No Welfare for Foreigners – Supreme Court

[Wage Slave]

Just added "can receive welfare" to my list on "Why would anybody want to become Japanese?"

http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/0 ... ecome.html

Shouldn't that be:

"Have a right to receive welfare in exchange for paying your taxes."

Very very sad that you have to actually renounce your original citizenship just to be a normal part the social contract. Still, TIJ eh. Most of the Japanese people I know living in the UK would complain bitterly if they were treated the same way BTW.

Actually, no. You can receive welfare without paying (or have ever) paid or have been able to pay taxes. That's kind of the point of welfare.

Well yes, that's true, but nevertheless the provision of a welfare state is based on a kind of social contract between "the people" and the Government. The Japanese Government has decided that unless you are prepared to renounce your original citizenship you are not to be included as part of "the people". As I said, the Japanese people that I know living in the UK and contributing there would take strong exception to being treated like that and rightly so.

Just sad really and symptomatic of a regime that doesn't and won't get it.

So the "social contract" between "the people" (more on that in a bit) regarding welfare in the Japanese constitution is in Article 25, which says:

第二十五条　すべて国民は、健康で文化的な最低限度の生活を営む権利を有する。
国は、すべての生活部面について、社会福祉、社会保障及び公衆衛生の向上及び増進に努めなければならない。

In the official English version:

Article 25. All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living.
In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health.

In case you're wondering why the Japanese constitution uses the word 国民 (legal Japanese national*) when the English version uses "People", that's because in Constitutional Law, "People", when used in an English language constitution, means nationals. For example, the U.S. Constitution says that the "people" elect representatives to serve in Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court (and other courts of the world) have made it clear that when the Constitution says "People" it's talking about the official people of the sovereign state/land: nationals/citizens. You can look at The Constitute Project and read all the other English language versions of the Constitutions of the World: it's clear that when Constitutions say "people", they mean "nationals" or "citizens".

Who exactly is a "kokumin" and who isn't? The Japanese Constitution addresses that in Article 10:

Article 10. The conditions necessary for being a Japanese national shall be determined by law.

日本国民たる要件は、法律でこれを定める。

And what is that law? It's the Nationality Law. And it makes it clear that Special Permanent Residents, Permanent Residents, etc., are not, but there is a way to become one. (and it's not that hard. Trust me. I know)

I noticed you used the word "regime". Are you saying that this is Abe or the LDP's fault? Because sorry, the nationality requirement has been in the law since 1950. The Supreme Court is not based on parties or left/right leanings. It's job is to literally interpret the law and constitution, not make it or bend it.

All they did was say that "kokumin" does not mean or include PR or SPR (a correct literal interpretation of Article 10 and The Nationality Law), and the welfare law (modified in NINETEEN FIFTY) says "kokumin".

There is a social welfare system for foreigners: it's called their country on their passport and their embassy. Japan is responsible for the welfare of its nationals, and your government (that's the one on your passport, not the country you happen to be in, even if you work there and have been there for a very long time) is responsible for your welfare; when you're on vacation in Thailand and the airport gets shut down due to riots, do you go to the Japanese embassy? No, you go to YOUR embassy, because it's YOUR government that is supposed to take care of you when you're out of the country and the shit hits the fan.

If you really want the Japanese government to be responsibly for your welfare, the solution is to legally link yourself to it. The process is called naturalization. I'm not going to sugarcoat it: In Japan, nationality is not just a reward for time logged or taxes paid. It's an ongoing FORWARD commitment (to past, present, and FUTURE laws, no matter where you are in the world) to the Japanese constitution and law. And one of the proofs of that exclusive commitment is yes, monogamy to her laws and constitution, ergo her nationality.

If you can't do that, that's your choice: you have permission to live and work in Japan as a non-national. But you shouldn't ever expect the rights that accompany nationality. And sorry, the J constitution says that the social contract is between kokumin and the nation. Which is pretty normal: most constitutions don't spend too many words worrying about people that legally belong to other lands.

Does that mean that foreigners will never get welfare? I doubt it. They will probably continue to give out welfare on a case by case basis per prefecture at discretion (or even make a new law/policy just for foreigners). The only thing that has changed is that the supreme court has clarified that the law (and the constitution) does not talk about non-Japanese having a RIGHT to it.

Yes, I did understand but thank you for all that anyway. It is still unjust, inequitable and exceptional. But hey - If you don't like it ......

[wagyl]

If you really want the Japanese government to be responsibly for your welfare, the solution is to legally link yourself to it. The process is called naturalization. I'm not going to sugarcoat it: In Japan, nationality is not just a reward for time logged or taxes paid. It's an ongoing FORWARD commitment (to past, present, and FUTURE laws, no matter where you are in the world) to the Japanese constitution and law. And one of the proofs of that exclusive commitment is yes, monogamy to her laws and constitution, ergo her nationality.

To be fair, that ongoing forward commitment aspect is not unique to Japan in any way, it is universal. I think you probably meant that, but I am just pointing out for clarity that the words "In Japan" were unnecessary and that their inclusion will only lead to confusion.

[Yokohammer]

I'm a little surprised at the oversimplification going on here. It might be worth noting just who "Special Permanent Residents" are, and the history and circumstances of their existence in Japan.

The "they should simply naturalise" response is oblivious on a "let them eat cake" scale. It's just not an easy option for some of those people.

[wagyl]

I do agree with Hammer that the way that Japan exited from it's short but controversial colonial adventures, and the impact on the nationality of those from the colonial regions in/brought to Japan has been a nasty legacy.*

But

I also think it is a simplification to suggest that the ruling by the Supreme Court is related to who the current PM is. I don't think the ruling would have been different five, ten years ago. I also think that if the decision had been a different one there would have been controversy about the Supreme Court going beyond its powers. I really don't know what the Supreme Court could have done to satisfy people: it was asked to make a ruling on the legal situation. It couldn't really refuse to make a ruling, and it couldn't make a different ruling, in my opinion.

* Tangentially, I sometimes wonder how the South Korean, Best Korean and Taiwanese governments feel about having to provide consular services to these often monolingual Japanese speakers if they get into trouble overseas. And the whole process of having to align yourself and your descendants with those governments with the shaky footing they were all experiencing at the time just blows my mind. Was it better or worse than the forced "repatriations" to areas your forebears had left hundreds of years ago, and stateless persons in Europe at the same time? I really don't know, but the legacy of the European experience seems to have been shorter lived.

[Wage Slave]

By a regime I meant Governments of all stripe. A quibble over terminology and a complicated and detailed explanation of the underlying law doesn't do anything to address the fundamental injustice. It is however a very Japanese way of arguing a case so I'll certainly grant it's representative.

I never thought of citizenship as like marriage - monogamous and sacred but apparently that's also be the case.

[matsuki]

I never thought of citizenship as like marriage - monogamous and sacred but apparently that's also be the case.

It's a Japanese marriage though, leave the passport at home and go flirt with some other countries.

[Takechanpoo]

i understand you diligent gaijins' disappointness about this decision, im wholeheartedly sorry for it,
but at the same time i cannot help praise it POLITICALLY.
its all due to chinkies, kimchese and other natural born scammer foreigners who are kinda genius to find loopholes of laws and get "不正受給".
Japan needs to be more political in every fields not to make our lovely state collapse from now on, all thanks to those barbalistic fellows from uncivilized countries where scamming is every day things there.

2312-1.jpg

[Coligny]

Coming from a guy who keep the dead body of his grandma in a closet to continue receiving her retirement pension, it's a bit bold...

[havill]

I'm a little surprised at the oversimplification going on here. It might be worth noting just who "Special Permanent Residents" are, and the history and circumstances of their existence in Japan.

The "they should simply naturalise" response is oblivious on a "let them eat cake" scale. It's just not an easy option for some of those people.

Frankly, I think that the Supreme Court did their job and correctly interpreted the law, without any judicial activism. Good.

On the other hand, I'm actually for (pro) the legislature modifying the welfare law to include classes of foreigners that are in Japan because they have/had no choice and returning to the country is not reasonable; in particular, this includes but is not limited to SPRs and recognized refugees.

[Russell]

I knew an old Japanese woman (now deceased) living in Holland, who was married to a Dutchman in the past, but then separated. She could speak a little Dutch and a bit better English, but she was still a Japanese national.

The Netherlands provided welfare benefits to her, because that is the decent thing to do and it is Dutch law. She was taken care of very well at her old age, being provided with an apartment to live in as well as daily care.

Consider this. The Netherlands has very open borders, but still provides these benefits to non-nationals. Because of these open borders (especially for citizens of other EU countries) a debate has now started on who should receive those benefits, but there is no question that people like her would continue to receive benefits. After all, she has given her best in her younger years to the benefit of the state.

Now, let's look at Japan. It has very closed borders because it is an island, and it is not bound by treaties like in the EU, which stipulate that citizens from all EU countries should be treated equally. So, there is no problem of people without the proper visas abusing the system. Still, Japan has no law to provide non-nationals with permanent residence with welfare benefits in case said people fall upon hard times (think: get a terrible disease and lose their job as a result of it, etc.). Even when those people have paid taxes and have given their best to society in their earlier years, they may be treated like someone disposable.

Is it wonder that Japan has problems attracting highly skilled foreign workers, which it presumably needs so desperately. Even though they are highly skilled, these workers are apparently not expected to stay here permanently. In the past century I was often asked by Japanese who I happened to talk with, how long I would stay in Japan, or when I would return to my home country. In fact, it was one of those questions I was asked within the first minutes of a conversation. Nowadays it is much less common, so I guess foreigners have become more accepted in this society.

Now, I have no doubt that the court did the right thing by following Japanese law (though in other countries judges sometimes contradict the law because of common sense or common practice). But it also makes it clear that it is about time that the law is changed, to provide these benefits to those who have been here long-term and have contributed to this society. It is already common practice in many municipalities, but it is about time to enshrine it in law.

I will never forget what the above old Japanese woman said to me when I told her that I intended to stay in Japan:

Please, come back to Holland, because you will never be one of them. I know their mindset.

I still hope she was wrong...

[matsuki]

In the past century I was often asked by Japanese who I happened to talk with, how long I would stay in Japan, or when I would return to my home country. In fact, it was one of those questions I was asked within the first minutes of a conversation. Nowadays it is much less common, so I guess foreigners have become more accepted in this society.

I still get that all the time, hard to imagine it was worse before...

[Yokohammer]

In the past century I was often asked by Japanese who I happened to talk with, how long I would stay in Japan, or when I would return to my home country. In fact, it was one of those questions I was asked within the first minutes of a conversation. Nowadays it is much less common, so I guess foreigners have become more accepted in this society.

I still get that all the time, hard to imagine it was worse before...

Haven't heard that one in a very long time.

I think maybe being this far out in bumfuck people just assume that you're doomed to be here for life. Or maybe it's just a Tohoku thing. People don't even try to speak to me in anything but Japanese, and they're never surprised that I speak it. I can't remember the last time I heard "oh, your Japanese is so good!" Hmm ... maybe it isn't. But on the other hand, I used to get that nonsense for mumbling a single word like "arigatou" sometimes. I really like just being treated like a normal person.

[Russell]

In the past century I was often asked by Japanese who I happened to talk with, how long I would stay in Japan, or when I would return to my home country. In fact, it was one of those questions I was asked within the first minutes of a conversation. Nowadays it is much less common, so I guess foreigners have become more accepted in this society.

I still get that all the time, hard to imagine it was worse before...

Hmm, that seems to indicate that it's me who changed, not society. Maybe J-people have started to consider me one of them...

[omae mona]

Still, Japan has no law to provide non-nationals with permanent residence with welfare benefits in case said people fall upon hard times (think: get a terrible disease and lose their job as a result of it, etc.).

Aren't those people completely eligible for welfare benefits from their own country? Why do they need to use Japan's benefits? If your answer is "because they don't want to return to their own country; they're settled in to life in Japan", then I would ask: if they've chosen to live in Japan forever, why don't they naturalise?

(note there are all sorts of special cases such as people who can't return to their country and can't naturalise for some external reason, and those cases do indeed need to be handled. But I am talking about the majority of cases where it's a voluntary choice)

I knew an old Japanese woman (now deceased) living in Holland, who was married to a Dutchman in the past, but then separated. She could speak a little Dutch and a bit better English, but she was still a Japanese national.

The Netherlands provided welfare benefits to her, because that is the decent thing to do and it is Dutch law. She was taken care of very well at her old age, being provided with an apartment to live in as well as daily care.

It's very nice the Netherlands provided that to her. But I am really curious: why did she not naturalise if her intent was to stay in the Netherlands for the rest of her life?

Even when those people have paid taxes and have given their best to society in their earlier years, they may be treated like someone disposable.

I'm not sure why you think being told "use your own country's social welfare system" is equivalent to being "disposable". But in any case, who gets to judge how much tax, how many years, and how much "best" is enough contribution to society to be considered eligible in your proposal?

I think maybe being this far out in bumfuck people just assume that you're doomed to be here for life. Or maybe it's just a Tohoku thing. People don't even try to speak to me in anything but Japanese, and they're never surprised that I speak it. I can't remember the last time I heard "oh, your Japanese is so good!" Hmm ... maybe it isn't. But on the other hand, I used to get that nonsense for mumbling a single word like "arigatou" sometimes. I really like just being treated like a normal person.

Actually this "normal person" treatment is pretty much my experience in Tokyo, too, nowadays. I suspect Choko is just getting the special famous footballer treatment.

Last time I got spoken English to was by the staff at an Indian restaurant, whose heavily accented Japanese was so incomprehensible that after I said "what?" 3 times, he switched to English. I only had to have him repeat it 1 extra time in English before I understood what he was saying.

[Russell]

Still, Japan has no law to provide non-nationals with permanent residence with welfare benefits in case said people fall upon hard times (think: get a terrible disease and lose their job as a result of it, etc.).

Aren't those people completely eligible for welfare benefits from their own country? Why do they need to use Japan's benefits? If your answer is "because they don't want to return to their own country; they're settled in to life in Japan", then I would ask: if they've chosen to live in Japan forever, why don't they naturalise?

Why is it necessary to naturalise to receive benefits that should be standard for people living here? These benefits are de facto extended to the great majority of the non-resident cases by municipalities, which shows that it is normal practice in this country. That is what I expect from a civilized society. I only ask this to be made into law, rather than it be decided by some faceless bureaucrat without accountability.

So, what's next in your world? Eligibility to join the health care system, the pension system, and unemployment benefits made conditional upon being naturalized? Having your human rights respected in this country only when you are a national?!?

(note there are all sorts of special cases such as people who can't return to their country and can't naturalise for some external reason, and those cases do indeed need to be handled. But I am talking about the majority of cases where it's a voluntary choice)

Even when those people have paid taxes and have given their best to society in their earlier years, they may be treated like someone disposable.

I'm not sure why you think being told "use your own country's social welfare system" is equivalent to being "disposable". But in any case, who gets to judge how much tax, how many years, and how much "best" is enough contribution to society to be considered eligible in your proposal?

So, a permanent resident has lived here a large part of his life, contributed to society* (= has worked here for an extended time, has started a family, has built a house, etc.), and plans to spend his old days here, but he befalls upon unfortunate circumstances, so you think it is OK then to dump him/her on a plane to his/her country of citizenship to take care for the rest? That sounds like a hell of a social contract. Do you really think that is civilized conduct?

* In case you don't understand what "contribute to society" means, try to think of the reasons why Japan wants to attract more foreign workers. Isn't that because it wants them to contribute to their society?

[omae mona]

Why is it necessary to naturalise to receive benefits that should be standard for people living here?

I think you might be making a circular argument. "Should be standard" is just your judgment. It looks like the Japanese government (and many other countries too) don't see it that way.

So, what's next in your world? Eligibility to join the health care system, the pension system, and unemployment benefits made conditional upon being naturalized?

I am pretty sure when governments confer those benefits to non-citizens it's out of practical concerns, not humanitarian. I don't think they want people without health system access running around un-vaccinated, spreading tuberculosis, etc. Each government has their own calculus for what they think makes sense and what does not. I am sure lots of governments (possibly the Japanese government included) make bad choices, but I don't deny them their right to choose which benefits apply and which don't.

Having your human rights respected in this country only when you are a national?!?

I wouldn't live in a country as a foreigner where that was not guaranteed. In fact, there are plenty of countries where your human rights are not respected even when you are a national, and I certainly wouldn't live there either.

So, a permanent resident has lived here a large part of his life, contributed to society* (= has worked here for an extended time, has started a family, has built a house, etc.), and plans to spend his old days here, but he befalls upon unfortunate circumstances, so you think it is OK then to dump him/her on a plane to his/her country of citizenship to take care for the rest?

You're going to hate my answer: yes, I think it's OK. If the permanent resident did not want that to happen, he should have naturalised. If you've lived here a large part of your life and plan to spend your old days here, why wouldn't you do it? The Japanese government does not make it very burdensome, from what I've heard. It's some paperwork and a few office visits. It should be easy for somebody with the background you've just described.

That sounds like a hell of a social contract. Do you really think that is civilized conduct?

You never signed up for that contract. You need to file the naturalisation papers.

(again note that I think there are many people in special circumstances, e.g. special permanent residents, political refugees, etc., who are not exactly here voluntarily and cannot reasonably return to their own countries and receive benefits there, yet might have reasons not to naturalise. I'm not talking about them.)

Personally, I would expect to get kicked out if I fell upon hard times, and I would not think it was unfair. I expect the U.S. to take care of me. If I ever got to the point where I decide I want to stay here the rest of my life and make sure Japan takes care of me when I'm in trouble, not the U.S., then I would definitely naturalise.

[matsuki]

I think maybe being this far out in bumfuck people just assume that you're doomed to be here for life. Or maybe it's just a Tohoku thing. People don't even try to speak to me in anything but Japanese, and they're never surprised that I speak it. I can't remember the last time I heard "oh, your Japanese is so good!" Hmm ... maybe it isn't. But on the other hand, I used to get that nonsense for mumbling a single word like "arigatou" sometimes. I really like just being treated like a normal person.

Actually this "normal person" treatment is pretty much my experience in Tokyo, too, nowadays. I suspect Choko is just getting the special famous footballer treatment.

Last time I got spoken English to was by the staff at an Indian restaurant, whose heavily accented Japanese was so incomprehensible that after I said "what?" 3 times, he switched to English. I only had to have him repeat it 1 extra time in English before I understood what he was saying.

Most of them think I'm in my late 20's...so one might interpret it that if you're here at an older age, you're a lifer. If you're fairly young, you're temporary.

[Takechanpoo]

I knew an old Japanese woman (now deceased) living in Holland, who was married to a Dutchman in the past, but then separated. She could speak a little Dutch and a bit better English, but she was still a Japanese national.

The Netherlands provided welfare benefits to her, because that is the decent thing to do and it is Dutch law. She was taken care of very well at her old age, being provided with an apartment to live in as well as daily care.

Consider this. The Netherlands has very open borders, but still provides these benefits to non-nationals. Because of these open borders (especially for citizens of other EU countries) a debate has now started on who should receive those benefits, but there is no question that people like her would continue to receive benefits. After all, she has given her best in her younger years to the benefit of the state.



I will never forget what the above old Japanese woman said to me when I told her that I intended to stay in Japan:

Please, come back to Holland, because you will never be one of them. I know their mindset.

I still hope she was wrong...

excuse me, holland is not just right beside gigantic China unlike Japan. nevertheless holland and other north EU states are already on the verge of collapse, thanks to that ultra liberal policy. if japan took the same policy with holland, chinese and kimchese would greedily devour Japans welfare system as quick as lighting.

[Russell]

Why is it necessary to naturalise to receive benefits that should be standard for people living here?

I think you might be making a circular argument. "Should be standard" is just your judgment. It looks like the Japanese government (and many other countries too) don't see it that way.

Well, since it has been standard practice for a long time, but only left to the judgement of municipalities, it is not unreasonable to call it standard practice. Nothing circular here. I only wish it to become enshrined in law.

So, what's next in your world? Eligibility to join the health care system, the pension system, and unemployment benefits made conditional upon being naturalized?

I am pretty sure when governments confer those benefits to non-citizens it's out of practical concerns, not humanitarian. I don't think they want people without health system access running around un-vaccinated, spreading tuberculosis, etc.

You do know how social security systems have come into existence, I hope? They have their roots in the end of 19th century / beginning of 20th century, when laborers wanted to have more security in their lives. It is not just practical, but also humanitarian.

Each government has their own calculus for what they think makes sense and what does not. I am sure lots of governments (possibly the Japanese government included) make bad choices, but I don't deny them their right to choose which benefits apply and which don't.

For sure it is their right to decide, but that is beyond the point. Important is what do they decide? In the end it boils down to what kind of society they want.

Having your human rights respected in this country only when you are a national?!?

I wouldn't live in a country as a foreigner where that was not guaranteed. In fact, there are plenty of countries where your human rights are not respected even when you are a national, and I certainly wouldn't live there either.

In other words, the kind of benefits you extend to foreigners as a society determines how attractive you are to live in for those foreigners. Did I tell you that Japan wants to attract more foreigners, BTW?

So, a permanent resident has lived here a large part of his life, contributed to society* (= has worked here for an extended time, has started a family, has built a house, etc.), and plans to spend his old days here, but he befalls upon unfortunate circumstances, so you think it is OK then to dump him/her on a plane to his/her country of citizenship to take care for the rest?

You're going to hate my answer: yes, I think it's OK. If the permanent resident did not want that to happen, he should have naturalised. If you've lived here a large part of your life and plan to spend your old days here, why wouldn't you do it? The Japanese government does not make it very burdensome, from what I've heard. It's some paperwork and a few office visits. It should be easy for somebody with the background you've just described.

We fundamentally differ in opinion on this. In the end a society is not an abstract entity, but it is a group of people living together. Your concept of dumping people when you don't need them anymore is inhumane.

Regarding your statement that "he should have naturalized because it is easy" is irrelevant. The ease by which one can be naturalized may differ from person to person. And would you reverse your opinion if it would become difficult to naturalize?

That sounds like a hell of a social contract. Do you really think that is civilized conduct?

You never signed up for that contract. You need to file the naturalisation papers.

Nope, you enter into a social contract with a society by being accepted to live there. This has nothing to do with being naturalized or not.

Personally, I would expect to get kicked out if I fell upon hard times, and I would not think it was unfair. I expect the U.S. to take care of me. If I ever got to the point where I decide I want to stay here the rest of my life and make sure Japan takes care of me when I'm in trouble, not the U.S., then I would definitely naturalise.

I hope you'll never be in a situation where you need welfare benefits, but you may get a cold shower when the need arises and you decide to return to the U.S.

[havill]

So, a permanent resident has lived here a large part of his life, contributed to society* (= has worked here for an extended time, has started a family, has built a house, etc.), and plans to spend his old days here, but he befalls upon unfortunate circumstances, so you think it is OK then to dump him/her on a plane to his/her country of citizenship to take care for the rest?

You're going to hate my answer: yes, I think it's OK. If the permanent resident did not want that to happen, he should have naturalised. If you've lived here a large part of your life and plan to spend your old days here, why wouldn't you do it? The Japanese government does not make it very burdensome, from what I've heard. It's some paperwork and a few office visits. It should be easy for somebody with the background you've just described.

This is why I hate the term "permanent resident" (永住者) — even when I was one, which is one motivation why I changed to a true legal J national: it's not really "permanent", and by using those two words it gives a false sense of "membership" ergo entitlement to citizen/national's rights. The SoR (Status of Residence [for a foreigner]; 在留資格) of Permanent Resident (永住者; PR) only gives you two things:

1. No need to renew the SoR and no hassle of needing to re-qualify for SoR (you still need to renew the Residence Card, and you still need to have the Residence Card on your person†)
2. No connection or condition of your SoR to either work or your family (marriage/dependence on a PR/J spouse and/or family), and vice versa, no restriction on your need to be employed in a certain field or remain married to a J/PR spouse.

That's it. It's not literally "permanent" from either side's perspective; the foreigner doesn't promise to live/be a "resident" in Japan forever when they apply and get for it, and Japan doesn't promise that it's "permanent" either: you lose it if you're out of the country for over a year‡ or if you're pinched by the law for a serious enough crime — just like a non-PR foreigner*.

It's in reality just a "super visa", to use a colloquial abused term ("visa"). A better word for it would be "no-conditions or qualified-renewal needed life/work permit", but that's a mouthful in English or Japanese.

I've met many people without "PR" who have lasted/lived in Japan longer than those who had "PR". For many people, the first thing they do when they get married to a J-spouse and stay married for 3 years is they go for the "expedited" fast-track PR qualification. Do they do so because they actually plan to be in Japan "permanently"? No, they do so because of the "super visa" convenience of not having to worry about renewals or further qualifications.

If you asked these "permanent residents" whether they planned on being in Japan "permanently" they would snort and laugh at you.

And to make the abuse of the term even worse, the tax agency (税務署) has a different definition of "permanent resident" than the MoJ (法務省): as far as the tax department is considered, you're a "permanent resident" if you've been in Japan for 5 years no matter what, which means you lose your generous tax breaks on foreign income.

--
† Don't need the card on your person if you're SPR
‡ Two years if SPR
* If SPR, the only crimes that gets the SPR revoked and the person deported are High Crimes like terrorism, treason, attempting to overthrow the gov, etc.

[Russell]

I knew an old Japanese woman (now deceased) living in Holland, who was married to a Dutchman in the past, but then separated. She could speak a little Dutch and a bit better English, but she was still a Japanese national.

The Netherlands provided welfare benefits to her, because that is the decent thing to do and it is Dutch law. She was taken care of very well at her old age, being provided with an apartment to live in as well as daily care.

Consider this. The Netherlands has very open borders, but still provides these benefits to non-nationals. Because of these open borders (especially for citizens of other EU countries) a debate has now started on who should receive those benefits, but there is no question that people like her would continue to receive benefits. After all, she has given her best in her younger years to the benefit of the state.



I will never forget what the above old Japanese woman said to me when I told her that I intended to stay in Japan:

Please, come back to Holland, because you will never be one of them. I know their mindset.

I still hope she was wrong...

excuse me, holland is not just right beside gigantic China unlike Japan. nevertheless holland and other north EU states are already on the verge of collapse, thanks to that ultra liberal policy. if japan took the same policy with holland, chinese and kimchese would greedily devour Japans welfare system as quick as lighting.

Takechan, thanks for your post.

No, Japan would be of no risk, because they can control the flow of foreigners entering their country through a visa system. Holland and many EU countries cannot. That is the difference.

I do not compare Japan to China. Japan's social security system is much better than China's (though not as good as some EU countries).

But did you know that of all the foreigners who choose to live in Holland, the Chinese are the least troublesome? They tend to be the last ones to use the social security system, out of pride.

[omae mona]

Well, since it has been standard practice for a long time, but only left to the judgement of municipalities, it is not unreasonable to call it standard practice. Nothing circular here. I only wish it to become enshrined in law.

Ah, understood. The only thing I'd say is that I'm not sure how much it's been "standard practice". Do we know how often non-citizens (other than SPRs) have received social welfare benefits in Japan?

I am pretty sure when governments confer those benefits to non-citizens it's out of practical concerns, not humanitarian. I don't think they want people without health system access running around un-vaccinated, spreading tuberculosis, etc.

You do know how social security systems have come into existence, I hope? They have their roots in the end of 19th century / beginning of 20th century, when laborers wanted to have more security in their lives. It is not just practical, but also humanitarian.

I think you're referring to social security systems built for citizens. When Japan grants residence to foreigners (aside from refugees) I assure you the goal is not humanitarian. When deciding how government programs should apply to foreigners, I think they are only concerned with the practical aspects. Unlike citizens, it's always assumed that the ultimate safety net for foreigners is to return home; there is no need for humanitarian assistance. I doubt this is unique to Japan whatsoever.

Having your human rights respected in this country only when you are a national?!?

In other words, the kind of benefits you extend to foreigners as a society determines how attractive you are to live in for those foreigners. Did I tell you that Japan wants to attract more foreigners, BTW?

Japan could also attract more foreigners by giving them a 100 million yen stipend for entering the country, granting them a plot of land inside the imperial palace grounds, or offering free weekly blow jobs. Obviously the policy clarification does not *help* attract foreigners, but trying to attract foreigners does not mean Japan has to extend every conceivable benefit. Anyway, I highly doubt availability of social welfare was an aspect attracting foreigners here to begin with, and I highly doubt fewer people will come because of the clarified policy.

Regarding your statement that "he should have naturalized because it is easy" is irrelevant. The ease by which one can be naturalized may differ from person to person. And would you reverse your opinion if it would become difficult to naturalise?

If by "difficult" you mean due to circumstances beyond the person's control, yes, I would reverse my opinion. For example, if one were rejected on naturalisation due to a speeding ticket, I'd have a lot of sympathy for somebody who had built their life here and wanted to naturalise, yet could not, and therefore could not receive social welfare benefits.

But I think the cases we're talking about are mainly people who just couldn't be bothered. I'm not pretending it's not a pain in the ass to go through the process. But that's no excuse.

Nope, you enter into a social contract with a society by being accepted to live there. This has nothing to do with being naturalized or not.

OK, let's avoid quibbling about the definition of "social contract"; my point is that when you enter this country as a foreigner, there is no mutual agreement anywhere that you are entitled to social welfare benefits. You're not entitled to vote either. Nor a host of other things (nicely listed on Eido's site). Is this agreement "civilised conduct"? Yes, I think so, and again, Japan is not alone. Just because some other countries grant more rights to resident foreigners does not mean Japan is not being civilised.

I hope you'll never be in a situation where you need welfare benefits, but you may get a cold shower when the need arises and you decide to return to the U.S.

Are you saying the U.S. embassy will leave me on the street when I am knocking on the door saying I'm penniless, know nobody who can help, and need help getting home? I hope not (but if you're right, I need to start working on making friends with embassy staff...)

Don't get me wrong. I'd be THRILLED if social welfare (along with other benefits: voting, etc.) were available to me as a non-citizen. And I think it might even be good policy for Japan. But just because I want it does not mean Japan has to choose it. They are well within their rights, and they have not veered from any kind of global standards as far as I know.

[omae mona]

This is why I hate the term "permanent resident" (永住者) — even when I was one, which is one motivation why I changed to a true legal J national: it's not really "permanent", and by using those two words it gives a false sense of "membership" ergo entitlement to citizen/national's rights.

I agree the term's confusing. I have run across a few people that seem to have that false sense of entitlement. Though to be fair, the vast majority of PR holders I know look at it (appropriately) as nothing but a SoR that lets them avoid the annoying trip to the immigration office every few years.

1. No need to renew the SoR and no hassle of needing to re-qualify for SoR (you still need to renew the Residence Card, and you still need to have the Residence Card on your person†)
2. No connection or condition of your SoR to either work or your family (marriage/dependence on a PR/J spouse and/or family), and vice versa, no restriction on your need to be employed in a certain field or remain married to a J/PR spouse.

If I can add one more to your list... apropos to your comment about Tax PR below, my understanding is that you instantly become a tax permanent resident if you attain PR SoR, even if you have not yet met the 5 year threshold. So this is a minus. So for those folks married for 3 years that seem to be able to get PR now, beware that by doing so I think you're subjecting your worldwide income to Japanese taxes 2 years earlier than you would otherwise.

And to make the abuse of the term even worse, the tax agency (税務署) has a different definition of "permanent resident" than the MoJ (法務省): as far as the tax department is considered, you're a "permanent resident" if you've been in Japan for 5 years no matter what, which means you lose your generous tax breaks on foreign income.

And by the way... they caught on to the "leave Japan after 4.9 years and come back 3 months later on a new work visa" scam. The rule is a total of 5 years - consecutive or not - within the last 10 year window.

That's it. Do they do so because they actually plan to be in Japan "permanently"? No, they do so because of the "super visa" convenience of not having to worry about renewals or further qualifications.

If you asked these "permanent residents" whether they planned on being in Japan "permanently" they would snort and laugh at you.

That pretty much describes me. In fact, I just snorted. There's a reasonable chance I stay permanently. Right now Japan is where I want to be. But if a number of things happened (e.g. my family all died in a tragic accident and I lost my job at the host club), I probably would be on an airplane back to the U.S. This is why I don't naturalise. I figure if I ever got to the point where I'd prefer to stay in Japan despite all the above, then it's time to naturalise.

[Coligny]

Just a side question.

Switching to japanese citizenship requires abandoning your initial nationality...

But it changes nothing on the condition by which you were given your first nationality from the start.
By it birth right by location of birth or nationality of the parents. It stays the same, so what prevent anyone to reclaim their nationality under initial condition ? It's not exactly like a one use discount coupon...

[Mike Oxlong]

What Coligny describes is what Americans who took Canadian citizenship used to do when dual citizenship was not recognized. Reapplying for American citizenship was just the final hoop to jump through to have both nationalities.

[Samurai_Jerk]

what prevent anyone to reclaim their nationality under initial condition ?

The country who's nationality you gave up. I'm sure there are plenty of countries that won't just automatically give you your nationality back.

[wagyl]

Indeed. It is not always easy. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... nship.html

[Coligny]

what prevent anyone to reclaim their nationality under initial condition ?

The country who's nationality you gave up. I'm sure there are plenty of countries that won't just automatically give you your nationality back.

Unless they wrote explicit special clause into citizenship laws and highlight them at renouncement time it's a good way to end on UN / European shitlist . And if they wrote it into laws, that's an even better way to end up on said shitlist.

Refusing to reinstate nationality that you previously had while the specific that allowed it the first time have not changed is nothing more than punition. And punition without breaking any laws or committing crimes is usually illegal. Not allowing a former citizen to regain citizenship just because of previous renunciation while allowing non citizen to access it is discrimination, a restriction of freedom -to follow the law, no less- for the citizen. Saying you are french because your parents are french, you can legally renounce your citizenship, then saying you can no longer be french despite still having french parents don't really sound sane... But sound really feudal... So it might be ok for england and other teacup/banana dictatorship but much harder to defend in normal republic.

[havill]

what prevent anyone to reclaim their nationality under initial condition ?

The country who's nationality you gave up. I'm sure there are plenty of countries that won't just automatically give you your nationality back.

Unless they wrote explicit special clause into citizenship laws and highlight them at renouncement time it's a good way to end on UN / European shitlist . And if they wrote it into laws, that's an even better way to end up on said shitlist.

Refusing to reinstate nationality that you previously had while the specific that allowed it the first time have not changed is nothing more than punition. And punition without breaking any laws or committing crimes is usually illegal. Not allowing a former citizen to regain citizenship just because of previous renunciation while allowing non citizen to access it is discrimination, a restriction of freedom -to follow the law, no less- for the citizen. Saying you are french because your parents are french, you can legally renounce your citizenship, then saying you can no longer be french despite still having french parents don't really sound sane... But sound really feudal... So it might be ok for england and other teacup/banana dictatorship but much harder to defend in normal republic.

According to this, there are cases where you cannot get French citizenship back.

http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/part ... 3071.xhtml

tfdr: renounce fr nationality, naturalize, get in trouble with the law and/or is already in France irregularly, then try to get fr citizenship back.

[omae mona]

But sound really feudal... So it might be ok for england and other teacup/banana dictatorship but much harder to defend in normal republic.

According to this, there are cases where you cannot get French citizenship back.