Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

46% Positive

Analyzed from 2623 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#japan#immigration#japanese#country#need#don#more#reasonable#immigrants#problem

Discussion (77 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

autoexec•about 2 hours ago
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.
Animats•about 2 hours ago
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-...

autoexec•about 2 hours ago
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
tchalla•about 2 hours ago
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.

reliabilityguy•about 2 hours ago
> 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?

autoexec•about 2 hours ago
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.
zulux•about 1 hour ago
It's their country. They can do what they want as long as they don't start another war.
kurthr•about 2 hours ago
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?

zug_zug•about 1 hour ago
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.

eudamoniac•37 minutes ago
That seems completely sane and I am happy for the people of Japan that they get to enjoy such a law.
happytoexplain•about 2 hours ago
I think the argument is that the requirements should be stricter than "able to care for themselves".
autoexec•about 2 hours ago
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

jfewhfuehg•about 2 hours ago
You are failing to read between the lines. They simply want less foreigners. It is the same as the 100k fee for H1B.
vixen99•about 2 hours ago
Maybe it's and taking into consideration unforeseen calls upon their cash. Sounds reasonable to me.
SV_BubbleTime•about 2 hours ago
Seems like they want to keep their culture and their country for their people. Yes… villains, apparently.
autoexec•about 2 hours ago
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.
happytoexplain•about 2 hours ago
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.
toomuchtodo•about 2 hours ago
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)

appreciatorBus•about 2 hours ago
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.

selfmodruntime•about 2 hours ago
They also want foreigners to not depend on their welfare system. The horror.
flamethrower123•about 2 hours ago
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.

argee•24 minutes ago
> 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.

flamethrower123•2 minutes ago
I am fully aware of that.
SenHeng•about 1 hour ago
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.
stock_toaster•about 1 hour ago
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

downrightmike•14 minutes ago
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.
hankbond•about 2 hours ago
> 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?

lazyasciiart•about 2 hours ago
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?

ng12•about 2 hours ago
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.
zug_zug•about 1 hour ago
"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.

legitster•about 2 hours ago
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.

appreciatorBus•about 2 hours ago
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.
happytoexplain•about 2 hours ago
> 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?

lazyasciiart•about 2 hours ago
Presumably they’re asking why this is being done, since it’s obviously not for the benefit of the immigrants.
SenHeng•about 2 hours ago
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.

downrightmike•21 minutes ago
gentrification pushing locals out. super simple
happytoexplain•about 2 hours ago
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.

wk_end•about 2 hours ago
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.

flamethrower123•about 1 hour ago
I’d say having a wealth and language filter is pragmatism.
appreciatorBus•about 2 hours ago
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.
happytoexplain•about 1 hour ago
What's pragmatic depends on your values.
wk_end•about 1 hour ago
I think most people would say that's sort of the opposite of the meaning of the word "pragmatic", actually.
cafebabbe•about 2 hours ago
This is going to cause more pain to the Japanese people.
happytoexplain•about 1 hour ago
They don't believe so. Maybe they are wrong! There are pros and cons.
tremon•about 2 hours ago
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.
greggoB•about 2 hours ago
I mean, sure, so long as they're willing to deal with the consequences of an aging population and a shrinking workforce.
happytoexplain•about 1 hour ago
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.
jfewhfuehg•about 2 hours ago
They can just outsource if they really need tech employees.
llm_nerd•about 2 hours ago
> 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.

lazyasciiart•about 2 hours ago
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/

Magi604•about 2 hours ago
They're banking on robots with advanced AI brains to take care of them.
appreciatorBus•about 2 hours ago
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.

wk_end•about 1 hour ago
Japan, notoriously a country with an immigration policy that could in good faith be described as "unchecked".
throw-the-towel•about 1 hour ago
You don't have to make every mistake yourself in order to learn from it.
happytoexplain•about 1 hour ago
Exactly - they choose not to commit that mistake.
tremon•about 2 hours ago
> 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?

SenHeng•about 1 hour ago
The actual regulation has a carve out for if you have assets of equivalent worth.
jdiaz97•about 2 hours ago
there goes my dream of being a gaijin :(
classified•about 2 hours ago
> public sentiment towards immigrants sours

I'm not up to date with Japanese news, does anyone know the reason for that?

flamethrower123•about 1 hour ago
The immigrants create a lot or trouble.
jfewhfuehg•about 2 hours ago
>Foreigner

>From South Asia

>Works in tech

Go figure.

Edit: Trying to upset people less.

asciii•about 2 hours ago
> 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?

happytoexplain•about 1 hour ago
Not the parent, but yes, of course I would. But letting anybody do anything that would benefit them is of course not reasonable.
tock•about 1 hour ago
> 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?

classified•about 2 hours ago
You make it sound like something nefarious and criminal.
tock•about 2 hours ago
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.

kyleee•about 1 hour ago
What exactly are south Asians? Serious question
happytoexplain•3 minutes ago
India, Pakistan, and a few smaller countries.
tock•39 minutes ago
Generally Indians.