Japan Confirms its Policy of Minimal Immigration to Defend Culture, Jobs

[Right_in_Virginia]

Japan Confirms its Policy of Minimal Immigration to Defend Culture, Jobs
Breitbart, Nov 29, 2017, Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, told his parliament last week that he has “no intention” of accepting more migrants despite pressure from the UN Refugee Agency.

During a debate in Japan’s parliament, Mr. Abe argued that accepting foreign workers should is justifiable only where they are truly needed to “keep Japan’s economy and infrastructure sustainable.”

The 63-year-old prime minister is a confirmed nationalist and an admirer of U.S. President Donald Trump, and has pursued a “Japan-first” economic policy that has been compared to that of Mr. Trump.


More: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/11/29/japan-confirms-its-policy-of-minimal-immigration-to-defend-culture-jobs/

[skeeter]

In addition to western colonization in asia and what they saw as American interference in their war with China, one of the reasons offered by Japan's ruling class as a moral justification for going to war with the US in 1941 was America's immigration policies ostensibly racist towards asians dating back decades earlier.

I've amazed at the sense of entitlement the rest of the world has when it comes to the perceived right to come to America. Especially since it seems to be such an obvious one way street.

And its been going on for a long time.

[Fishrrman]

Five hundred years from now, Japan will still be "Japan".

But some nations of Western Europe will "culturally disappear" in less than 75-100 years.

Why is that?

[Right_in_Virginia]

You know who doesn’t have a refugee problem? Japan
Hotair, Nov 30, 2017, Jazz Shaw

The United Nations recently sent a pointed message to Japan, telling them that the U.N. expected them to pitch in and do more to take in refugees as many EU nations have done. Why would they be concerned about that? Because Japan’s total contribution to the effort thus far in 2017 has been to take in… three.

Yes, that’s not a typo. They took three refugees. Last year the figure was vastly higher at… 28.

Japan’s Prime Minister looked over the request like a responsible leader and formulated an answer which he announced to the Japanese Parliament yesterday. In short, the United Nation can go pack sand. (Voice of Europe)


Read more: https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/30/know-doesnt-refugee-problem-japan/

[TomSea]

Five hundred years from now, Japan will still be "Japan".

But some nations of Western Europe will "culturally disappear" in less than 75-100 years.

Why is that?

Or even the US;  it won't be all that long, maybe 40 or 30 years, when the US may well be 2/3rds minority.

[TomSea]

Fishrrman said:
Five hundred years from now, Japan will still be "Japan".

Maybe but not a sure thing.

This has been discussed before, even with this per Japan, they have been suffering from a low birth rate, low replacement rate themselves.

Japan’s birth rate problem is way worse than anyone imagined
https://www.facebook.com/anaclaireswanson

Japan’s population shrank by its largest amount on record in 2014. Roughly 1.001 million people were born and 1.269 million people died last year, leaving the country with 268,000 fewer people overall.

Japan’s declining population has a powerful impact on its economic situation, and not for the better. An aging population leaves the country with fewer workers and more dependents. And conventional wisdom says aging leads to slower economic growth and more deflationary forces, both of which make it more difficult for Japan to chip away at the substantial debt burden from its economic crisis at the beginning of the 1990s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/?utm_term=.3c37637eb80a

This is part of the problem worldwide, if economies grow, who fills in all of the jobs? I do think the top brass recognize that the UK's economy is robust and they somewhat need more workers. It is a complex matter.

A 2nd source to show this is just not some fear-mongering about something that may not happen.

Japan and its birth rate: the beginning of the end or just a new beginning? | The Japan Times
Olga Garnova

“Catastrophe” is one of the words most frequently used to describe Japan’s demographic situation: an aging society full of sexless couples having fewer and fewer babies. Fertility is below replacement level, births are being delayed — but is the situation as desperate as the media paints it? No, the data suggest. In fact, the picture is improving.

Japan has never made it into the “top 10” of countries with the lowest total fertility rates (TFR) — the average number of children a woman bears over her lifetime. And since 2005, when it bottomed out at 1.26 births per woman, the TFR has been slowly but steadily growing, although the government is predicting what it hopes is a slight blip — a 0.01-point dip — for 2015. According to the World DataBank, in 2013 (the latest year for which full data — not just estimates — are available) Japan, with its 1.43 TFR, was doing better than South Korea and Singapore (both 1.19), Hong Kong (1.12) and Germany (1.38).

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2016/02/10/voices/japan-birth-rate-beginning-end-just-new-beginning/#.WiF12LiYFVI

[Frank Cannon]

Five hundred years from now, Japan will still be "Japan".

Nope. 100 years from now Japan will be part of China because the Japanese are not reproducing.

Halting immigration only works if you keep your birth rates up. Japan is in serious problems there.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2017/06/japan-s-birth-rate-lowest-in-120-years.html

[Suppressed]

This is part of the problem worldwide, if economies grow, who fills in all of the jobs? I do think the top brass recognize that the UK's economy is robust and they somewhat need more workers. It is a complex matter.

Currently, many countries need immigration for that.  Perhaps it won't be long before robots will take over much of that.

[Fishrrman]

Frank Cannon wrote:
"Nope. 100 years from now Japan will be part of China because the Japanese are not reproducing."

Frank, gotta disagree with you, at least insofar as Japan is concerned.

There are currently 127million+ Japanese. I reckon they could lose 1/2 or even 2/3 of their population, and it wouldn't matter. They'll survive as a nation ... SO LONG AS they refuse to accept ANY KIND of immigration at all.

Indeed, the standard of living for "those left" would GO UP.
Wages would increase, and at the same time the cost of living would go down.

Something else to consider:
Those who choose -not- to reproduce will be "naturally selected" out of the gene pool. They'll disappear, but...
...Those who choose -to- reproduce will increase as a proportion of the population.

Eventually, the population decline will stabilize and start rising again.

The Japanese are amongst the smartest populations on Earth. They'll figure out how to cope with things.

And that includes how to keep China at bay...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The Globalists and Diversity-lovers really hate to see this.

Japan retains its sovereignty when it alone chooses who should be in Japan.  It is the right, and their duty in order preserve their identity as a nation.

Nothing wrong with that.