Anyway, it's not really Japan specific. I'm not sure why people always say this about Japan when other Asian countries have an even lower immigrant population. In Taiwan it's just over 1%. In Mainland China it's even much lower. Korea has slightly immigrants than Japan but it's no where near levels of Australia or the US. There's a weird obsession with Japan in Western countries and Japanese culture and politics often get stereotyped without people actually understanding much about it. The assumption that it's unusual for a country not to have (uncontrolled) mass immigration is in itself an amusing one to me.
Only a few thousand per year bother. There's actually hundreds of thousands of eligible long-term residents in Japan who could acquire citizenship on paper, but the criteria (particularly the renunciation of other citizenships) are burdensome enough that even some people born in Japan who have lived there their whole lives who could become citizens opt not to.
In particular, starting at 1m04s, the interviewer says "I hear it's hard to become Japanese". And the naturalized person answers, "the more and more I read about it on the English net, I realized there's so much misinformation about it that you really couldn't trust anything that was written English about naturalization."
He's talking about people like you. He spends the whole video in particular debunking almost every point you made.
Brazil is an interesting one, because a significant number of "Brazilians" in Japan are supposedly descendants of Japanese who had immigrated to Brazil, but then came back. But even they experience degrees of discrimination despite being ethnically Japanese.
Anecdote, but my Japanese American friend (ethnically 100% Japanese but born and raised in the US, and pretty much culturally 90%+ American) went back to Japan. He too experienced discrimination.
There is lot of pressure to conform to the generally accepted social norms.
More than 20% of people living in Canada are immigrants.
Immigration rates have increased since the data above.
"Gaijin" gets played up in weeby debates -- by people who are looking for reasons to be offended -- as some hugely significant cultural deviation, but it's honestly more like "foreigner" in practical usage. That word can be incredibly rude, or completely innocuous in different contexts. As can 外人. It's more accurate to say that both words mean "foreigner", but 外国人 is the PC version that renders you safe from criticism.
(The irony, of course, is that no matter where you go you'll hear plenty of borderline racist policy talk with the sweetest of language.)
Based on my very limited Japanese (about n3 grammar , 1000 kanji, but this is anecdotal), it is indeed very difficult, and I'd clearly try an English speaking country/country where I can work in English first !
Their society is very closed, allowing immigrants to take only very low paid low value works. Immigrants have almost no possibility of growth, and very a very bad set of labor rights (apparently everybody has this later problem, even though the set of rights for Japanese and immigrants is different, one does not seem to be strictly worse than the other).
The result of the immigration at the 90's was that people came back worse-off than they gone.
Actually, the very existence of cities and countrysides goes against this idea (and there is indeed open space in Japan.)
It's not. It has the 11th most populous country in the world. Sure, it ranks lower in terms of area but it's still much larger than a median nation state. Japan is actually slightly larger than Germany. Nobody ever says Germany is a pretty small country.
Just like Japan of 2020 is not the same as Samurai Japan of medieval times. Times change, societies change, demographics change. That is just the way things are. It's better to harness it than to reject it to the detriment of progress. See: The story of America becoming a superpower.
Hard to take a comment that starts with this seriously.
Multiculturalism has long become one of the defining characteristics of the US.
Japan (and frankly, many other countries) are indeed ethno-states.
Is the culture thinking being a X is race based or is it based on a way of life, or both?
At least back in the 80s and 90s, my US education and history books say that America is the melting pot of the world, and ideally not race based, but based on the idea of personal and religious freedom. USA as we know now began as a country of immigrants - so by definition, yes, USA still stands regardless of race and ethnicity.
Whereas, the older countries having a more homogeneous race, ethnicity, and culture, that question is a lot fuzzier.
Edit: well, it was.
also did you mean to imply that culture is essentially tied to ethnicity? because it isn't.
So no, it's not the same country now.
You’re tiptoeing dangerously near some very questionable ethnic/racial arguments.
Is he ? What's so dangerous about liking homogenous cultures and homogenous races ?
I don't want to assume too much about you, but this smells like the usual progressive tendency to glorify population-importing immigration and taboofy any discussion of it that views it in negative or critical light. There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land, just like there is nothing wrong about disliking guests in one's own house.
That is a massive leap from what I said. I really need you to point out where I “glorified” anything.
> There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land
When you put it that way…yeah something definitely sounds wrong.
The commenter you replied was questioning if a nation could maintain it's character after wholesale replacement of it's population by other people, and you said yes, and implied that thinking otherwise is dangerous.
>yeah something definitely sounds wrong
What is that something ? If I own a car or a house, I can control who gets inside that car or house, and I can exclude people on whatever basis I like, including race and culture. This is not ideal, but that's the reality. Changing it is likely to be extremly hard and violent.
A country is "owned" by it's population, if a substantial majority of it's population don't want to let certain people into it, why is that such a problem ? Do you think those same people who want to immigrate would welcome a country's worth of people into their own land, if that were to happen ? Nearly every single culture in existence values itself more than others, and feels threatened when it's numbers decrease in relation to another.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Now the Japanese’s own sense of identity/culture? It’s a deeply personal and subjective matter. But national boundaries? Not at all.
country kŭn′trē noun 1) A nation or state. 2) The territory of a nation or state; land. 3) The people of a nation or state; populace. 4) The land of a person's birth or citizenship. 5) A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture. 6) An area or expanse outside cities and towns; a rural area. 7) The people of a district who are eligible for jury service.
nation nā′shən noun 1) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. 2) The territory occupied by such a group of people. 3) The government of a sovereign state. 4) A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. 5) A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. 6) The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
Japan is a country with boundaries that most of the world agrees on. There is nothing innate about its location or composition.
Wanting to migrate and actually being ready and willing to integrate in the target country / culture are two very different things.
In Japan, the latter is certainly not easy, and it's unclear how much would-be immigrants are ready and willing to meet that bar.
Policy, lack of space... not desire
No not really. For starters, who determines what is the “true” culture or what the goals even are?
Civilizational: Respect for rights of minorities, rule of law rather than of the strong, willingness to work and pay taxes, valuing education.
Superficial: Cuisine, dress, artistic taste, ritual formalities of religion.
Few governments have had success splitting immigration policy priorities along these lines, though some have had the wisdom to at least try.
Mass immigration explores the space very differently, in a way that is sudden and discontinues.I think it's reasonable for people to worry that they're being replaced, because that's actually what's (more or less) happening.
My issue is the entitlement that goes hand in hand with this mentality. Everyone replaces someone. What makes me so special that I get to go, “oh no you don’t, all cultural change ends with me and my friends unless I specifically sanction the change”?
People made room for me, after all.
You cannot influence without being influenced.
Why not? China has massive influence in many countries, and they seem to retain a lot of their culture while suppressing any internal change/dissent. It would seem to me that many European countries have simply decided they would like to be influenced for whatever reason, not that they are compelled to by some universal rule.
It came up for a direct vote? Or did politicians who never ran on mass immigration platforms just kinda decide to introduce legislation?
People tend to conflate the acceptance of mass immigration in western countries (by characterizing opposition as horribly racist) with tacit approval by the citizens.
The general failure of anti-immigration parties to win majorities in European countries suggests that most people are either pro-immigration or at least willing to accept it.
But again, that ties back to the demonization of being against immigration. Is it _really_ reflective of true popular support if you’re going to be labeled a racist if you don’t vote the right way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Hungarian_migrant_quota_r...
Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups... Destroying cultures around world. It is sad we have not punished them for that and maybe even banned them to protect the future.
No, nearly every one of the countries I listed had simply no intention or means to colonize effectively at a profit, has nothing to do with preoccupation with continental wars.
> Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups
Again, all of the countries I mentioned had very little if not null participation in this, and yet to varying degrees they are being punished for it...
I don't have a strong opinion on immigration either way, like anything it can be a force for good or a distaster depending on how it's handled. But if there's one thing I hate, it's taboos and buzz words, mixed with hypocrisy for good measure. There is nothing inherently wrong about opposing immigration or disliking immigrants, your country is like your house, you are perfectly justified on not wanting guests in it, even if it's for 'wrong' (read : racist) reason. This doesn't mean I like or hold those opinons, but they are natural and justified, and people have the right to hold them.
I believe it is called progressive and liberal because African Americans and Native Americans have historically been enslaved or (nearly) exterminated by Europeans in North America.
What's wrong with being ethnic-nationalist?
Europeans are amazing and should be held up high.
They should stop and reverse the importation of the third world and remain European.
Not that this is an option for all countries, specially those that don't have unified history or culture. For example with USA it might make sense for native population.
I went to Vietnam before the pandemic and lot's of hip coffee shops are basically exact clones of something you'd find in Portland.
This seems a remarkably false dichotomy.
These are neither purely traditional nor fully globally assimilationist.
Singapore, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Austin and San Antonio, TX, Vancouver, Sydney, London, Berlin, Miami, and Rio all come to mind. Those are among the larger cities, there are also smaller and more outlying regions.
People have always moved, migrated, and interacted. Quite often peaceably, as the alternative is extraordinarily destructive.
You need to brush up on your history my friend. The number of times the island has changed hands runs counter to your point, and the current inhabitants certainly aren’t some continuation of an ancient people.
Rome held it, the Britons held it, the Picts invaded from Ireland, the Angles and Saxons had it after beating the Picts and killing the Britons…the list goes on. There isn’t some sacred ancient culture at stake and I’m sure the groups that were kicked out by the current inhabitants would take umbrage with your point if they could speak up.
I’m not even going to dive into “London is a miserable failure.” That’s just another hand wavy talking point. I’m not even sure by what metrics you’d measure how London is a “miserable failure.”
Is the problem that immigration drags down economies?
Or that it leads to gentrification?
You know, all those lazy Polish plumbers coming over and stealing all those British jobs....
Sounds like you've found a cause for every problem you see.
Or maybe you meant "rigid"?
In terms of immigration, even in Canada (very open to other cultures, more tolerant of them than the US), to become a citizen, there are tests to be passed, including either french or english literacy.
This is to ensure that all citizens can communication with one another, and also, to understand local laws. And, essentially, local customs.
In Canada (and the US), this means people are expected to not be racist, or biased, and there are laws against this.
One may debate the effectiveness of these laws, however my point is that once here? People caught behaving if there is a caste system here, will be prosecuted.
Beyond this, public schools, TV, movies, etc teach that all are equal. Sometimes, it takes a third generation immigrant to be "fully" localized, but eventually the parent culture is but a distant memory.
This is reinforced by the surrounding culture, which doesn't care about caste systems.
So my point is, we don't care, and we should not care. What we should do, is simply take applicants and be done with it.
You do not have to apply through your government, you can get a job and apply directly.
Now, are there Indian immigrants in the US, with consulting firms or companies, only accepting applications based upon caste?
Well, that's discrimination, has nothing to do with immigration laws, instead employement laws, and can be prosecuted.
And yes, it can be proven.
Where is this happening? I assure you, most non-Indians have zero idea about caste and couldn't care less.
Therefore, I gather that this is happening from other Indians in the US? In other words, you leave India to escape poverty and presumably racism, but then.. decide to live in predominantly Indian neighborhoods where they are racist, do buildness with, and work for, racist people?!
Here is a strong suggestion. Don't live near these fools, don't work for them. Don't move to the US, and then, try to create an Indian culture and neighborhood in the US.
Instead, just become American. Merge with the culture, and no more racist Indians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_Harlem_and_the_Lost_Hi...
Are you Indian, NRI or Someone from west learning about India from the western press?
Edit: You also mentioned that Dalit experience worse discrimination in US than in India! Where did you get that from? I'd just like to understand your overall point of view.
https://m.economictimes.com/nri/visa-and-immigration/the-cur...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30363116
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29362936
The downside is that the people leaving also tend to be the most capable of producing that change so the brain/skills-drain is self-perpetuating once it starts.
Some % of people, yes. But not everyone leaves. As long as enough brilliant people remain and there can be economic and scientific progress breaking the shackles of a millennia of rule, things can become right. These things are slow and take time though.
They do it by cherry picking horror stories and repeat them over and over, eg “a refugee murdered a woman in sweden” over and over and over. Or “knife crime” in London, usually implying the knife murdered is black or brown. Of course in reality sweden is very safe, advanced, high living standard country. London has a murder rate per 100,000 that would make it statistically the safest large city in America and significantly safer than supposedly “low crime” cities like San Diego which have a murder rate much higher than London. The entire uk police forces have only shot dead 50 people approx, since 1980! American police shoot dead several thousand per year, plus 10k pets and dogs. But many Americans for example now believe that “London is over run with 3rd world refugees and therefore crime and murder”. Build the wall!
It’s curious how it sticks so well.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integra...
(e. g. http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/cities/stockholm/Pers... https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/sweden https://www.studocu.com/blog/en/why-sweden-is-the-best-count...)
Im not sure why so little people migrate to Japan. Is it the policies or the language?