Guidelines for Permission for Permanent Residence

How dreadful! The Japanese want only immigrants with highly quantifiable skills and contributions. They probably even want them to speak Japanese! The cheek of the little devils!

They don’t seem to realize that they have a moral obligation to sink to our level by allowing unproductive immigrant populations to invade their islands and destroy their ancient culture and society.

Why should they get to write their own rules?

Appears to be a great guideline for two other island nations I can think of…. But why not any nation? Why does Japan get away with this and no one else? Is it the saki?

The Japanese think Japan is for the Japanese, and that the Japanese are a distict people. Are many Whites simple missing the gene that enables them to understand this concept? Would those Whites then be ranked even below the pygmies on the scale of intelligence, since even pygmies want their people to survive?

Well, it’s clear there is only one country we should encourage immigration from…Japan!

At the end, Case 9 and especially, Case 10 sound like they may have arguably made signficant contributions, though of course we don’t have the details. My point is though, that the Japanese could just be setting themselves up for future legalistic arguments from the usual subverters of nationhood. They should forget about all this ‘contribution to Japan’ hocus-pocus and simply have a law of the blood, like Germany did until this generation. If you’re not ethnically Japanese, you can’t become a Japanese national. Simple. Set it up, stick to it. Better than death by a thousand debates on what is a ‘signficant contribution.’

This is just blatantly racist. Isn’t there a UN Kommissar available to condemn this racist policy? What kind of bleak future must Japan be doomed to with this horrible lack of Diversity?

Appears to be a great guideline for two other island nations I can think of…. But why not any nation? Why does Japan get away with this and no one else? Is it the saki?

Actually, S. Korea has immigration laws which are if anything even more stringent. It seems to be an east Asian thing. And no, they are never really called on it.

What I find even more remarkable is that Japan has basically avoided taking in any refugees — even though a Japanese woman, Sadako Ogata, was the head of the UN Refugee Council just a few years ago. The UN apparently never asks Japan to take in Somalis or Iraqis as it does of the USA, Canada, Sweden, Australia, etc. It is unclear to me why this is, but perhaps the UN correctly realizes that the Japanese would simply laugh at them and tell them to take a hike.

But why not any nation? Why does Japan get away with this and no one else? Is it the saki?

Obviously Japan gets away with it because its policiy is racially non discriminatory - you are Japanese by descent not by race.

I would have at least as hard a time getting into Japan as any white person or black person.

Even the English and Italians favor those who can prove descent when it comes to citizenship. One English grandparent is enough for an English passport. The Japanese are just a heck of a lot more strict, but no more racially discriminatory than any other people.

If the Japanese suddenly said it was OK for any East Asian to settle in Japan, but no one else, and partly justified this on the basis of superior East Asian IQ and low crime - then world reaction would be different.

Amazing how many on Amren miss this point.

I am a Brit, married to a Japanese. As a ‘spouse or child of a Japanese citizen,’ I possess automatic right of residence.

Unless - for example - I were to be caught growing a little marijuana and then my right of residence would be briskly withdrawn. This actually happened to an American male married to a Japanese woman not many years ago and no entreaty could reverse this decision.

Japan has accepted a surprisingly large number of refugees, temporary or permanent, over the years. Sakai even had a small family from either Kosovo or Bosnia for a while.

Some long-term refugees have been successfully integrated and the press has made a cheerful and happy fuss of them.

Others have queered the pitch for future refugees from the same part of the world. One Cambodian went nuts and killed his [Cambodian] wife; the immediate Japanese reaction was to regard all Cambodians with fear and apprehension.

Any crime involving foreigners in Japan is front-page news; Chinese burgler-murderers, Iranian dope-dealers, American service-personnel rapists [in Okinawa] - all these are highly sensationalized.

AmRen readers are well aware of the enrichment which Somalis, Albanians, Chechens, Kurds, Sudanese and Afghans have inflicted on those countries sappheaded enough to welcome them.

Japanese bureaurocrats have silently resolved that Japan will not suffer the same enrichment as Sweden, Norway, Hollland, Italy and Greece - and Ireland - are now enduring as a result of the folly of their political class.

John Liu,

You are probably right, but racism is the intent and the result of the Japanese policy, even if not its stated purpose. One irony is that the Japanese government lobbied for Hart-Celler Act in 1965 - the law that completely overhauled US immigration policy - based on the idea that our prior immigration policy was, yes, racist.

Thank you John Liu for that concise explanation. Japan is not racially discriminatory, just choosy about descent.

If the U.S. cut off immigration to people of non-European descent, we would still be accused of racial discrimination!

Again, how does Japan get away with it?

Japan gets away with it because they have the will to maintain their nation. That’s it. If any European country had these immigration policies (bet it based on race or “decent”) THEIR OWN LEADERS would whine and moan about discrimination. The Japanese leaders simply aren’t suicidal traitors like whites.

“Isn’t there a UN Kommissar available to condemn this racist policy?”
Being the second largest economy in the world, I’m sure Japan could bankrupt large portions of the UN by withholding funding.

Terese: the answer to your question is completely obvious.

If the U.S. cut off immigration to people of non-European descent, we would still be accused of racial discrimination!

That would be discrimination because you are letting in Germans and French, but not Nigerians and Chinese.

But if the US just cut off all immigration, then that would not be racist (although you would get complaints of course)

OR

If the US allowed immigration of people with blood ties to US citizens, regardles of race, that would still be OK. Like I said most countries practice this sort of thing anyway, and we practice it on an individual basis when we bequeathe our estate to our children. That is not racially discriminatory. Because most people are the race of their parents, race is rendered a moot point anyway.

There is not one Asian country in the world which has an immigration policy that is similar to what WN want for America - ie a yellow only immigration policy. There is no such thing. In fact the Japanese discriminate against Chinese in respect of immigration at least as fiercely as they do white people. That is obviously not racial discrimination, but national discrimination.

But then white countries do same - an Australian can enter the US visa-free I think, but not an Indian or Chinese. Again this is not racial discrimination as an aboriginal or Chinese Australian would be treated the same by US immigration as a white Australian.

So in principle the Japanese are no more racially discriminatory than any other country. They just have very strict immigration policy.

You are probably right, but racism is the intent and the result of the Japanese policy, even if not its stated purpose.

It is no more racist to discriminate against those not of Japanese descent than it is to allow people with just one British grandparent to become British citizens. Or allow Argentinian Italians to claim Italian citizenship on account of being descended from Italian immigrants who came to Argentina over a century ago. Or for Germans to discriminate in favor of the Volga Germans, over other Europeans. Or for Americans to allow remittances to be sent back to Mexico but not Cuba.

Discrimination on national basis in all forms is practiced by most countries worldwide. But racial discrimination, at least officially, is not.

Japan is racist by Western standards(and sane by ours). Race is relative. So the Japanese might not look favorably at allowing Chinese to settle there, who’s to say they’ve adopting our definition of race? Japanese people are genetically distinct from Chinese, as Ukrainians are from Russians. If they’re so concerned with culture and less with ancestry then they could easily teach millions of Pakistanis or Guatemalans Japanese and assimilate.

England and Italy might have a law favoring their co-ethnics but has this stopped them from importing millions of racial aliens?

To think Japan or Korea or any other Oriental nation is as lenient on race as European or Diaspora Europeans is simply DISHONEST.

“There is not one Asian country in the world which has an immigration policy that is similar to what WN want for America - ie a yellow only immigration policy.”

Every Asian country in the world has an immigration policy designed not merely to keep itself “yellow,” but to keep itself a very particular kind of yellow.

“Japanese people are genetically distinct from Chinese, as Ukrainians are from Russians. “

Posted by Anonymous at 9:18 PM on May 19

Umm, perhaps you ought to check your history. The region that is today the Ukrain was once largely part of the kingdom called Khazaria. It was invaded and competely taken over by Russians in the 10th century in concert with the Byzantine Empire in Constantinople. The history is highly complex. There is a very bad habit on these boards for posters to capsulize such complex histories by making a simple and untrue claim. Such a claim as above is given the lie through just one short insertion from a long convoluted narration of Ukrainian history; “Many Russian writers, composers, painters and architects of the 19th century were of Ukrainian descent. Probably the most notable was Nikolai Gogol, one of the greatest writers in the history of Russian literature.” And the fact is that Russian is just as common a language in the Ukraine as Ukranian. If you check, Russians represent a pretty widely dispersed set of genetics. Moreso even than Ukrainians, but both share the same traits.

But why not any nation? Why does Japan get away with this and no one else? Is it the saki?

Whiteplight

John Liu, let’s take a look at the points you tried to make here.

I was joking to make a point. A point that you seem to be missing.

However, there are some serious flaws throughout your arguments. I list them as follows;

“Obviously Japan gets away with it because its policiy is racially non discriminatory - you are Japanese by descent not by race.”

This is an argument over symantics, not actual meaning and certainly not effect.

Britains could as easily claim that Britishness comes by decent. But doing that is considered racist in Britain and in fact, the entire West. Japan if you check, has indigenous minorities of its own too. It is doing a poor job of preserving them, and claims to be attempting to, but the Ainu are quickly disappearing. It is known that the Japanese migrated onto the island at a point corresponding roughly to the Celtic and later Anglo-Saxon settlements in the British Isles. Yet they seem to enjoy an exclusive right to preserve themselves as a people through clever laws that no one in the international community has the nerve to protest or emulate.

“I would have at least as hard a time getting into Japan as any white person or black person. “

That is because the Japanese consider themselves a seperate race and people and culture from China. The Japanese are hugely ethno-centric in this way. You can’t tell me that any Western country could get away with this. Aside from that, it is well known that China and Japan are not exactly at ease with one another, so I expect you would have more trouble than some other applicants from nearby countries.

“………The Japanese are just a heck of a lot more strict, but no more racially discriminatory than any other people.”

This is a case of “not seeing the forest for the trees.”

The strictness is the entire point and effect of the policy that makes it select for genetic Japanese RACE identity. If England and other Western European or English speaking nations were so their own cultural and racial heritages would be preserved, and that is the point of this discussion and the purpose of its being posted on the Amren site at all.

“If the Japanese suddenly said it was OK for any East Asian to settle in Japan, but no one else, and partly justified this on the basis of superior East Asian IQ and low crime - then world reaction would be different.”

This is a strange statement. How is the world reacting now? How do you know how the world would react if your highly hypothetical situation every came to pass? And it never will.

Japan wants to keep out EVERYONE who is not Japanese regardless of IQ or the crime rate of their host country. Besides the crime rates in China and India are quite high, especially gang crime and industrial crime. This is not to mention the huge amount of crime in Asia in the form of intellectual property piracy and other such crimes. The entire Chinese government is operating outside of international law and has for many decades. It has hugely helped bring on the international monetary crisis by setting its currency artifically low so as to drain all other nations wealth. THAT IS A CRIME AGAINST THE ENTURE WORLD.

John Liu: I guarantee you that the Japanese don’t want
Chinese Immigrants in Japan. They acknowledge the huge con-
tribution China has made to Japanese Culture-so it’s not any
kind of racial superiority. It’s just plain Ethnic Discrimin-
ation-they want to stay Japanese. It is an immensely healthy
attitude, one that the Chinese themselves share. But you know
this-you just trying to stir the pot as usual; make the White
Man doubt himself and he’s easy pickings.

The elephant in the room here is Japans very low birthrate,
rapidly aging birthrate and declining population
As a past resident of Japan and constant observer(and fluent speaker)I believe there has been a recent debate about dramatically increasing immigration to Japan to counter the above and also `further internationalize` the country…
So I think Japan is sending out very mixed signals
But make no mistake many Japanese,esp older generation,are still ethnocentric and and to some extent xenophobic.
Despite a ultra modern westenized society on the surface
Japanese racial exclusiveness and unique racial identity
still lurks underneath.
As an example with the recent swine flu outbreak I cannot stay at a trusted friends place next week when I visit Japan next week(for purported fear of contamination!) despite a recent rapid increase in Japanese infections compared to my own country (Australia)This was the same situation I faced back in the 90s when Aids made many Japanese scared of foreigners

Anyway I think the population crisis will come to a head fairly soon and Japan will be faced wih a choice as to whether to let in many foreigners from mostly thirld World countries…
possibly the UN will put extra pressure as many European countries put up the shutters!

I live in Thailand,I can never be a Thai citizen and must leave the Country every 90 days,even though I have a Thai wife,and a Amerasian daughter,who is half Thai.No one but a Thai can be a citizen here.

The elephant in the room here is Japans very low birthrate,
rapidly aging birthrate and declining population……….

………Anyway I think the population crisis will come to a head fairly soon and Japan will be faced wih a choice as to whether to let in many foreigners from mostly thirld World countries…
possibly the UN will put extra pressure as many European countries put up the shutters!

Posted by John at 6:22 AM on May 20

Have you noted that the Japanese are so determined to not be taken over by non-Japanese regardless of the above facts that they are developing robots to care for the elderly?

People here simply cannot get the point. The fact is all countries discriminate in favour of descent to a certain extent, some more than others. But discriminating in favour of descent is different from discriminating in favour of people who simply look like you.

Even in America it is perfectly OK for Irish to celebrate Irishness, or Germans to celebrate their heritage.There are even organizations that advocate on behalf of Italian Americans.
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/heritage/organizations.asp

These organizations are based on the principle of a common heritage through descent. Because of this most people in Italian organizations, say, will be Italian (hence white), Irish organizations Irish (hence white), that still does not mean that these organizations are racist. And no one accuses them of such.

The Japanese simply let very few people immigrate to their country. Whatever their reasons for this, it is not expressed in explicitly racial terms. Only in terms of descent. That is why they can escape international censure (even if they do have some notion of themselves as a race separate from even Koreans and Chinese).

And yes, if they did allow yellows like Koreans and Chinese to come in, but not Bangladeshis, and Iranians, and justified this in racialist terms similar to views expressed on Amren, you can be sure that there would be problems - especially from those groups left out.

“But discriminating in favour of descent is different from discriminating in favour of people who simply look like you.”

By this standard even pre-1965 American immigration law was more liberal than anything found in Asia; otherwise there would be no Italians, Poles, Irish and so on in the US.

“Even in America it is perfectly OK for Irish to celebrate Irishness, or Germans to celebrate their heritage.”

So where are the Thais, Indians, Koreans and Malays in Japan, celebrating their heritage?

“Whatever their reasons for this, it is not expressed in explicitly racial terms. Only in terms of descent.”

“Race” vs. “descent:” a distinction without a difference. Given the policies of Japan and other Asian nations, there is zero probability that non-Japanese will ever comprise a significant percentage of Japan’s population, that non-Chinese will ever dominate China, or that Koreans will ever face demographic displacemnent. If that is not preserving a country’s racial makeup, language has no meaning.

Given the policies of Japan and other Asian nations, there is zero probability that non-Japanese will ever comprise a significant percentage of Japan’s population, that non-Chinese will ever dominate China, or that Koreans will ever face demographic displacemnent.

Nor do I think it likely Latvians, Estonians, and Russians will ever be displaced (the latter having done quite a bit of displacing themselves - many of the Central Asian republics have large Russian minorities, to to speak of Russian expansion in the first place).

Ninety nine percent of Japanese in the world live in Japan.

Many white groups, Italians, Germans, and Irish, have large percentages of their kind who do not live in their respective homelands, but live in the historic homelands of Asiatic peoples.

Given this, perhaps the Japanese have just a wee bit more moral authority than American whites to demand a homeland that preserves the historical population as an overwhelming population.

If in fact the Japanese had remained in China after the war and had significant Japanese settlement in China, then the Chinese would have every right to demand similar resident rights in Japan (in fact we do have a right of compensation - that will be settled at a later date when China is even more powerful than she now already is).

As for my earlier comments about Japan’s current policy not racist technically - they still stand - notwithstanding Cassiodorus’s strained interpretations of their meaning.

“Nor do I think it likely Latvians, Estonians, and Russians will ever be displaced”

So what? We are discussing Western Europe and the United States, whose foolish immmigration policies are by any measure more “liberal” (read: suicidal) than any immigration policy in force in Asia, and we are in danger of being displaced in our own nations. Why should we permit or approve of that? What non-white nation ever voluntarily handed itself over to racial aliens? Throughout most of human history the sort of thing we see today in white nations was achieved only through war, but we’re doing it to ourselves.

“Ninety nine percent of Japanese in the world live in Japan.”

Which has no bearing on the question. Most Asian nations are flooding the West with colonists. Does that oblige them to reciprocate? Of course not.

“Given this, perhaps the Japanese have just a wee bit more moral authority than American whites to demand a homeland that preserves the historical population as an overwhelming population.”

Says who? You’re fond of proclaiming who has “moral authority” to do something and who does not, but each one of these statements is a begged question. Why should your chauvanistic interests and biases have any bearing on what citizens of what are laughably called “free countries” are permitted to “demand?” American whites created this country and have every right to establish laws that maintain its identity. It is a measure of asiatic hypocrisy to complain about our striving to reestablish for ourselves the sort of policy that every non-white nation takes for granted.

” … not racist technically …”

Changing what things are called does not necessarily change the things themselves. A policy explicitly designed to maintain the racial makeup of a nation can be called many things, but the reality is unaffected. How about if the US simply adopts the policies of every Asian nation? No doubt there’s some yet-to-be-discovered reason why doing so is a violation of someone’s “moral right.”

How about if the US simply adopts the policies of every Asian nation?

If your policies were to exclude Czechs and Swedes as vigourously as Mexicans and Nigerians, then such a policy would be difficult to interpret as racist. But that is not what you are on about is it Cassiodorus?

“If your policies were to exclude Czechs and Swedes as vigourously as Mexicans and Nigerians, then such a policy would be difficult to interpret as racist. But that is not what you are on about is it Cassiodorus?”

1)Who exactly is to do this “interpreting?”

2)By what authority would this person be exercising authority over American immgration law?

3)Why should I or anyone care about accusations of “racism” when such “intepretations” are A)meaningless, B)wholly political and C)never applied to non-white nations? You continue to act as though your ideas about “racism” are self-evident and ought to exercise some kind of authority over white nations. This I categorically deny. Assuming that there is some abstract standard of racial “fairness” that white nations alone are obliged to follow is begging the question.

4)No, excluding Czechs is not what I am “on about.” What I am on about is preserving the historical European population of the United States. They are the founders and heirs of our nation and civilization, just as the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and so on are their founders and heirs of their respective civilizations. This is a position which every Asian nation takes for granted, and which your manifest sophistries are meant to delegitimize for whites and whites only. When China, Japan and the rest open their borders to third-worlders, like the asiatic Hmong, I’ll withdraw my contention that your position is hypocritical, but not until then.