Japan moves to tighten rules for foreigners, throwing futures into doubt

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

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.

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?

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

Maybe it's and taking into consideration unforeseen calls upon their cash. Sounds reasonable to me.

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 also want foreigners to not depend on their welfare system. The horror.

I am fully aware of that.

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.

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.

Presumably they’re asking why this is being done, since it’s obviously not for the benefit of the immigrants.

Japan, notoriously a country with an immigration policy that could in good faith be described as "unchecked".

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.

They don't believe so. Maybe they are wrong! There are pros and cons.

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.

Not the parent, but yes, of course I would. But letting anybody do anything that would benefit them is of course not reasonable.

What exactly are south Asians? Serious question