pragmatic" path.
There is nothing pragmatic about kicking out the workforce you imported because of a shortage of native labour. The pragmatist stance would be to accept those differences, and focus on addressing/alleviating them. Cutting your nose to spite your face is more idealism than pragmatism.
It's OK if they choose to seek other avenues for dealing with that problem. The easiest solution is often not the best, and sometimes there is no net-positive path forward.
> I mean, sure, so long as they're willing to deal with the consequences of an aging population and a shrinking workforce.
They're pretty clearly aware of the dire fear-mongering, and chose their path accordingly. They decided to sidestep the pyramid scheme of perpetual growth.
Here in Canada we've been pitched this same scary argument for decades, leading to outrageous levels of immigration, coupled with a growing entitlement among the class (which leads to a complete refusal to integrate in any meaningful way, often while incanting the laughable pablum about mosaic versus melting pot while dragging regressive, destructive habits and cultural norms to Canada, tragedy of the commons behaviour, etc).
Somehow this mass immigration has made us older, and less competitive, moving in exactly the opposite direction of the magical solution it promised while giving away the country. It has led to massive lines for every job, downward pressure on wages, and oversubscribed services at every level.
---
Every now and then there is a discussion about the difference between an "expat" and an "immigrant", but it really is important that people are honest about the difference, because it is very real, and it is informative to why the myth of immigration as a solution doesn't track with the reality that immigration is often massively destructive.
An expat is usually some Westerner that moved to some random country for adventure, a change, whatever. Occasionally they send a postcard home and share videos from the beach. Whatever.
An immigrant, on the other hand, is someone that moves to a country as a beachhead to drag their entire extended family there, often then expanding out from there. Which is precisely what many Western countries have seen where they bring in the "skilled worker", and then the skilled worker drags over their elderly parents, and also their "auntie" as a purported childcare giver, and then registers a business and sponsors their village through every loophole and circumvention, and then... This has destroyed the acceptance of immigration and completely obliterated the "oh you're getting older, something something labour shortage" nonsense.
We need to move on from the mass immigration is the solution horseshit, because all it has done is led every developed country to lurch perilously to the right, giving an easy open for charlatans to take advantage of a real problem to push a lot of ancillary things as well.
> the skilled worker drags over their elderly parents, and also their "auntie" as a purported childcare giver, and then registers a business and sponsors their village through every loophole and circumvention
It's a balancing at the regional/global level. People desire to move from worse situation to better, which leads to an averaging tendency of the source and destination. You don't like it because average means there's a little less per person where you are, since it's a destination. People at the source like the emigration because there's a little more per person (which hopefully isn't mostly absorbed by some "protective" group, like mafia, bad govt, etc). Let the balance happen; it leads to a better world overall.
Yes, physically that's a good description of the natural flow of things. No, it makes no sense for successful nations to suffer for the benefit of unsuccessful nations, generally speaking. What they should provide is aid, with varying specifics on what that means (e.g. it could be as simple as favorable trade).
To move everybody into the successful nations, rather than engage in the slow work of making all nations somewhat successful, is cruel and insane.
How are those nations suffering, when the reason that they're destinations is because they have a surplus of resources (I won't touch on the history that usually led to that surplus in the first place)? As long as a significant number of the immigrants aren't committing crimes and play by the rules the citizens go by to the best of their abilities, why is there an issue? Isn't the - ideal of the - "free market" supposed to be a thing all should aspire to?
>Somehow this mass immigration has made us older, and less competitive, moving in exactly the opposite direction of the magical solution it promised while giving away the country. It has led to massive lines for every job, downward pressure on wages, and oversubscribed services at every level.
Context for others: Already much wealthier on a real GDP per-capita basis, the US increased its lead over Canada from 2000 to 2025 <https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1YbGu>. The US began the period 28.2% higher, and finished 49.5% higher. Note the lack of growth in the Canadian line that began c. 2015.
Put another way, 100% of Canadian GDP growth since 2015 has been from population growth. Now that the latter has been significantly (not completely) cut back, the country is in a recession (which the bien-pensant media never fails to adding the word "technical" before saying so).
>Here in Canada we've been pitched this same scary argument for decades, leading to outrageous levels of immigration, coupled with a growing entitlement among the class (which leads to a complete refusal to integrate in any meaningful way, often while incanting the laughable pablum about mosaic versus melting pot while dragging regressive, destructive habits and cultural norms to Canada, tragedy of the commons behaviour, etc).
If Trump announced that after annexation the US would deport every TFW/"student" that has arrived since 2015, public opinion would massively swing toward joining the US ASAP.
This is not news anymore in that it has been going on for
several months already. The first time I really noticed
this was on Paolo from Tokyo, where he suddenly praised
japanese cops on becoming tougher. Since then I noticed
more and more complaints from non-japanese upon moving to
Japan. Recently it was a guy from Germany who lives in Japan
for like +10 years already and was denied being granted
Japanese citizenship basically because ... he is gaijin.
Something really fundamental has been changing in Japan
in the last few years, kind of an anti-globalisation
movement tied to more nationalism - and I have a SLIGHT
suspicion that this will become ultra-nationalism. In
turn, a second prediction I make is that Japan will become
militarily more aggressive and invest more in that. We
can already see the writing on the wall here that more
conflict will be brewing in the area.
It's a bit unfortunate in that if a country does not really
want people to visit it, well - one does not have to go
there. There are many other countries in the asian area
that aren't as hostile to foreigners now. (Also interesting
to see how an aging society suddenly changes to offset
immigration. Hopefully we won't hear a single japanese
complain about lack of people in Japan. Ironically Paolo
is, or rather was, also kind of a gaijin, even though he
speaks perfect Japanese of course.)
I’m not Japanese, but have family ties to Japan. I frequently compare USA (where I am at now), Japan, and my home country (lets say X).
I think one of the reason why Japan is considering doing these is because a lot of people with specific cultural religious, and ethnic backgrounds are really causing a lot of trouble. They cause a lot of trouble even in my home country where they are the majority (I am an ethnic minority).
I’ve heard anecdotes from my Japanese friends and families and really, its bad. And these people refuse to assimilate, but want to conquer instead.
However, targeting specific racial/religious/ethnic minorities are generally frowned in the modern world, so Japan just create a more “acceptable” filter here to filter out people from these backgrounds, that is, wealth.
We can’t all go along and sing kumbaya to one another, although I personally want to. But the other cultures/ethnicities/religious backgrounds don’t want to.
Yes, I witnessed persecution and death before, managed to escape it when I was really small. this definitely color my perception regarding specific cultural/ethnic/religious backgrounds regardless whether I have a lot of good friends from said backgrounds.
This world is so cruel, and there are a lot of hurt in this world. We don’t need to make it harder. As an ethnic minority myself, I really really want everyone to just get along, but it really is impossible.
As a non Japanese foreigner myself. I welcome this change, even if that means I will never be able to be accepted there.
Okay so which specific cultural religious and ethnic backgrounds are causing trouble and what empirical evidence do you have of this happening on a large scale?
It can take many generations for immigrant family to assimilate into the host country's culture, how do you know they are there to conquer and not just taking time to assimilate?
Why do you think only Japanese people can take care of Japan, do you hold this belief for other countries?
If I were to guess, I'd guess it's Islam. I come from a region where we have a sizeable Muslim minority, and hardly a day goes by without some outrage or the other which hurts their sensibilities (ban calls for prayers? ban praying in the middle of the street during rush hour? serve bacon/ham in school lunches? etc. etc.); regardless of the fact that people have lived this way for millennia, and Muslims just showed up in the last few decades, but insist on bending the rest of the society to their norms.
If you broadly link the flavors of Christianity practiced in Russia and the evangelical side of the US I guess you could make a claim about white Christians causing a lot of trouble worldwide with military attacks on other countries...
Go back to countries in the same religious/ethnic tree meddling in the Middle East in the early and mid-20th-century and you can link back a whole host more problems to white Christians!
But the southern evangelical side of my family gets pretty upset whenever I point that out...
> Okay so which specific cultural religious and ethnic backgrounds are causing trouble and what empirical evidence do you have of this happening on a large scale?
> even if that means I will never be able to be accepted there
You need Japanese blood (visibly), culture (language, manner, custom), and nationality to be "fully" accepted. This isn't new and has more to do with Japanese people themselves than with any legal restriction.
The ones in the news lately are the Kurds which the police can’t touch because of some asylum law running various scrapyards, and the Vietnamese car theft gangs.
Can you name which backgrounds you/Japanese people are talking about?
What confuses me is that Japan is not a very immigrant-heavy country. There's no chance of someone who doesn't represent the interests of native Japanese people being elected any time soon, or ever. So why can't they pass laws codifying the behaviors they want to encourage and ones they will treat as non-assimilation? Why aren't they doing something to address misbehavior directly, making newcomers to the country prove their long-term commitment to their new social and cultural environment, or punishing infractions more harshly so bad actors can't stay in the country? Why are the only two options available to them 'do nothing' or 'blanket punish all foreigners because all foreigners are trouble'?
It is part of Japan being Japan. Japanese being Japanese.
Japan is a shame based culture. A lot of social norms are encoded as part of being Japanese and not strictly enforced. Japan has less lawyers per capita compared to US for example.
Take a look at a lot of the influencers that are causing trouble in Japan. In the US we probably bludgeon (or shoot) those people on the spot and lawyers talk later, but Japan doesn’t do that, not even their police. Majority of Japanese just sit there silently but deep inside filled with disgust.
Besides, once these laws are implemented, soon it will be obvious which groups are “targeted” and it doesn’t look good in the eyes of the international world.
I know that Japan is a lot more implicit in enforcing its culture. But it is not a country that runs on honor alone. It has police, it has prisons, it has courts. The lawyer comparison doesn't tell me much because the US is a very litigious country in ways that go far beyond individual criminal law.
Besides, the implication you made is that a lot of the actions people don't like are already illegal, just not tightly enforced. Especially if you say Americans would shoot the perpetrators on the spot.
Even if they wanted to protect their status quo, they could only apply stricter requirements on residents who haven't received their citizenship yet. Law-abiding immigrants in many countries are used to having to clear higher bars than locals. But at least in this case this would be equitable, only punishing the people who actually do something wrong instead of everyone.
Lawyers per capita results from a structural legal system difference not a "shame" difference. It has adversarial influences but is much less a lawyer-theatrics-dominated adversarial civil-jury-trials-for-all-sorts-of-things free for all.
The US could avoid a lot of inefficiences if they adopted the same.
As a liberal in California, my views on immigration actually hardened a bit after a recent trip to Japan. I appreciated that everything there was just so Japanese. No ethnic enclaves, no zones or industry that I could see dominated by non-Japanese people. I just loved the fact that I was in Japan and surrounded exclusively by Japanese culture. Made me think of what international travel must have been like 150 years ago, where visiting another country was like traveling to a different world.
I think according to the official guidebook of modern US liberalism, this makes me slightly racist, and I'm supposed to be sad that Japan doesn't have more foreign-dominated neighborhoods??
I think Japan thinks they can still attract enough foreigners to perform necessary service and manual labor jobs without the promise of permanent residency. That along with increasing automation - serving robots are a common sight at many restaurants these days, for example.
Permanent residency is reserved for those who can be a net benefit to social welfare programs - by earning and contributing more than the average Japanese household (about USD $36,000 - $42,000 according to google). There are also new language requirements to promote assimilation.
I don’t think it’s anything too radical by global standards, and I have read there are similarities to what Singapore and South Korea already do [1] (though I don’t know too much about their programs).
It’s important to note that the exact details haven’t been finalized yet. So exact income requirements could change from current proposals/rumors. There was a lot of outrage about proposed provisions to revoke permanent residency for people who commit crimes or don’t pay taxes, but when they actually came through they were pretty fair, common sense type changes.
These changes come on the heels of drastically increasing requirements for the business manager visa (which, to be fair, was heavily abused as a kind of “golden visa” in the past). They’ve also significantly increased visa application costs - I think I paid like ¥5,000 for my PR application, and it is now ¥200,000.
It does feel cruel to apply new requirements retroactively to people who have already submitted applications. And the stories of people whose lives are being completely upended by the changes are heartbreaking.
Japan has a heavy shortage of workers [0], and it has been so for many years now. Your link cites the efforts from 2017, the reason wasn't some olive branch to humanity, Japan already was in dire need of working class people.
Right now the yen is so weak Japan salary look ridiculously low, there is the language barrier, and the low hanging jobs aren't great either (a ton in elderly care).
Their policies to restrict immigration will have few impact short term, as immigration is already slowing down and even Filinos, who have always been on the better side of immigration, are looking for better opportunities [1]. Longer term though, people will remember how it goes when Japan economy trends down, and the immigration going away might not come back even when the trend reverses. Especially as there will already be a probably better community built elsewhere.
In a time of declining globalism and growing[1] nationalism[2] and anti-immigration sentiment around the world, I think it is unsurprising that a historically[3] xenophobic culture would move in this direction.
[2]: often used as a tool by oligarchy to shift blame away from themselves, instead towards vulnerable groups, as the cause of rising inequality and various institutional crisis
Let's be honest, the Japanese gov't has killed off every generation since the asian bubble popped in the 90's. Those kids in the 90's that still can't get a job should be in their peak earning years and have strong talent skills, (and having kids) which was all sacrificed. They don't have the skills or tax base they should and they are unwilling to actually fix it because the stock market needs to crash big time and the rich need to pay for it.
I completely agree with your comment about Japan killing every generation since the bubble popped. It has been wild to witness.
The subtle but profound ways those generations have experienced being essentially abandoned by the government and “Japan Inc” will have a lasting impact on Japan for many decades to come.
There are some leaders who actually grasp the problem and actually have decent ideas for solutions, but the will and capacity to execute those ideas just isn’t there.
Racism, xenophobia, amplified by social media and far right political parties. It’s not too different from the dynamics we’ve seen in the rest of the western world
You know what creates 100 more trouble than immigrants ? Japan’s birth rate.
You know who have babies? Immigrants.
You know who pays social security for peuple when they get older ? Those grown up babies.
Do the math. Japan has much to teach the world but the most important lesson they are now teaching, is that people are stupid, easily manipulated, excessively xenophobic and absolutely happy to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly if it means not admitting they’re wrong. In Japan, in the US, in Europe and elsewhere.
And yet, according to available statistics, there's no a single western country where Muslim and African immigrants are not an additional financial burden. Even if we forget about safety, crime, ...
> Applicants will also be required to have a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts.
Does this take into account the amount of pension a person would still accumulate under Japanese employment, or will this immediately disqualify anyone under 45?
That’s like 12 x 30 x ¥35000 = 12600000 yen. ＄84000. I don’t know about others, but I consider myself pretty well off and I do not have that kind of money.
> But letting anybody do anything that would benefit them is of course not reasonable.
Who is talking about letting anybody do anything? The parent is talking about people working in tech as a means of upwards mobility. Is that not reasonable?
They are unfortunately the most common example of (subjectively) bad immigration policies seen first-hand among tech folks in the West (I.e. people likely to be on HN). The parent was obviously referring to this fact sarcastically. It's a tech trope.
As usual, the meme is ever alive around these parts. Anything Japan does is heralded as a good move™ and no impartial discussion can be had without the weeaboos coming out of the woodwork to put a positive spin on it.
But sure, we’ll see if limiting these odious gaijin coming in will solve their stagnant economy, fertility crisis and obsolete business practices. Good luck with their isolationism, it’s not the first time they’ve gone down that path, all to appease the right-leaning imbeciles that blame the immigrant for their politicians’ ineptitude at dealing with systemic problems. It’s the same all over the world.
I see roughly the same ratio of agreement and disagreement as usual. And even if it is different, it's probably more due to the specifics of the case, rather than an internet meme. Based on your writing, it sounds more like you have a grudge against Japan, rather than everybody else having some kind of opposite bias.
I moved from the USA to Sweden about 6 years ago. Sweden has also been tightening its immigration laws, in ways I believe have been and will be detrimental to its future.
Countries have a right to change their laws, but I believe it’s in everyone’s interest for those laws to be changed while respecting principles of predictability and legal certainty.
People planned and rearranged their entire lives around immigration law in force at one point, perhaps 5 years ago, and now a new law is going into force that slams the door shut to having a basic sense of stability, with only a 6 month transition period. It’s cruel. And it sends a bad sign to anyone looking to move.
The USA can afford to be cruel because people will deal with it for high wages. Japan can maybe afford to be cruel because their cultural exports keep the top of their “talent attraction” funnel large. It’s economic suicide for any other small-to-medium sized nation dependent on foreign labor.
> It’s economic suicide for any other small-to-medium sized nation dependent on foreign labor.
This such a baffling statement, honestly: that the flourishing economy crucially depends on foreign labour. What happened with the role of the technological know-how, and vast material (and financial) capital? The institutions? All of that is still not enough for prosperity unless you can hire a paperless José for $7.40 per hour, with an implied threat of handing him off to ICE if he raises any stink?
I'm having a hard time following the thinking in many of these threads so I'm not sure if you're questioning it genuinely (or hypothetically or sarcastically), but I think essentially yes sadly.
Wealthier areas wonder why it costs so much for house renovations or for daycare or`for farmer's market produce. Or similarly folks move to less wealthy countries as "expats" and hire help, babysitters, tutors. Sense of prosperity seems tied to those things feeling inexpensive and them feeling cheap requires income inequality. There's I think a large amount of feeling poor (or average) when those things are eating your budget. Even though you have them. For example, you pay for expensive childcare so both parents can work, it takes a big bite out of your budget, and so you don't feel wealthy (but you're paying for childcare and your family has an employee). Similarly, you're paying for expensive private school, it eats your budget, you don't feel wealthy (but your child is going to private school).
For those doing well, the surplus goes to what's left—house, education, healthcare (I recall there being a fourth, but I'm blanking). Those things are expensive because they should be, you're wealthy. You're competing with the other wealthy people. I'm stealing this from somewhere, but they're essentially luxury goods—the more money you have, the more (and better quality) you consume. They don't decrease as percent of income as food does.
Most of developed economies dont need blue collar foreign labor in the future. Some dont even need it now. There are no industries in uk or france and this labor role is mostly to suppress wages (we ve seen it with brexit and english truck drivers) . For industrial nations like germany before they shot themselves you do need this labor until robots and automation makes them obsolete. Way before 50years and then being a nation with low immigration is becoming a key advantage for a country cohesion and future. Finally every country at 25% youth unemployment (like france and spain) shoould block all immigration beside highly skilled immigrants
Robots and automation won’t replace health care workers. Aging countries will need more of those.
And the unemployed youth would be working those low skilled jobs today if they wanted to, fact is they don’t pay enough for them and if those jobs are automated away they will still be unemployed.
It obviously suppress wages, which is a necessary condition for capitalism. Any country where it costs 10x to build infrastructure because there is no cheap labor will be less competitive.
When a person migrates, I would believe that the origin country has one less population. So why is it good that this person props up population in the destination country instead of in the origin country?
And why does the destination country need that persons labour and expertise, but not the origin country?
If the native population is becoming exterminated with or without migration, what exactly is the "country" that needs to be kept "afloat"? Your stock portfolio? Your treasury bills? Your real estate investment?
It’s definitely a possibility that a country dwindles away and is happy to do so in order to avoid immigration. We’ll probably see that with Japan and South Korea by the end of this century.
Ultimately it’s their choice.
Whether a country with high population composed of immigration is still the same country we can look to the Americas. Countries with extreme high degree of immigration and assimilation, yet still very much worthwhile countries. Maybe not the countries the natives from 500 years ago would have imagined, but their culture has survived more than 100 years and contribute significantly to the world still. New Zealand is also a good example of native culture not being wiped out even with assimilation.
The fate of the native North Americans is one of the largest catastrophes in the history of humanity. Just as so many other times through human history when natives were displaced and replaced, whether by violent or non-violent means, or a mix of both.
Immigration doesn't change the fact of natives dwindling away or not. A nation is the native people, not a name on a map. The exceptions are the United States and other new world ex-colonies. But there was a very dear price paid in blood and tears to make them.
America has had almost no assimilation of immigrants into the cultures which existed there before. Very good arguments have been made that the Enlightenment (or Age of Reason) did originate from native North American ideas and ideals being brought to Europe through cultural exchange, but it's not assimilation on the part of the settlers.
> America has had almost no assimilation of immigrants into the cultures which existed there before
That's almost a uniquely United States problem, not at all as big of an issue in most of the Americas. Only a few countries in the Americas have had their native population pretty much entirely wiped out without any assimilation whatsoever. The US is one of these few countries (Cuba and Hispaniola would be other examples of total replacement).
The rest has had large degree of intermixing or wholesale population preservation. Aspects of native culture is those countries were suppressed historically but are still preserved in some way to this day.
It's also very fair to say sovereign countries today can build a healthier immigration policy than 1500s Europeans with their extermination campaigns. I'd be the last to say that is an example to be followed.
You don't have a automatic right to live in another country in my opinion. I don't blame Swedes for slamming a door shut that has turned their incredibly safe country into the gun and bomb capital of Europe.
>I moved from the USA to Sweden about 6 years ago. Sweden has also been tightening its immigration laws
Context for others: Until 2026 Sweden had no language, income, employment, or skills requirement for citizenship. It now has some basic requirements in these areas.
Doesn't seem they're really aware that they're something of an endangered "species". Although technically they'd still be endangered even if they open up seriously, as then there's heightened possibility of bloodline dilution. I wonder sometimes if that'd be a good or bad thing in the long run: loss of that which makes them pretty unique vs blending more with the world.
In my experience, born/raised in Japan, domestic Japanese people have a very different reaction to local "Hafu" people where one of their parents is a Caucasian person from the US, UK, AU, NZ (or similar), vs "other" countries.
It seems they are very well aware. They've probably seen what happens to other "endangered species" (eg. the English or Swedes) when the floodgates are opened by treasonous bureaucrats chasing votes, economic metrics, or appeasing their destructive oikophobia.
Korean men and Japanese women make up the biggest share of international marriages in Japan so there's something more going on here that makes Japanese women highly desirable to men in general.
Requiring proficiency in the language is reasonable, but requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane. That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
Let's see how it works out for them. Screwing around with immigration on the precipice of a population crash seems like... Not a great idea.
> requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population
In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors. I can't find what the same statistic is for Japan. I don't believe it's wrong for there to be an expectation that they be a net contributor.
>In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors.
47% of what? Of the immigrants coming in the UK are net tax contributors or 47% of the total population including locals?
47% of individuals live in households that are net contributors.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
> Across the UK, 53.3% of people lived in households that were net recipients in FYE 2024. This means that they lived in households that received more in benefits (cash and benefits in kind) than they paid in taxes (direct and indirect).
The situation is skewed by the fact that 3.1 million people receive in-work credit because pay is so poor.
It's a straightforward subsidy for employer profits.
Isn’t this just a reflection of wealth inequality though? A “net negative” tax payer is just working a job that makes one of the net positive payers richer thus still bringing in more income for the country.
Or, you know, they live off of welfare without contributing to the surrounding society in any way.
The idea that 53% of people live off of welfare without contributing to society in any way seems pretty far-fetched.
But is populists wet dream
Most countries need both VAT and income tax to fund their budget. Importing well off immigrants means they subsidize the VAT part only and likely do not generate income from Japan salaries. This is basically same problem as with digital nomads: they use the infrastructure which they do not fund proportionally compared to regular citizens.
Am I missing something here?
I do. It's like needing a credit check to get a job. It's a horrible death spiral: Japanese jobs can decrease wages from more supply, which can out you under the line, which makes it harder for you to contribute to the economy.
That stat is bogus though when used in this context. The least payed workers contribute the most to every day life of society in my opinion and pay the least tax.
If we consider outright slavery, would that statistic count a slave as a "non-contributing" member of society? After all, they must be fed, and housed, but pay no taxes. What a burden they are!
The US has something like this, but the income threshold is lower.[1] US immigrants in most categories have to show that they will not become a "public charge", that is, need US welfare benefits.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-...
The US requirements are so much lower that calling them similar does a disservice.
The proposed requirements in Japan require earnings to exceed Japan's average and also for them to have an equivalent of 30 years of pension payouts saved up.
The US requirements are not as specific, but for comparison one of the numbers is that that families need to have an income requirement 25% higher than federal poverty guidelines, which very low compared to average US incomes.
they don't require 30 years saved up, only showing (somehow) that you will be able to generate such a pension equivalent over time. I suspect that will be very squishy in practice.
I was going by the article, which says this:
> Applicants will also be required to have a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts.
If there's a better article to read, I'd appreciate a link.
That's reasonable too. People who move to a new country should be able to support themselves there and have a good chance to thrive in their new home. If the average income of the population isn't enough for that to be possible, your country has bigger problems than immigrants
Mostly you need immigrants for the jobs that your osn population doesn’t want. Nobody is going to pay above average for those jobs.
Manu tings are reasonable but not done. For example, it seems unreasonable that one country can print any amount of money due to being called the reserve currency and use it to influence countries around the world.
If you want fairness, start from the top and don’t punch down. I’m not against any definitions of immigration but generally most definitions aren’t reasonable. They are just downstream and issues of an upstream systems problem.
Every single person who came through Ellis Island <https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-...>
* was a legal immigrant
* had passed a medical inspection
* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal
Shipping liner companies were charged to return ineligible passengers to their origin (the same is true with airlines today), so they had every incentive to verify ahead of time that they could enter the destination country. The "only 2% of immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island" statistic often bandied-about by the pro-open borders side elides the restrictions that caused the rate to be so low in the first place.
I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
> was a legal immigrant
Technically true, extremely misleading. The law placed vastly fewer restrictions on who was a legal immigrant for much of that period. Of course, it is true starting in 1921, and 1924, legislation was put in place to limit immigration by "undesirables" such as Asians, Italians and Slavs.
Curious...which one of those regimes do you want to bring back?
I'm not sure people should be forced to live with those they feel xenophobia towards, even if one grants that the feelings of xenophobia have no basis in reality.
Before I read your comment, can I see your papers?
Alright, how do I get rid of you?
They are free to move somewhere else. I don't see why you need to coddle that sort.
OK, so considering Sweden, if Sweden is flooded with immigrants, where should the Swedes who just want to live with other Swedes go? Australia??
Also you do realize that your preferred migration policy will lead to microaggressions (and possibly macroaggressions) against immigrants? If people don't have democratic means to keep out disliked foreigners, they may be tempted to try alternatives. The ballot box is ultimately an alternative to violence.
Your preferred policy also leads to microagressions, where the mere presence of someone who doesn't 'look' swedish would set these 'people' off.
It seems more like 'xenophobia' is the real culprit here, and should be tackled directly instead of 'granting' it as a preference that doesn't need to be interrogated.
Race-hate is a syndrome, not an entitlement.
Also don’t forget:
1) Only 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island in 60 years.
2) 30-40% returned home
3) The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
4) Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York. And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York and Chicago today.
Would be nice if the people downvoting this tried to make an argument instead
Now do a realistic summary of what it took to pass these checks, eg how details of a medical inspection or what level of resources (inflation adjusted) were required. Equating past practices with current standards is a bait-and-switch.
Why? The US doesn’t have a problem of too many people „draining“ the country resources.
Something like two thirds of the US federal budget is spent on some form of welfare. Assuming you want to keep that ratio you could spend more per person with fewer people withdrawing from that system.
Completely wrong, except possibly if you're defining Social Security as welfare, in which case honesty would compel you to note that no one draws Social Security except based on having previously made contributions via dedicated taxation for social security.
I agree that Social Security is not plain welfare, but it has significant welfare components. Simplifying some, you get back something like 90% of the first $15,432 income per year but only 32% of income above that up to $92,988. (And above that, it's 15%.) Only getting 32% back of what you pay in so that the rest can be redistributed to others who made less could be considered partly welfare. Also, if you die too young, you don't get the money back, nor can you give it to your children. It's redistributed to other people. I'm not saying it's bad (I think it's probably good overall), but I can see how it's partly welfare.
Just a reminder... Social Security requires 40 quarters (ie, 10 years) of income to even qualify for a pension. And the pension is based on what you earn, which is what you pay into the system.
The US doesn’t lack the capital for welfare. The country decides to instead waste its resources fighting wars, fighting its allies, fighting its trade partners. The money is here, there is no will to allocate it to welfare. You could reduce the number of people on welfare by a massive amount and none of the savings from that would get distributed to the remaining recipient
Those wars are essential to protecting our economic interests. An isolationist US is impossible. We're pretty much a modern imperial power.
The US economy did great prior to 1900 or so. During this period, we did not have significant military action outside of the Americas, and we avoided peacetime alliances. From 1820-1900 the US economy exploded from about 40% the size of the UK economy to about 200% the size of the UK economy.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-maddison-project-data...
Switzerland has a per capita GDP exceeding the US while pursuing isolationist foreign policy. They are the world's most popular country in opinion polls.
I hate to break it to you, but the world of pre-1900 has been dead and gone for a solid 120+ years, it was killed off by Europe getting itself into two stupid wars that the Americans had to come over and save them from. Nothing works the same anymore.
All those European countries get to invest in those nice social programs and isolationism because the US has at least up until now acted as world police and handled their foreign affairs for the most part.
Why shouldn't we let Europe do the world policing for a while? They're always complaining about whatever we do.
>"Those wars are essential to protecting our economic interests"
Translation - we bomb people for money. well thanks for being frank anyways. otherwise it is sick to hear all that moralizing about "us being a good guys"
No, they're essential to protecting Benjamin Netanyahu's ass. No more and no less.
Less vindictively, the only economic interest the US has in the Middle East is oil. Relying on oil for your energy needs is, in 2026, a choice and not a requirement. Wind, solar, and the batteries you need to store them are continuously getting cheaper. And for the people who are net consumers of energy - primarily the US, Europe, and China - renewables are better for everything, but especially they're better for energy independence!
The only things that require oil are airplanes, plastics, and industrial chemical processes (like we make asphalt out of oil and certain inks out of naphtha). Eliminating most of the energy demand for oil would mean a significantly reduced dependence on foreign oil, and more specifically, the political dependence on low gas prices. America rebuilt all its cities in the image of the car and, as a result, made gasoline/petrol a necessary ingredient of urban mobility. This was, again, a choice - we absolutely could have retained and grown our dense urban cores and we can still rebuild what was destroyed.
But this requires an entire governing body at every level that is not a corpse paraded by the ghosts of Tammany Hall, Standard Oil, and Hitler. The primary crisis in America that is driving these wars is a fundamental lack of political will for alternatives.
The US is now the world's top oil exporter thanks to fracking:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels?fuel=oil&met...
Then why is gas so expensive?
On average, foreign born US residents use less public assistance then native born.
This is a statistic that is technically true but has some hidden nuance.
Depending on what gets counted, "public assistance" stats like this usually include medicare and social security. (Social security gets debated because of how it's paid-in, but I'm not here to argue that. The fact is, it gets included in these stats). Those two make up the dominant consumption of public assistance to the point that things we hear about in the media like food stamps are kind of a rounding error.
Medicare and social security are collected primarily by older people. Foreign born populations have much lower numbers of people in that age bracket than the general popualtion.
Combine those two facts and it's not surprising that when you look at charts of foreign born vs native born, the foreign born population uses less public assistance.
It's a statistic that is more about age distribution than anything. Like when you one of those bad maps trying to prove a point but really just showing population density of big cities.
Natives also use more in SNAP and medicade
I'd love to see some source for this, because from what I've seen, 59% of undocumented immigrants receive some form of welfare (the state of California spends roughly $10 billion a year alone on this) and documented migrants are at roughly the same rate, double the native born population's rate of 28%.
> I'd love to see some source for this [proceeds to throw out a bunch of source-free numbers]
I looked up the source for these numbers.
It's the Center for Immigration Studies, and they are notorious for being a right-wing think tank used to dress up up anti-immigration policy using misleading statistics.
How notorious are they? Well, they are listed as a hate group with the Southern Poverty Law Center[1].
The numbers you're citing aren't 'welfare,' the biggest thing is using the education system. The thing that, long term, makes they into productive taxpayers. CIS doesn't figure the long-term benefits into their numbers because that would destroy their thesis.
[1] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/center-i...
The HUD secretary mentioned the number, and the number was also included in a Congressional report, though it ended up being through testimony, also from that same source, which I hadn't realized. I'd been under the impression the one claim was independently sourced from actual federal data, rather being from CIS.
In any case, none of this amounts to immigrants using less welfare than native born residents, which is what I was asking sources for.
Not hard to find, here is a right wing, anti-immigrant anti-service source:
https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-still-use-much-less-wel...
> That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
That’s not the standard. The standard is making sure someone is really a huge contribution to the society such that it offsets the burden of immigration.
I wonder how big the population of people that know enough Japanese, would be a huge contribution to Japanese society and wouldn't be able to get a better deal somewhere else really is. Can't imagine it's more than a million people. And putting in the effort seems quite futile as you could lose your status at any point in time for political gain.
Of course it's Japans decision.
> That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
I am not sure in understand the issue, if Japanese want this, what’s the problem?
Just because some people want something that doesn't suddenly make it reasonable or wise. In this case it's a problem for many already successful people living in Japan currently who will be forced to leave. It's also a problem for Japanese companies who have hired those people or who want to attract foreign talent to positions that pay well, but don't typically leave someone fabulously wealthy compared to most of the people living around them. It's also a problem because the policy is coming in at a time of increased xenophobia and overt racism and while this policy is likely to reduce the total number of foreigners living in Japan, it's unlikely to address the problems people have with the foreigners who will remain, and it could actually make those problems worse.
It's their country. They can do what they want as long as they don't start another war.
I don't think anyone plans on trying to step in and intervene, but I hope people also don't shy from talking about how foolish this move is, the problems it won't solve, the problems it's likely to cause, and the people whose lives are being negatively impacted by it.
If you think this is true then you simply lack the creativity to understand how bad domestic laws can get.
> I am not sure in understand the issue, if Japanese want this, what’s the problem?
The problem is I’ve built my life here and they keep treating foreigners as a lesser life form. People here can unironically be standing next to me bitching about foreigners. Then turn to me and say something like “not you, you are fine.”
Clearly Japanese feel like they don't want immigrants or want very few of them, which is fine.
With these laws, they are pushing 99% of people out while saving face from being called racists.
I think every country should have a right over their borders. Japan wasn't built on multiculturalism like United States or Canada, so I'm not surprised.
That being said, I would probably think twice about traveling to Japan as a tourist.
I disagree, it's not fine.
You are a guest in a home that belongs to others. You're not entitled to their indefinite hospitality
Something must be done, this is something, we must do it!
Just because something can be done doesn't make it good for the society. Japan has a shrinking population and is currently dependent on immigrants for low wage work. Plenty of actions can make the current problem worse and have unintended consequences. Whether they happen or not is a political question, not a moral one.
Who determined "what they want?" Did you want your government to attack Iran? Are you responsible for it? Why not?
That's their problem to solve however they want, if they want. The population shrinking by some large percentage doesn't seem to be inherently bad to me, and probably is good.
It's so laughable to me when people say "BUT THE SHAREHOLDER VALUE!" when we talk about things like the important life trends of millions of people.
For Japan, shrinking population will mean an aging population with no one to care for them.
A few generations ago they were enslaving people [0]. This is what racism can lead to. Maintaining our heritage, our way of life, some would say.
Hopefully their population decline doesn't hit them too hard. But that, and their lack natural of resources, could lead to bad things. Fascists and their ilk thrive in such situations.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan#World_War_II
A people can recover from that, though. That's not an existential threat. They may be in for hard times, but they will survive.
Can the same be said of all the populations importing millions of foreigners to prop up "muh GDP"?
> A people can recover from that, though
Absolutely. They’ll just go through a period of a bunch of social workers discovering a new corpse every three days. Whole towns dying because there is nobody to maintain the public services. The people will get exactly what they were asking for, and they’ll die for it.
It would be fine if it was a well documented recurring issue that plagued society. As is it, it feels more like a canary in the coal mine, for dirtier times to come.
In practice, most visas are short term, and none of them will allow you to benefit from social aids for very long. At most I imagine you could extend your working visa to 5 years, get sick the first year and be at charge for the remaining 4 years ? There will be ink spent on these cases, but statistically how often does that even happen to need stricter laws ?
The current political climates needs the gov to look "Japan First" and these kind of rule change are very cheap to do, especially as the people directly impacted don't vote nor can complain. It goes well with the very anti-foreigner sentiment, especially as the current wave of tourists is very unpopular despite the money coming in.
The longer view is Japan getting less workers in total, yet more of the worse immigrants as they're calling for people who either don't need Japan (have enough money to go anywhere and don't need to think long term) or are willing to take more risks (high return grifts etc.), in a time where Japanese salaries and productivity are already lower than surrounding countries.
They're basically making a bad situation worse, just for short term political play, giving in on the worse trends.
We’re not allowed to have opinions?
Because it's super fucking cruel, are you a human?
This is cruel, populist politics designed to blame foreigners for all the problems and corruption the Japanese government has allowed to go on which has ruined their economy.
There has been a hard right swing by some radical minority parties which gained a lot of popularity fast by spreading Xenophobia online and the major parties have now adopted some of that to stay relevent.
It hurts innocent people just so those in power can stay in power.
Also Japan is a country which basically 100% relies on foreign countries to survive, so maybe the government there should be a bit more careful. For example they get most of their Natural gas from Australia for free..
I agree, but unfortunately, looking at the news from Japan, far-right support rates are higher than one might expect.
So it's true that those in power are harming innocent people in order to maintain their power, but it's also true that Japanese people believe they are being harmed by foreign immigrants.
And some of it is actually true. Of course, conversely, there's also the problem of many Japanese companies hiring Southeast Asian workers at low wages and mistreating them.
But whether it's me as a Korean or Japan, both tend to have a certain authoritarian mindset instilled based on "ethnic" identity. So one aspect of this policy is "we only welcome rich foreigners who spend money and leave," and the media responds accordingly.
Strictly speaking, if you look at these policies strengthening restrictions on foreigners from a third-country perspective, you can see them from the angle of far-rightization. That is, sanctions against outsiders for the sake of internal cohesion[1]. But considering the severe aging population in Japanese industry right now, it's effectively cutting off one's own nose to spite one's face.
However, East Asians receive a somewhat different education from you, so that's how it is.
The real cause is the failure of Abenomics and the resulting weak yen, which benefits financial companies and exports but sacrifices the Japanese people—the incompetence of the regime is the problem. But because it's hard to grasp all of that complex background, people want to attack something else that's near them.
And also, because the morality of some underdeveloped countries (I know it's an example...) differs from that of developed countries, friction often occurs. Just as the sense of time differs between agricultural regions and cities, for instance.
[1]https://csrda.iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp/socialresearch/pr/26PressRel...
There is nothing cruel about it. Nobody has been forced to go and live in Japan.
telling a person that has build a successful life after eight years, is assimilated and speaks the language and can support themselves that they have to leave on completely absurd conditions that virtually nobody could meet, including native citizens, is cruel by just about every definition of that term.
Those people have only ever paid in, have much better options than Japan at this point economically given how far the country has fallen behind, and the logical terminus of this is basically being some kind of ethnic chauvinist second world clown country.
If you're even turning skilled tech workers and law abiding people away your immigration problem is solved by virtue of being poor in another 10-20 years. Japan fell below replacement fertility in the 70s, 35% of the population is over 60, good luck caring for those tens of millions of people about to retire.
> requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane
It isn't that hard to have above-average income – around 40% of Japanese workers do.
I think "a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts" may be much more challenging to meet, however.
They don't want to risk someone coming for a job, getting fired and becoming a drain on the social safety net. Able to care for themselves not just now, but for a while. It's a reasonable position.
Reasonable, but they're going about it in irrational ways. For example, a person on a student visa is allowed to set up a company in Japan, but technically they're not allowed to put in any hours managing it. There's a strict 28-hour/week working limit, and a person is allowed to operate as a sole trader performing very specific tass, but the moment they rent an office or hire an employee they're in violation of their visa.
So while it's very rational to demand strong language skills, and very rational to expect people to go with a certified school given the unique difficulty of the language, potential residents are essentially limited to earning part-time wages (typically much lower than full time) during that period, and virtually barred from proactively engaging in any other kind of economic activity. They could transition to a business manager visa after that, but it will have to be a new business set up from scratch which must include at least one Japanese hire as well as minimum language skills; essentially requiring business activity/know how and business planning which the person was barred from doing during the language acquisition phase.
It's not impossible to meet these criteria by any means, but it actively discourages bootstrapping and efficient use of available time.
That’s the case for every western country, and none ask for enough money to cover 30y of life. That’s way, way above the goal you mention
To qualify to long term residence means that they worked for years and contributed with taxes during that period, so it’s only fair that they get protection in case they happen to lose their jobs.
For the government, the cost for any worker in the same circumstances would be the same. On the other side, the foreigners cost less to the government overall when they were educated and raised elsewhere.
I’m not saying you are wrong, just that the previous rules are already in place in that very direction, and the changes are being placed instead to please and gain political support.
That's not how good risk analysis works. You also have to consider the alternative that you exclude someone coming for a job they excel at while becoming a net benefit to society just because they couldn't support themselves in an eventuality that didn't come to pass.
If they can't find a new job in 30 years then there are larger problems.
The more welfare you have, the better of an idea this is. An aging country especially cannot afford to risk more wards of the state.
> and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years
It's a confusing guideline but this isn't accurate. You need to show an expected future pension (could be savings) equivalent to a salaried worker who paid into an employee's pension for 30 years. That's strict, but there will probably be a bunch of ways to show that.
I think the argument is that the requirements should be stricter than "able to care for themselves".
From the article: In an announcement detailing the changes, Japan’s Immigration Services Agency stressed the need for foreigners to “live independently” and have “a stable life without the risk of becoming a burden”.
Their new requirements far exceed what is needed to meet that stated goal
You are failing to read between the lines. They simply want less foreigners. It is the same as the 100k fee for H1B.
> They simply want less foreigners
How is that "between the lines"? Yes, that is the goal. If your argument is that it's just because of simple racism or something, then make that argument.
There really needs to be a term like "racism" without the negative connotations that it now carries. Yes, in the strictest sense, Japanese people wanting fewer foreigners in their territory is "racist", but it's not racist.
I've heard "culturalism". It's devastating that this game even needs to be played. It should go without saying that rejecting foreigners under certain circumstances is not automatically "racism" in the petty sense.
It’s xenophobia. Doesn’t smell much better.
That's just the word we use for racism when the "other" isn't primarily a single visually distinct race. They're both low-quality words used mostly as insults rather than literally.
There's nothing wrong with the words. People with those beliefs just don't like their opinions accurately described lol. Hit dogs holler and all that.
Ironically you have also failed to read between the lines of my comment.
You should explain, rather than being ominous/snarky. This doesn't belong on HN.
Maybe it's and taking into consideration unforeseen calls upon their cash. Sounds reasonable to me.
The 30 years thing is insane for sure. Making more money than the average might be insane, it depends on how much more (which I didn't spot in the article, maybe I missed it).
It's not about being reasonable, it's about having a good reason to kick basically everyone out who isn't 100% Japanese, or who has enough money to prop up their aging population and get almost nothing in return.
Seems like they want to keep their culture and their country for their people. Yes… villains, apparently.
If the goal is to preserve their culture I doubt that insisting that everyone who moves there have "fuck you" money is going to help as much as they think it will. At least some percentage of those who meet that bar will be people who are selfish and very accustomed to just doing whatever they want. The more money people have, the greater their ability to reshape the environment and culture around them to suit their individual preferences. Rich people aren't moving to remote villages in bumblefuku nowhere either. Having a bunch of rich foreigners concentrated in the major (and culturally influential) cities will only make it worse.
They have a rapidly aging society and a high national debt load (which also means a more shallow economic growth curve into the future), it’s reasonable to exclude anyone who might even have a chance of being a burden. High value immigrants always have value, either in wealth or economic potential, anyone else is charity if they cannot provide surplus economic value once their own needs have been met or support themselves off of wealth or income they bring with them.
It’s unfortunate when we don’t get picked for the dodgeball team. Life is inherently unfair and mostly a lottery.
(not against foreign aid charity by any means, but delivering it distinct from immigration policy is potentially more efficient and optimal in many ways)
I'm not certain. In an aging society, the thing they'd need are young laborers. People with 30 years of savings are unlikely to be either young, nor laborers.
Maybe those wealthy immigrants are very talented people who are very good at, say, managing an insurance company or researching pharmaceuticals, but Japan has a glut of 55-year-olds who can do that stuff very well. They're running short of young people who can be nurses, junior machinists, and construction workers.
In a macroeconomic sense, wealthy people might be able to pay for the services they need from their own pockets, but functionally it's not that different than being unemployed (unless they choose to work). They would be almost purely adding demand to the economy. The wealth they are bringing represents supply that they added into the economy in the past and abroad, and now they have a wallet full of paper with which they can buy services for the next 30 years in Japan without having to do any further productive work.
I don’t disagree, and a lot of this discussion is about the future of automation and having sufficient nation state capacity to meet an aging populations’ needs. With that said, you want to attract the right young immigrants to come and stay: willing to integrate, supportive of their adoptive culture, and a net positive to the economy and community. They are a guest until chosen to become a fellow citizen.
They have issues so they had better import people who won’t share their culture and beliefs?
Sweet deal.
The percentage of the global population with fuck you money is so vanishingly small that a nation of 100 million such as Japan, could import them all with almost zero impact on their culture.
Furthermore, it’s deeply disingenuous to suggest that inconsiderate people only exist on the upper end of the income distribution. Assholes who want to take over and control others are found at every income level. If you want to keep your country from descending into Marxist dystopia then making fuck you money a requirement for immigration is not a terrible idea.
50th percentile + 30 years subsistence is not "fuck you" money, but regardless, income has multiple effects, not only cultural. They don't want to be financially supporting foreigners, of course.
30 years of money banked is quite a bit no matter which way you slice it.
"Quite a bit", yes, I agree with that location for the goalposts.
It’s pretty much the definition of fuck you money
Having enough money to not lift a finger until the year 2056 is absolutely in the "fuck you" zone.
That's fine, it's just a semantic argument about how people use the term, which doesn't affect my actual assertion, which is that it's not an unreasonable bar.
30 years of living expenses banked is absolutely "fuck you" money. 50th percentile income is not.
They also want foreigners to not depend on their welfare system. The horror.
That seems completely sane and I am happy for the people of Japan that they get to enjoy such a law.
It's really unfortunate that they have approved these changes. I know at least 7 people that have decided to leave Japan because of it. They were making enough money to support themselves, but under the rule they basically gave no chance of ever reaching that new income requirement. Some jobs just don't have that much upward financial mobility. Which is fine if you live outside the city without a large family, but these rules are harsh to anyone that isn't working a high pay job. Permanent recidency would have allowed them to work outside their visa category, easily start a business, and utilize their Japanese language skills in a larger market.
Its quite a shock since historically the government has moved extremely slow when implementing policies that have a large impact. But the last 6 months have been extremely anxiety inducing with a new immigration change being announced and approved every month.
>I know at least 7 people that have decided to leave Japan because of it.
Wouldn't that make the Japanese locals happy as that means (in theory) 7 new job vacancies and 7 more free homes on the market for them?
Even if that's not exactly how this works in practice, if that's how voters see it, then they will support it.
I support countries having the ability to limit who can enter, but “rich people” is a terrible metric. How about “cool people” or “nice people”?
The requirements are essentially that you're either upper-middle class or better from a developed country (or a resource rich one like those in the Middle East) or from the ultra-wealthy of a developing/underdeveloped one, and you put in enough effort to learn the language. I doubt the ultra-wealthy will really be required to have language proficiency in practice. This is basically to gatekeep all but the wealthiest black, brown and "lesser" Asian peoples as expected of Japan, but the 30 years savings requirement will keep at bay quite a few white people who may have dreamed about immigrating there too. I don't wish the Japanese people ill, but I hope they'll find some solution for all those aging, near-destitute, and sometimes abandoned elderly folks instead of telling them to suck it up for the sake of cultural identity.
Side note, but it's always funny to me that whenever (and frequently) Japanese immigration policies are discussed on sites like HN and Reddit, there seems to always be a large number of clearly white people from America and Europe coming in to display their Japanese nationalism.
I don't care about japan but not every country must follow the US policies and convert to US culture.
I agree, but “US culture” can spread without movement of people.
Making this about "black" and "brown" is bullshit, given that this is clearly about economics, not skin color. The Japanese have a remarkable society that is clean and orderly. The only way anybody has figured out how to maintain orderliness despite immigration is to filter heavily by economic status, like Dubai. If the immigrants in Japan were behaving exactly the same as Japanese, just saving money on sunscreen, you wouldn’t be seeing these measures.
For Dubai specifically, there is a mix of foreigners, a large percentage being labourers from South Asia. The orderliness we see, I think is largely due to strict* and harsh laws.
The laborers are heavily segregated from the native population.
This is 1000% a race thing. Chinese and Korean immigrants who look and sound Japanese won't face problems. Westerners will.
And I'm okay with that
As a resident of Japan, this is particularly funny to me since those two countries are exactly the ones the authorities are trying to limit immigration from. Japan is _very_ racist when it comes to Korea, and China "buying all the land" these past decade is a frequent trope of the news.
Then of course you have crime (Vietnamese) and the right-wing idea that the Fililinos, Indonesians and Malaysians come here to still Japanese (low wage) jobs (that nobody wants to do).
Nobody gives two fucks about immigration from north America, Europe or Australia.
Oh please, everyone not in denial can certainly see there is a racial component to this. I also didn't only include "black" and "brown," some kinds of Asians are also being gatekept. Do you deny that Japanese society (like countless others) have a racism/xenophobia problem? Isn't it commonly known information that even people of other races/ethnicities who have successfully immigrated there or are just visiting as tourists are sometimes not allowed in certain venues with explicit messaging? And that this is commonly tolerated there? Isn't Japan the same country that barely 80-odd years ago was on a brutal campaign across several parts of Asia where they targeted non-Japanese with massacres, torture and live human experimentation among other things? Many of those people are still alive (ironically, some are probably among the elderly and isolated who need help right now). Isn't Japan the same country that still regularly denies their well-known and documented atrocities during that period?
??? There's literally a white person in the article that is also reconsidering their situation? Why do you keep making this about "black, brown and east Asian" people?? They are xenophobic to literally everyone on Earth.
I included white people too in the original comment, maybe try reading.
Are you saying that behaviour is strictly determined by one’s race ?
Didn’t we abolish that and agreed there is no such a thing as race in case of humans ?
Who brought up the question of tying behavior to race? Whether race exists is not the question being discussed here, regardless of the biological existence of race or not, there is a social perception of it existing and that is commonly used in the society in which (and I presume this is true for most of us) I live. I was asked an implied question about bringing up race and thus answered with the social perception in mind. You might need to ask yourself what or whom you are actually arguing with, because it doesn't appear to be me.
> but the wealthiest
News flash, poor people are not wanted in most countries of the world, everyone already has their own poor population to deal with.
Most immigration seems to me as some form of wealth differential to attract the relatively poor foreigners giving them less rights than local population.
Middle East runs on poor people from the subcontinent and Africa.
Hong Kong depends on live-in foreign labor who have to camp out in public spaces on their day-off.
America is built on poorer labor of every kind - enslaved African cotton farmers , indentured Chinese railway workers, famine stricken Irish, or more recently Latin American or H1B Indians in tech.
Some countries try to attract the richest percent like New Zealand, however it is not economically meaningful nor is major portion of immigrants globally or within their countries even.
Countries may not like foreign poor immigrants, but they certainly need them to work harder for less pay and rights.
> as they definitely work harder for less pay and rights than the local poor.
Why would I want to support the introduction in my country of what is virtually modern slave labor practices by abusing and exploiting the poor and desperate foreigners so that some business can get richer because they don't want to pay or provide decent working conditions or invest into automation?
Especially that a lot of those cheap laborers without rights aren't even doing work to the benefit of the community (elderly care, construction etc) but to the benefit of a few wealthy and unscrupulous business owners (Amazon, Uber Eats, etc) who are addicted to cheap exploitable labor.
Wanted by whom?
That, of course, is the actual real question in this debate and all the other similar debates. Some people benefit from an influx of very low-pay people, and some people don't.
Equating anyone with less than 30 years of median pension payouts with 'poor' is an absurd premise, why would you make such a ridiculous argument
> everyone already has their own poor population to deal with
Yikes, that is quite the dehumanizing framing
Edit: A person commented "why?" before deleting their comment, which I had started responding to. I still want to give my response:
Because an enlightened government is for the people (and an unenlightened government is not worth having). The purpose of a government is to care for the welfare of the people, not to be the securer of private wealth for the wealthy. The above comment frames it as "dealing with" an undesirable population. That population is the people, and it is a perversion to think otherwise.
How? It seems realistic, not brutal (though reality is a bit brutal).
I said nothing about that, it’s not news to me. That might be the case today, but there was a time when countries in the western hemisphere like America were importing massive numbers of the poor and destitute, not to mention even enslaved people. Not that I’m arguing for a return to indentured servitude and slavery, but there are clearly times when poor people are wanted or at least tolerated en masse. Such as when you are building a new country and need settlers and frontiersmen, or when your population is struggling to keep the economy up due to an aging native population with hardly anybody to look after them.
> The requirements are essentially that you're either upper-middle class
Not true - a youtuber from Germany who lives in Japan since about 10 years, was denied citizenship recently. And he'd make more than enough money.
https://www.youtube.com/@NihonGoo
The thing is really true: Japan is against more immigration. You'll always be a gaijin there if you come from the outside.
> there seems to always be a large number of clearly white people from America and Europe coming in to display their Japanese nationalism
Other countries are also very much against mass immigration. Japan just does it in a very strange way.
You're misunderstanding the immigration requirements: who is considered doesn't necessarily mean everyone that fits the requirements will be accepted. It's a requirements list for exclusion, doesn't say fitting the requirements implies inclusion.
I mean, to get the Japanese take on immigration, you could go to 5chan and check out the temperature over there. Japanese don't frequent this board, so what you will get is mostly North American and Western European (not even eastern European)
I'm not saying I'm surprised it's largely western people (like myself) that are commenting here, what's surprising is how much nationalism they have for Japan without living there or being ethnically Japanese.
The 30 years of pension is a bit ridiculous. Why not make the requirement scale with the applicant’s age?
Someone applying for PR at 30 has far more time to contribute than someone applying for PR at 50.
> 56.3 percent of Japanese people said they opposed accepting more foreigners, up from 35.6 percent in 2024
that's a huge jump in 1 year. What happened?
>What happened?
Johnny Somali.
foreigners
This is certainly going to conflict with their moves to make it easier to attract aged care workers to the country. Perhaps all the elderly people are expected to patriotically look after themselves?
https://unseen-japan.com/foreign-elderly-care-workers-japan/
They're banking on robots with advanced AI brains to take care of them.
Notoriously they have been since about the 90s ...
Perhaps they have simply realized that no political decisions are without downsides, including unchecked immigration, and that on balance, they’ve decided it’s not for them?
It’s silly to claim that immigration is the only way to care for old people. We have been caring for old people for the entire history of the human race. We can start doing it again anytime.
It’s true, that it’s inconsistent to demand no immigration and simultaneously defendthe right to produce no children. But it is Japanese people who need to square that circle, not people who want to immigrate to Japan, nor people outside Japan, who feel Japan should allow immigration.
Japan, notoriously a country with an immigration policy that could in good faith be described as "unchecked".
It’s the rate of increase in immigration, which makes it harder for a country to “take it in and give room for assimilation”. Same problem in Canada, and a good chunk of pathways have been rolled back.
It’s not a simple issue, but very obviously citizens of countries where immigration rate has gone through the roof aren’t happy. Also the usual hatred starts when low income immigrants move into the country, as they’re more likely to work in public-facing jobs (markets, hotels, etc).
Agree, those in public facing roles are hated the most.
You don't have to make every mistake yourself in order to learn from it.
This. The Japanese people have made up their mind on the "migration for cheap labor" topic based on their experiences they saw in Europe.
Exactly - they choose not to commit that mistake.
I just find it odd so many non-Japanese media and commentators weigh in on this.
Japan is not a multicultural country. You can't become Japanese through paperwork. It is very much through blood heritage, your language and cultural proficiency.
The bar to be Japanese is much higher than say Canadian or French. So why shouldn't they create laws that is aimed at benefiting themselves and their country without depending on foreigners?
Also if you have a business and you don't have $125,000 you are not going to make it in Canada or America either.
You literally can become a Japanese citizen through paperwork. Only other requirement is 10 years of residency (used to be 5) and fluency in the language. I don't even think there's a cultural test. Know a few people that went through the process and it's pretty simple, just tedious providing all the paperwork.
> I just find it odd so many non-Japanese media and commentators weigh in on this
What is odd about it? People comment on every country immigration policies. Why would Japan get a special exemption
> Also if you have a business and you don't have $125,000 you are not going to make it in Canada or America either.
I had less than $10k to my name when I moved to Canada. I have done very well since.
> I have done very well since
How about Canada? Did it become better or worse since then?
Through blood heritage ?
Explain why the blood is needed. Is it perhaps because Japan uses a different type of oxygen that needs different hemoglobin?
It feels normal in a globalized world for commentators around the globe to observe and weigh in on the decisions of any country, especially one of such economic importance and cultural significance as Japan.
That being said, I wholeheartedly agree on your points regarding Japan not being a multi-cultural country. And this, indeed, is rarely (if ever) mentioned in articles such as the one posted here.
Japan is an island. It has always been and not just from a geographical perspective. Its very culture and history are ones of isolation. The restrictions are not new, the perspective "Japan first" is not new - these have always been there, they are at the very core of the nation.
> Japan is an island. It has always been and not just from a geographical perspective. Its very culture and history are ones of isolation. The restrictions are not new, the perspective "Japan first" is not new - these have always been there, they are at the very core of the nation.
That's not at accurate from what I know of Japanese history. You seem to be over-indexing on the (relatively) brief Tokugawa-era sakoku policy and ignoring the thousands of years surrounding it where Japan was an active importer of culture.
Kanji, government structure, Buddhism, law, art and more were all imported from China and hugely influential in Japanese history. After the the Meiji Restoration, Japan explicitly set out to Westernize and went abroad to study European and American institutions, invited Westerners in to help build European-style banking systems and government systems, adopted Western clothing, architecture, military organization, legal codes, etc. etc.
If anything the Japanese are masters at importing the things they like of foreign culture and then modifying to make it their own. They have always been importers of culture.
There lies the thesis you pointed out. The point of these articles and coverage seems to be aimed at "Why isn't Japan multicultural yet, so racist!" which makes no sense. Japan has been inhabited by Japanese language, culture and homogeneous people for thousands of years.
There is absolutely no need for Japan to become multicultural or any other country for that matter because not being multicultural isn't a fault or a sin.
I don't know why so many in the West demand this on other countries. There's just something very unnatural and unrealistic and scary to expect a homogeneous country like Japan to suddenly start calling a clearly non-Japanese looking person Japanese. It's going to create huge problems for Japan that won't benefit it or its people by any measure.
> Japan is an island
So is Sicily… and yet it's quite diverse…
Hot take: I think immigration and multiculturalism is going to be the the biggest and the defining issue of this century. The history books will have "AI" and climate change in the margins as 'exacerbating factors'. We've started to see it in the US, and we're beginning to see the start to it in the EU. Japan--rightly or wrongly--might be averting a future disaster here. Japan is lucky in that they are still a very homogeneous society, and also unlucky in that they are ahead of the curve in population decline. I think the western world is in for a bad time over the next 50 years.
What disaster is Japan averting?
I don't think there's a limit to the animosity people feel (rightly or wrongly - what's "correct" has no bearing on people's feelings) and we will end up in a place where previously unthinkable force or actions are now permissible due to nasty politics. The US is getting a small taste of that now.
I don't think it takes much imagination to connect the dots... it wasn't that long ago in European history where people were systematically eradicated by the millions.
The current news in the middle east are showing what happens when unregulated immigration happens without assimilation
"they took our jobs!"
more like “they didn’t follow the rules and destroyed our nice society and dumped garbage everywhere”
There are Ceuta like events of a smaller scale every day at every border of western europe. Dont need to wait 50 years. Not a single european voted for this. French people also voted no to a european economy but those who seized power didnt care
> applicants for permanent residency will need to show that their annual household income exceeds the Japanese average
Can someone explain why they think this is a detrimental practice for native Japanese?
If there were a significant amount of such people coming in it would push up the cost of living for the average-(or below-average)-income Japanese citizen.
Look at any of the Western cities that became attractive for retirement or "investment properties" for wealthy international folks... it makes everything more expensive for everyone already there.
If the concern was just about preventing things from changing for existing citizens, restrictions across the income band would seem to make much more sense.
From the article “Japan needs foreign workers because of labour shortages. But if the conditions for long-term settlement become substantially more difficult, this could potentially reduce Japan’s attractiveness to foreign workers who are considering Japan as a place to build their long-term lives,”
Specifically, Japan needs workers in human services to physically care for the very large elderly population. They need them so badly that they are in the process of implementing easier work visas for them. But do you think those jobs pay more than the national average?
No, but that's the point. They don't want long-term residents, they want short-term labor. This has been the goal for a long time, and if you move to Japan expecting anything else you'll be disappointed.
>They don't want long-term residents, they want short-term labor.
So just like Singapore and wealthy Arab Gulf states.
"Labour shortage" is just the business's perspective on "plenty of jobs!"
If there truly is a shortage of outstanding jobs, then they can compete and raise salaries and the least significant roles ultimately won't get filled, which is optimal.
Think of the US - the reduction of low wage immigrants has been a large factor in our economy lately. Food prices have gone up, and in the long term there's fewer young families getting added to the social security system.
While it's cute to think that suddenly these jobs are going to Americans, but these are mostly undesirable jobs that pay less than typical jobs. To the extent that they even get filled by native workers, it drives real wages down and not up.
Meanwhile, only allowing immigrants from the top of the income bracket crowds out the top side of the job market.
It's a lowering tide that lowers all boats.
This is very one-sided. There are plenty of low income and working class people who have suddenly found more work than they have had in years due to reductions in immigration.
What's the empirical evidence that proves this? If the economy gets worse as a result of lack of immigration, its going to reduce opportunities for low income and working class people.
> Can someone explain why they think this is a detrimental practice for native Japanese?
You're quoting a practice applied to foreigners, but you say "for native Japanese". Maybe there was a typo, or I could be misreading?
Presumably they’re asking why this is being done, since it’s obviously not for the benefit of the immigrants.
It restricts immigration to cities where the high wages are, ie. Tokyo which is itself already too crowded, and forces foreigners living in less populated parts of the country to leave, further depopulating it.
It also heavily disadvantages singles.
gentrification pushing locals out. super simple
irony and fascism
This only makes sense if Japan is believing they will fully automate blue collar jobs in the next few years
This only makes sense if you think average migrant is net contributor with is definitely not always the case
I acknowledge and sympathize with the pain this will cause, but in regards to Japan itself: Good for them. Not because it is a rightward shift, but because it is a shift toward pragmatism in the face of the inherent tension between respect for all people and respect for one's own people and culture.
In my humble opinion, an ideal world is a liberal one with cherry-picked, tightly controlled, practical conservative elements that boldly take on the intimidating job of maintaining the balance between love and reason.
This is a shift away from pragmatism; pragmatism would be acknowledging Japan's economic need for immigration.
Whether Europe or North America have a problem with too much immigration and not enough integration is debatable, maybe - and I suspect that's where your perspective comes from - but Japan decidedly does not (maybe too much tourism, and I feel at least some of the antagonism towards foreigners comes from that, but no matter). Immigrants still make up a very small percentage of the population, mostly in Tokyo; given the existing challenges with immigration, they tend to be extremely diligent, respectful, appreciative of Japanese culture, and hard-working.
This is just a populist conservative government pandering to the some of the worst aspects in society to distract from their failures.
I’d say having a wealth and language filter is pragmatism.
Pragmatism could just as easily be a decision by the public collectively to have more babies. There’s nothing about immigration that makes it inherently pragmatic. It could be, with the agreement of the electorate, away to compensate for the electorates decisions to have fewer babies. But it’s not up for us outside of Japan to lecture them on whether or not they are being consistent on this.
What's pragmatic depends on your values.
I think most people would say that's sort of the opposite of the meaning of the word "pragmatic", actually.
Technically you're probably right, since most people are not terribly rational. Most people believe their values are the only correct ones, in which case there is exactly one "pragmatic" path.
This is going to cause more pain to the Japanese people.
They don't believe so. Maybe they are wrong! There are pros and cons.
There is nothing pragmatic about kicking out the workforce you imported because of a shortage of native labour. The pragmatist stance would be to accept those differences, and focus on addressing/alleviating them. Cutting your nose to spite your face is more idealism than pragmatism.
I mean, sure, so long as they're willing to deal with the consequences of an aging population and a shrinking workforce.
It's OK if they choose to seek other avenues for dealing with that problem. The easiest solution is often not the best, and sometimes there is no net-positive path forward.
They can just outsource if they really need tech employees.
> I mean, sure, so long as they're willing to deal with the consequences of an aging population and a shrinking workforce.
They're pretty clearly aware of the dire fear-mongering, and chose their path accordingly. They decided to sidestep the pyramid scheme of perpetual growth.
Here in Canada we've been pitched this same scary argument for decades, leading to outrageous levels of immigration, coupled with a growing entitlement among the class (which leads to a complete refusal to integrate in any meaningful way, often while incanting the laughable pablum about mosaic versus melting pot while dragging regressive, destructive habits and cultural norms to Canada, tragedy of the commons behaviour, etc).
Somehow this mass immigration has made us older, and less competitive, moving in exactly the opposite direction of the magical solution it promised while giving away the country. It has led to massive lines for every job, downward pressure on wages, and oversubscribed services at every level.
---
Every now and then there is a discussion about the difference between an "expat" and an "immigrant", but it really is important that people are honest about the difference, because it is very real, and it is informative to why the myth of immigration as a solution doesn't track with the reality that immigration is often massively destructive.
An expat is usually some Westerner that moved to some random country for adventure, a change, whatever. Occasionally they send a postcard home and share videos from the beach. Whatever.
An immigrant, on the other hand, is someone that moves to a country as a beachhead to drag their entire extended family there, often then expanding out from there. Which is precisely what many Western countries have seen where they bring in the "skilled worker", and then the skilled worker drags over their elderly parents, and also their "auntie" as a purported childcare giver, and then registers a business and sponsors their village through every loophole and circumvention, and then... This has destroyed the acceptance of immigration and completely obliterated the "oh you're getting older, something something labour shortage" nonsense.
We need to move on from the mass immigration is the solution horseshit, because all it has done is led every developed country to lurch perilously to the right, giving an easy open for charlatans to take advantage of a real problem to push a lot of ancillary things as well.
> the skilled worker drags over their elderly parents, and also their "auntie" as a purported childcare giver, and then registers a business and sponsors their village through every loophole and circumvention
It's a balancing at the regional/global level. People desire to move from worse situation to better, which leads to an averaging tendency of the source and destination. You don't like it because average means there's a little less per person where you are, since it's a destination. People at the source like the emigration because there's a little more per person (which hopefully isn't mostly absorbed by some "protective" group, like mafia, bad govt, etc). Let the balance happen; it leads to a better world overall.
Yes, physically that's a good description of the natural flow of things. No, it makes no sense for successful nations to suffer for the benefit of unsuccessful nations, generally speaking. What they should provide is aid, with varying specifics on what that means (e.g. it could be as simple as favorable trade).
To move everybody into the successful nations, rather than engage in the slow work of making all nations somewhat successful, is cruel and insane.
How are those nations suffering, when the reason that they're destinations is because they have a surplus of resources (I won't touch on the history that usually led to that surplus in the first place)? As long as a significant number of the immigrants aren't committing crimes and play by the rules the citizens go by to the best of their abilities, why is there an issue? Isn't the - ideal of the - "free market" supposed to be a thing all should aspire to?
>Somehow this mass immigration has made us older, and less competitive, moving in exactly the opposite direction of the magical solution it promised while giving away the country. It has led to massive lines for every job, downward pressure on wages, and oversubscribed services at every level.
Context for others: Already much wealthier on a real GDP per-capita basis, the US increased its lead over Canada from 2000 to 2025 <https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1YbGu>. The US began the period 28.2% higher, and finished 49.5% higher. Note the lack of growth in the Canadian line that began c. 2015.
Put another way, 100% of Canadian GDP growth since 2015 has been from population growth. Now that the latter has been significantly (not completely) cut back, the country is in a recession (which the bien-pensant media never fails to adding the word "technical" before saying so).
>Here in Canada we've been pitched this same scary argument for decades, leading to outrageous levels of immigration, coupled with a growing entitlement among the class (which leads to a complete refusal to integrate in any meaningful way, often while incanting the laughable pablum about mosaic versus melting pot while dragging regressive, destructive habits and cultural norms to Canada, tragedy of the commons behaviour, etc).
If Trump announced that after annexation the US would deport every TFW/"student" that has arrived since 2015, public opinion would massively swing toward joining the US ASAP.
This is not news anymore in that it has been going on for several months already. The first time I really noticed this was on Paolo from Tokyo, where he suddenly praised japanese cops on becoming tougher. Since then I noticed more and more complaints from non-japanese upon moving to Japan. Recently it was a guy from Germany who lives in Japan for like +10 years already and was denied being granted Japanese citizenship basically because ... he is gaijin.
Something really fundamental has been changing in Japan in the last few years, kind of an anti-globalisation movement tied to more nationalism - and I have a SLIGHT suspicion that this will become ultra-nationalism. In turn, a second prediction I make is that Japan will become militarily more aggressive and invest more in that. We can already see the writing on the wall here that more conflict will be brewing in the area.
It's a bit unfortunate in that if a country does not really want people to visit it, well - one does not have to go there. There are many other countries in the asian area that aren't as hostile to foreigners now. (Also interesting to see how an aging society suddenly changes to offset immigration. Hopefully we won't hear a single japanese complain about lack of people in Japan. Ironically Paolo is, or rather was, also kind of a gaijin, even though he speaks perfect Japanese of course.)
I’m not Japanese, but have family ties to Japan. I frequently compare USA (where I am at now), Japan, and my home country (lets say X).
I think one of the reason why Japan is considering doing these is because a lot of people with specific cultural religious, and ethnic backgrounds are really causing a lot of trouble. They cause a lot of trouble even in my home country where they are the majority (I am an ethnic minority).
I’ve heard anecdotes from my Japanese friends and families and really, its bad. And these people refuse to assimilate, but want to conquer instead.
However, targeting specific racial/religious/ethnic minorities are generally frowned in the modern world, so Japan just create a more “acceptable” filter here to filter out people from these backgrounds, that is, wealth.
We can’t all go along and sing kumbaya to one another, although I personally want to. But the other cultures/ethnicities/religious backgrounds don’t want to.
Yes, I witnessed persecution and death before, managed to escape it when I was really small. this definitely color my perception regarding specific cultural/ethnic/religious backgrounds regardless whether I have a lot of good friends from said backgrounds.
This world is so cruel, and there are a lot of hurt in this world. We don’t need to make it harder. As an ethnic minority myself, I really really want everyone to just get along, but it really is impossible.
As a non Japanese foreigner myself. I welcome this change, even if that means I will never be able to be accepted there.
Only Japanese can take care of Japan. Period.
Okay so which specific cultural religious and ethnic backgrounds are causing trouble and what empirical evidence do you have of this happening on a large scale? It can take many generations for immigrant family to assimilate into the host country's culture, how do you know they are there to conquer and not just taking time to assimilate? Why do you think only Japanese people can take care of Japan, do you hold this belief for other countries?
If I were to guess, I'd guess it's Islam. I come from a region where we have a sizeable Muslim minority, and hardly a day goes by without some outrage or the other which hurts their sensibilities (ban calls for prayers? ban praying in the middle of the street during rush hour? serve bacon/ham in school lunches? etc. etc.); regardless of the fact that people have lived this way for millennia, and Muslims just showed up in the last few decades, but insist on bending the rest of the society to their norms.
If you broadly link the flavors of Christianity practiced in Russia and the evangelical side of the US I guess you could make a claim about white Christians causing a lot of trouble worldwide with military attacks on other countries...
Go back to countries in the same religious/ethnic tree meddling in the Middle East in the early and mid-20th-century and you can link back a whole host more problems to white Christians!
But the southern evangelical side of my family gets pretty upset whenever I point that out...
You're not going to get a serious reply. It's a fresh account, and their other comment is just "The immigrants create a lot or trouble.".
The truth unfortunately just doesn't matter much these days.
Folks read stuff online by people and just take it as fact without bothering to ask the simple questions that you have.
Since only 3% of Japan is foreigners, it can hardly be large scale.
Make an educated guess.
> Okay so which specific cultural religious and ethnic backgrounds are causing trouble and what empirical evidence do you have of this happening on a large scale?
Feigning to not know, is knowing.
> even if that means I will never be able to be accepted there
You need Japanese blood (visibly), culture (language, manner, custom), and nationality to be "fully" accepted. This isn't new and has more to do with Japanese people themselves than with any legal restriction.
Alternatively, we need 30% of the population to be foreign.
I am fully aware of that.
The ones in the news lately are the Kurds which the police can’t touch because of some asylum law running various scrapyards, and the Vietnamese car theft gangs.
This sounds like social media driven hysteria. No evidence. No statistics. Just vibes pushed by those with a political axe to grind.
The same people are predicting sharia law in NYC any day now.
Can you name which backgrounds you/Japanese people are talking about?
What confuses me is that Japan is not a very immigrant-heavy country. There's no chance of someone who doesn't represent the interests of native Japanese people being elected any time soon, or ever. So why can't they pass laws codifying the behaviors they want to encourage and ones they will treat as non-assimilation? Why aren't they doing something to address misbehavior directly, making newcomers to the country prove their long-term commitment to their new social and cultural environment, or punishing infractions more harshly so bad actors can't stay in the country? Why are the only two options available to them 'do nothing' or 'blanket punish all foreigners because all foreigners are trouble'?
It is part of Japan being Japan. Japanese being Japanese.
Japan is a shame based culture. A lot of social norms are encoded as part of being Japanese and not strictly enforced. Japan has less lawyers per capita compared to US for example.
Take a look at a lot of the influencers that are causing trouble in Japan. In the US we probably bludgeon (or shoot) those people on the spot and lawyers talk later, but Japan doesn’t do that, not even their police. Majority of Japanese just sit there silently but deep inside filled with disgust.
Besides, once these laws are implemented, soon it will be obvious which groups are “targeted” and it doesn’t look good in the eyes of the international world.
I know that Japan is a lot more implicit in enforcing its culture. But it is not a country that runs on honor alone. It has police, it has prisons, it has courts. The lawyer comparison doesn't tell me much because the US is a very litigious country in ways that go far beyond individual criminal law.
Besides, the implication you made is that a lot of the actions people don't like are already illegal, just not tightly enforced. Especially if you say Americans would shoot the perpetrators on the spot.
Even if they wanted to protect their status quo, they could only apply stricter requirements on residents who haven't received their citizenship yet. Law-abiding immigrants in many countries are used to having to clear higher bars than locals. But at least in this case this would be equitable, only punishing the people who actually do something wrong instead of everyone.
Lawyers per capita results from a structural legal system difference not a "shame" difference. It has adversarial influences but is much less a lawyer-theatrics-dominated adversarial civil-jury-trials-for-all-sorts-of-things free for all.
The US could avoid a lot of inefficiences if they adopted the same.
So, you’re okay being a xenophobe who support the existence of an ethno nationalist country
And you're okay using very flexible newspeak like "xenophobia" as a rhetorical bludgeon to shut anyone who doesn't want a slow genocide?
As if "slow genocide" isn't exactly the same tactic.
As a liberal in California, my views on immigration actually hardened a bit after a recent trip to Japan. I appreciated that everything there was just so Japanese. No ethnic enclaves, no zones or industry that I could see dominated by non-Japanese people. I just loved the fact that I was in Japan and surrounded exclusively by Japanese culture. Made me think of what international travel must have been like 150 years ago, where visiting another country was like traveling to a different world.
I think according to the official guidebook of modern US liberalism, this makes me slightly racist, and I'm supposed to be sad that Japan doesn't have more foreign-dominated neighborhoods??
Reading about this makes me wonder what Japan was like during WW2
I think Japan thinks they can still attract enough foreigners to perform necessary service and manual labor jobs without the promise of permanent residency. That along with increasing automation - serving robots are a common sight at many restaurants these days, for example.
Permanent residency is reserved for those who can be a net benefit to social welfare programs - by earning and contributing more than the average Japanese household (about USD $36,000 - $42,000 according to google). There are also new language requirements to promote assimilation.
I don’t think it’s anything too radical by global standards, and I have read there are similarities to what Singapore and South Korea already do [1] (though I don’t know too much about their programs).
It’s important to note that the exact details haven’t been finalized yet. So exact income requirements could change from current proposals/rumors. There was a lot of outrage about proposed provisions to revoke permanent residency for people who commit crimes or don’t pay taxes, but when they actually came through they were pretty fair, common sense type changes.
These changes come on the heels of drastically increasing requirements for the business manager visa (which, to be fair, was heavily abused as a kind of “golden visa” in the past). They’ve also significantly increased visa application costs - I think I paid like ¥5,000 for my PR application, and it is now ¥200,000.
It does feel cruel to apply new requirements retroactively to people who have already submitted applications. And the stories of people whose lives are being completely upended by the changes are heartbreaking.
[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2026/09/21/japan/jap...
Japan has a heavy shortage of workers [0], and it has been so for many years now. Your link cites the efforts from 2017, the reason wasn't some olive branch to humanity, Japan already was in dire need of working class people.
Right now the yen is so weak Japan salary look ridiculously low, there is the language barrier, and the low hanging jobs aren't great either (a ton in elderly care).
Their policies to restrict immigration will have few impact short term, as immigration is already slowing down and even Filinos, who have always been on the better side of immigration, are looking for better opportunities [1]. Longer term though, people will remember how it goes when Japan economy trends down, and the immigration going away might not come back even when the trend reverses. Especially as there will already be a probably better community built elsewhere.
[0] https://jp.ibtimes.com/japans-full-time-labor-shortages-pers...
[1] https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/3309634/why-filipino-migra...
Its a great way to favor highly skilled immigrants and bar others from becoming a burden
In a time of declining globalism and growing[1] nationalism[2] and anti-immigration sentiment around the world, I think it is unsurprising that a historically[3] xenophobic culture would move in this direction.
[1]: https://thesociopedia.blogspot.com/2026/07/why-nationalism-i...
[2]: often used as a tool by oligarchy to shift blame away from themselves, instead towards vulnerable groups, as the cause of rising inequality and various institutional crisis
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Japan
Let's be honest, the Japanese gov't has killed off every generation since the asian bubble popped in the 90's. Those kids in the 90's that still can't get a job should be in their peak earning years and have strong talent skills, (and having kids) which was all sacrificed. They don't have the skills or tax base they should and they are unwilling to actually fix it because the stock market needs to crash big time and the rich need to pay for it.
I completely agree with your comment about Japan killing every generation since the bubble popped. It has been wild to witness.
The subtle but profound ways those generations have experienced being essentially abandoned by the government and “Japan Inc” will have a lasting impact on Japan for many decades to come.
There are some leaders who actually grasp the problem and actually have decent ideas for solutions, but the will and capacity to execute those ideas just isn’t there.
> public sentiment towards immigrants sours
I'm not up to date with Japanese news, does anyone know the reason for that?
Racism, xenophobia, amplified by social media and far right political parties. It’s not too different from the dynamics we’ve seen in the rest of the western world
The immigrants create a lot or trouble.
You know what creates 100 more trouble than immigrants ? Japan’s birth rate.
You know who have babies? Immigrants.
You know who pays social security for peuple when they get older ? Those grown up babies.
Do the math. Japan has much to teach the world but the most important lesson they are now teaching, is that people are stupid, easily manipulated, excessively xenophobic and absolutely happy to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly if it means not admitting they’re wrong. In Japan, in the US, in Europe and elsewhere.
Dumb dumb humans…
And yet, according to available statistics, there's no a single western country where Muslim and African immigrants are not an additional financial burden. Even if we forget about safety, crime, ...
> Applicants will also be required to have a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts.
Does this take into account the amount of pension a person would still accumulate under Japanese employment, or will this immediately disqualify anyone under 45?
That’s like 12 x 30 x ¥35000 = 12600000 yen. ＄84000. I don’t know about others, but I consider myself pretty well off and I do not have that kind of money.
The actual regulation has a carve out for if you have assets of equivalent worth.
there goes my dream of being a gaijin :(
It seems like a difficult problem to me, since there's no right answer.
Sounds like suicide. Good luck with that
>Foreigner
>From South Asia
>Works in tech
Go figure.
Edit: Trying to upset people less.
You make it sound like something nefarious and criminal.
> Tech became the greatest trojan horse for south asian immigration.
Weird take, are you against upward mobility? Would you not take the same opportunity in their position?
Not the parent, but yes, of course I would. But letting anybody do anything that would benefit them is of course not reasonable.
> But letting anybody do anything that would benefit them is of course not reasonable.
Who is talking about letting anybody do anything? The parent is talking about people working in tech as a means of upwards mobility. Is that not reasonable?
Nope, go become a doctor. How many people do we need writing PHP?
Do you dislike south asians?
Edit: no-one is upset by what you said lmao cmon. Just clarify what you are really trying to say.
They are unfortunately the most common example of (subjectively) bad immigration policies seen first-hand among tech folks in the West (I.e. people likely to be on HN). The parent was obviously referring to this fact sarcastically. It's a tech trope.
What exactly are south Asians? Serious question
India, Pakistan, and a few smaller countries.
Generally Indians.
Anti-immigration laws: angry face
Anti-immigration laws, Japan: happy face
As usual, the meme is ever alive around these parts. Anything Japan does is heralded as a good move™ and no impartial discussion can be had without the weeaboos coming out of the woodwork to put a positive spin on it.
But sure, we’ll see if limiting these odious gaijin coming in will solve their stagnant economy, fertility crisis and obsolete business practices. Good luck with their isolationism, it’s not the first time they’ve gone down that path, all to appease the right-leaning imbeciles that blame the immigrant for their politicians’ ineptitude at dealing with systemic problems. It’s the same all over the world.
I see roughly the same ratio of agreement and disagreement as usual. And even if it is different, it's probably more due to the specifics of the case, rather than an internet meme. Based on your writing, it sounds more like you have a grudge against Japan, rather than everybody else having some kind of opposite bias.
I moved from the USA to Sweden about 6 years ago. Sweden has also been tightening its immigration laws, in ways I believe have been and will be detrimental to its future.
Countries have a right to change their laws, but I believe it’s in everyone’s interest for those laws to be changed while respecting principles of predictability and legal certainty.
People planned and rearranged their entire lives around immigration law in force at one point, perhaps 5 years ago, and now a new law is going into force that slams the door shut to having a basic sense of stability, with only a 6 month transition period. It’s cruel. And it sends a bad sign to anyone looking to move.
The USA can afford to be cruel because people will deal with it for high wages. Japan can maybe afford to be cruel because their cultural exports keep the top of their “talent attraction” funnel large. It’s economic suicide for any other small-to-medium sized nation dependent on foreign labor.
> It’s economic suicide for any other small-to-medium sized nation dependent on foreign labor.
This such a baffling statement, honestly: that the flourishing economy crucially depends on foreign labour. What happened with the role of the technological know-how, and vast material (and financial) capital? The institutions? All of that is still not enough for prosperity unless you can hire a paperless José for $7.40 per hour, with an implied threat of handing him off to ICE if he raises any stink?
I'm having a hard time following the thinking in many of these threads so I'm not sure if you're questioning it genuinely (or hypothetically or sarcastically), but I think essentially yes sadly.
Wealthier areas wonder why it costs so much for house renovations or for daycare or`for farmer's market produce. Or similarly folks move to less wealthy countries as "expats" and hire help, babysitters, tutors. Sense of prosperity seems tied to those things feeling inexpensive and them feeling cheap requires income inequality. There's I think a large amount of feeling poor (or average) when those things are eating your budget. Even though you have them. For example, you pay for expensive childcare so both parents can work, it takes a big bite out of your budget, and so you don't feel wealthy (but you're paying for childcare and your family has an employee). Similarly, you're paying for expensive private school, it eats your budget, you don't feel wealthy (but your child is going to private school).
For those doing well, the surplus goes to what's left—house, education, healthcare (I recall there being a fourth, but I'm blanking). Those things are expensive because they should be, you're wealthy. You're competing with the other wealthy people. I'm stealing this from somewhere, but they're essentially luxury goods—the more money you have, the more (and better quality) you consume. They don't decrease as percent of income as food does.
Most developed countries are quickly losing population. The ones that have a slight deviation from that trend is due to immigration.
Foreign labor is what will keep most of these countries afloat for the following 50 years.
Japan is a good example, they lose about 1 million every year.
Most of developed economies dont need blue collar foreign labor in the future. Some dont even need it now. There are no industries in uk or france and this labor role is mostly to suppress wages (we ve seen it with brexit and english truck drivers) . For industrial nations like germany before they shot themselves you do need this labor until robots and automation makes them obsolete. Way before 50years and then being a nation with low immigration is becoming a key advantage for a country cohesion and future. Finally every country at 25% youth unemployment (like france and spain) shoould block all immigration beside highly skilled immigrants
Robots and automation won’t replace health care workers. Aging countries will need more of those.
And the unemployed youth would be working those low skilled jobs today if they wanted to, fact is they don’t pay enough for them and if those jobs are automated away they will still be unemployed.
It obviously suppress wages, which is a necessary condition for capitalism. Any country where it costs 10x to build infrastructure because there is no cheap labor will be less competitive.
When a person migrates, I would believe that the origin country has one less population. So why is it good that this person props up population in the destination country instead of in the origin country?
And why does the destination country need that persons labour and expertise, but not the origin country?
If the native population is becoming exterminated with or without migration, what exactly is the "country" that needs to be kept "afloat"? Your stock portfolio? Your treasury bills? Your real estate investment?
It’s definitely a possibility that a country dwindles away and is happy to do so in order to avoid immigration. We’ll probably see that with Japan and South Korea by the end of this century.
Ultimately it’s their choice.
Whether a country with high population composed of immigration is still the same country we can look to the Americas. Countries with extreme high degree of immigration and assimilation, yet still very much worthwhile countries. Maybe not the countries the natives from 500 years ago would have imagined, but their culture has survived more than 100 years and contribute significantly to the world still. New Zealand is also a good example of native culture not being wiped out even with assimilation.
The fate of the native North Americans is one of the largest catastrophes in the history of humanity. Just as so many other times through human history when natives were displaced and replaced, whether by violent or non-violent means, or a mix of both.
Immigration doesn't change the fact of natives dwindling away or not. A nation is the native people, not a name on a map. The exceptions are the United States and other new world ex-colonies. But there was a very dear price paid in blood and tears to make them.
America has had almost no assimilation of immigrants into the cultures which existed there before. Very good arguments have been made that the Enlightenment (or Age of Reason) did originate from native North American ideas and ideals being brought to Europe through cultural exchange, but it's not assimilation on the part of the settlers.
> America has had almost no assimilation of immigrants into the cultures which existed there before
That's almost a uniquely United States problem, not at all as big of an issue in most of the Americas. Only a few countries in the Americas have had their native population pretty much entirely wiped out without any assimilation whatsoever. The US is one of these few countries (Cuba and Hispaniola would be other examples of total replacement).
The rest has had large degree of intermixing or wholesale population preservation. Aspects of native culture is those countries were suppressed historically but are still preserved in some way to this day.
It's also very fair to say sovereign countries today can build a healthier immigration policy than 1500s Europeans with their extermination campaigns. I'd be the last to say that is an example to be followed.
You don't have a automatic right to live in another country in my opinion. I don't blame Swedes for slamming a door shut that has turned their incredibly safe country into the gun and bomb capital of Europe.
>I moved from the USA to Sweden about 6 years ago. Sweden has also been tightening its immigration laws
Context for others: Until 2026 Sweden had no language, income, employment, or skills requirement for citizenship. It now has some basic requirements in these areas.
* 2025 citizenship requirements: <https://web.archive.org/web/20250315034218/https://www.migra...>
* 2026: <https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/...>
>in ways I believe have been and will be detrimental to its future.
In completely unrelated news, Arabic is now the second most spoken language in Sweden after Swedish. <http://web.archive.org/web/20210511231225/https://digitaledi...>.
Also completely unrelated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...
What is the gap between the first and second most spoken languages in Sweden?
"Arabic" is hundreds of different languages.
It's like saying "anglosaxon" and grouping english, german, swedish, danish, norwegian as one single language.
You should tell the united nation, they seem to have missed the memo despite all the Arab countries being members
Doesn't seem they're really aware that they're something of an endangered "species". Although technically they'd still be endangered even if they open up seriously, as then there's heightened possibility of bloodline dilution. I wonder sometimes if that'd be a good or bad thing in the long run: loss of that which makes them pretty unique vs blending more with the world.
> heightened possibility of bloodline dilution
In my experience, born/raised in Japan, domestic Japanese people have a very different reaction to local "Hafu" people where one of their parents is a Caucasian person from the US, UK, AU, NZ (or similar), vs "other" countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C4%81fu
Colonial mentalities carry on for decades.
I mean, Japan's experience with colonialism was decidedly on the colonist side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperit...
It seems they are very well aware. They've probably seen what happens to other "endangered species" (eg. the English or Swedes) when the floodgates are opened by treasonous bureaucrats chasing votes, economic metrics, or appeasing their destructive oikophobia.
What happened to the swedes? I'm in sweden right now and there's no zombie apocalypse or anything weird going on…
“Bloodline dilution” is only a thing if you believe your race is superior.
I'm pretty sure there are many non-Japanese who're attracted to Japanese primarily because of their homogeneity.
You mean western dudes who fetishize/exotify eastern women?
Korean men and Japanese women make up the biggest share of international marriages in Japan so there's something more going on here that makes Japanese women highly desirable to men in general.
or if you just care about your race, which is a normal thing to do
it's an extended family of sorts
If the extended family incorporates other races, does it stop being extended family?