No Welfare for Foreigners – Supreme Court

[Wage Slave]

I get it and I'm not saying that I agree with the idea of excluding foreigners from welfare. Especially not permanent residents, special or otherwise. However, by choosing not to become a citizen you have to accept that you'll never have the full rights of a Japanese national and the rights you do have can change for better or for worse with less controversy and push back than taking the rights away from citizens.

Understood and agreed. This is all a part of the thinking process that has me in sort of a stalemate.

The trouble is that there is this idea of monogamy about citizenship - as if it is a kind of marriage. By choosing Japanese citizenship you must agree to forsake all others forever which I don't agree with at all and in the case of people from a mixed background is simply at odds with the reality.

I dislike the way these people are saying "regardless of whether they pay Japanese tax or not" when they know full well that we are all required to pay Japanese tax not only on our income here but also on income generated outside Japan with funds and assets that have no historical connection with Japan whatsoever.

So Havil said earlier that if you find yourself in dire straits, for whatever reason, then you should seek assistance from your country of origin, not the place where you live and pay taxes to the communal pot. How far does this rather one sided view of citizenship stretch then? If I develop a medical condition that requires expensive treatment, should that also be denied me on the same grounds?

[havill]

The trouble is that there is this idea of monogamy about citizenship - as if it is a kind of marriage. By choosing Japanese citizenship you must agree to forsake all others forever which I don't agree with at all and in the case of people from a mixed background is simply at odds with the reality.

Unfortunately, that's the rub; Japan's legally wonky view of nationality doesn't interpret nationality as being proof/connection to one's "background" or "identity". It is a legal link to a set of laws. And they want "monogamy" because Japan wants the right to make its own laws for its own people on its own land. Which means those laws are often going to conflict with other countries laws, which have a different idea of doing things.

When you naturalize to Japanese, you sign an oath. Not an oath to swear allegiance to the Emperor, not to swear to speak and act Japanese, not to swear to wear Japanese clothes and participate in festivals. You swear to obey the Japanese Constitution and its Laws. Period. They make it very clear that you're legally connecting yourself to a government and it's legal system. Your mixed background/identity/race is 100% irrelevant as far as nationality is concerned.

In this day and age with the trans-continental airliner being a cheap and accessible mode of transportation to the Everyman, the ability for a multi-national to "forum shop" -- that is, if they don't like a countries laws, they simply move to a country where the like the laws that is out of jurisdiction.

This gives multi-nationals a power that regular single-nationals don't have -- subverting the principle of "all people obeying the same laws". (Dual Nationals can leave when the law doesn't go their way... and depending on the case, the Other Country may shield them from the Other Country's law if the law conflicts.

And that's why Japan and many other countries don't like multiple nationalities.

For example, to quote the United States' State.gov site page on Dual Nationality:

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad.

==

If you're wondering, "yeah, but how often does this happen where you get into a situation where the differing laws between two countries actually affect you?" With Japan, quite a lot: think Family Law. Whether you agree with it or not, Japan has very different ideas of Family Law, particularly with child custody post-divorce etc.

The poster-child for "forum shopping" dual national run amok, by the way, is a certain American (who I'm not going to name on purpose) who naturalized to Japanese and went through a nasty divorce. He didn't like how Japanese law would treat him, despite taking an OATH to Japanese law (by naturalizing), so he went to the U.S. to get a better deal. And by getting a "better deal", that meant his Japanese national wife getting a worse deal, depending on your point of view.

==

Now, I'm very aware of "identity politics" and the (unofficial) power that a Passport plays in providing an "proof of cultural/ethnic/background identity." Here's the scenario that not a few Japanese-Americans experience as a kid (true story, as relayed to me by a 2-sei J-A)

2G or 3G J-A kid born in U.S. Native language is English. Learns "Kitchen Japanese" or less from Mom. Born and raised in America, the kid becomes American, of course, preferring cereal and pancakes over rice and fish in the morning for breakfast. Still, has pride in his "ethnic background" cause his parents are Japanese, he LOOKS Japanese, and hey, Japan is cool. Gets teased like every kid in the world in school, white kids making fun of his Asian eyes, doing the "ching chong dong" bit, etc. Kid wonders if, because he's not white, he really "belongs". TLDR: Kids are cruel and mean everywhere.

Eventually, that CJKV kid gets taken to the "homeland" by the parents to "explore their heritage. Kid looks forward to going to a place where people will accept him even though his skin isn't White. At playground, other kids look at him funny when he opens his mouth: speaks broken/old/accented Japanese... doesn't know what's hip (TV shows, toys, stores)... like he has lived in a cave. While trying to fit in and follow the other kids conversation and asking questions, one of the kids loses patience, saying "taro wa gaijin dakara wakaranai." TLDR: Kids are cruel and mean everywhere.

Kid tells mom and dad about playground incident. Mom & Dad worry that their intent to instill pride and interest in their homeland is in danger, and the kid may grow up to be a twinkie. Mom pulls out kids Japanese passport that she applied for at the embassy in America... shows it to kid and says "no, that's not true. You are not gaijin. See! This is proof that you are not a foreigner. You are the Same As Them.

Anyway, there are about a hundred variants of that story, but the punchline is the same: the passport "as proof of cultural/ethnic identity" is not really a legal thing, but the passport is often important to hyphenated Americans and people of other nationalities -- to prove something that the passport is not legally designed to prove.

That's often why they will fight tooth and nail to keep that passport even if they have no intention of ever living or working (or even visiting) the country.

[Wage Slave]

I don't understand why it is a significant concern or even a threat to a nation's sovereignty.

If it is criminal law, then it categorically applies to everyone in the country whatever passports you may hold - excepting the diplomatic variety of course. If you try to run away on a Japanese passport or A N Other passport then you are subject to the same rules in respect of extradition and asylum. If it is not a significant issue for people with PR, then why is it an issue for people with a Japanese and A N Other passport?

If someone goes off to Reno, leverages their US citizenship and divorces one of your citizens then it may be valid in The US but surely there is no reason you are forced to recognise the validity of that process. If there is an issue with child custody then the solution is to strike agreements with other countries to manage the issue in the best interests of the child. How does it strengthen the Japanese side if one party does not have a Japanese passport? Except of course that that person doesn't have to be treated according to the same laws - And yet the argument was that A Country needs to defend the absolute jurisdiction of A Country's laws.

Isn't it more likely that the insistence on monogamy is based on more (ahem) traditional and emotional ideas about citizenship and nation states?

[havill]

I don't understand why it is a significant concern or even a threat to a nation's sovereignty.

If it is criminal law, then it categorically applies to everyone in the country whatever passports you may hold - excepting the diplomatic variety of course. If you try to run away on a Japanese passport or A N Other passport then you are subject to the same rules in respect of extradition and asylum. If it is not a significant issue for people with PR, then why is it an issue for people with a Japanese and A N Other passport?

Countries only extradite if the crime committed is also a crime in its country as well. Not to mention many other conditions (i.e. only serious crimes with puniahments in excess of XX years etc), including whether or not the country has an extradition treaty with that country or not.

Japan, (like France, Germany, Brazil, China, Taiwan...), doesn't extradite its nationals, period. Treaty or no treaty.

That's why many Japanese spouses have, until this year, been able to flee with their kids to Japan without needing to fear extradition.

http://www.turning-japanese.info/2014/0 ... ition.html

As for the PR issue, PR, at least in Japan, is nothing special wrt citizenship and legal connections. The foreigner doesn't promise to be in Japan forever, and Japan doesn't promise that PR is forever. There's nothing "permanent" about it. It's merely a "super visa". PR IS an issue in many cases: one reason that landlords/banks are hesitant to lease/rent/loan to foreigners is because if they flee without paying to a foreign country, the penalty for abandoning your debt and payments isn't high enough (usually three years) to qualify for extradition.

[Wage Slave]

As I said, the solution to these problems is not to deny people dual citizenship but to form agreements with other countries that operate in the best interests of justice. I don't mind in my case - it doesn't matter, but for people who ARE dual nationals what good is served by not recognising that reality?

BTW, My quick reading of your link indicated that Japan would extradite people but not for less serious crimes. Or did I read that wrong and Japan never extradites anyone for any crime committed outside Japan? I'll take your word for it either way.

Anyway, none of that affects the power of Japanese law in Japan does it? If someone commits a crime in Japan they are subject to the full weight of Japanese law whether they have a Japanese passport, AN Other passport or both. If you want to intercept them trying to leave then if they have a Japanese passport it would be easier because you have more information about them - no?

[omae mona]

If someone goes off to Reno, leverages their US citizenship and divorces one of your citizens then it may be valid in The US but surely there is no reason you are forced to recognise the validity of that process.

Sure there is! They are physically in the U.S. with a court judgment and there's nothing Japan can do about it, is there? Say the U.S. court divides the couple's assets 50/50 and grants the husband a massive alimony paid out of his wife's salary. That ain't the way Japan does it, and there's nothing Japan can do to stop it.

If there is an issue with child custody then the solution is to strike agreements with other countries to manage the issue in the best interests of the child.

There's never going to be a treaty in which US judges are compelled to rule according to anything resembling Japanese standards because one party has Japanese citizenship, nor vice versa. The best they can hope to accomplish is Hague, which merely says "the country where the kid was living is the country whose rules apply". And the "best interests of the child" policy for divorce arrangements is a US-centric view. I happen to agree with it, but Japan does not (or one could say they do, but the Japanese legal system's opinion of "best interests" is very different than the US's)

[Wage Slave]

If someone goes off to Reno, leverages their US citizenship and divorces one of your citizens then it may be valid in The US but surely there is no reason you are forced to recognise the validity of that process.

Sure there is! They are physically in the U.S. with a court judgment and there's nothing Japan can do about it, is there? Say the U.S. court divides the couple's assets 50/50 and grants the husband a massive alimony paid out of his wife's salary. That ain't the way Japan does it, and there's nothing Japan can do to stop it.

If the wife is in Japan then how does the the husband enforce it without co-operation from the Japanese side? And how would it benefit him to have a Japanese passport as well as an American one? If the wife is in the US then the whole thing is subject to American law irrespective of what passports anyone may or may not have.

[havill]

(Where's the damn delete post button?)

[Wage Slave]

That ain't the way Japan does it, and there's nothing Japan can do to stop it.

And now you see the problem.

?

I didn't write that and I regret to say I still fail to see how restricting someone to one passport with a PR stamp in it or only a Japanese passport makes the slightest bit of difference in these cases. Not that I care for myself, after all I have no reasonable claim to be or need to be a Japanese national, but I really fail to see any justification for denying people who ARE by birth dual nationals their rightful status.

And as for Oh, it's not fair it gives some people an advantage, well surely that's life. People are born with all sorts of advantages and disadvantages - why pick on this one?

[havill]

I didn't write that.

Oops, my bad, you're right. Editing on a cell phone is Hard. Sorry. Deleting.

[omae mona]

If someone goes off to Reno, leverages their US citizenship and divorces one of your citizens then it may be valid in The US but surely there is no reason you are forced to recognise the validity of that process.

Sure there is! They are physically in the U.S. with a court judgment and there's nothing Japan can do about it, is there? Say the U.S. court divides the couple's assets 50/50 and grants the husband a massive alimony paid out of his wife's salary. That ain't the way Japan does it, and there's nothing Japan can do to stop it.

If the wife is in Japan then how does the the husband enforce it without co-operation from the Japanese side? And how would it benefit him to have a Japanese passport as well as an American one? If the wife is in the US then the whole thing is subject to American law irrespective of what passports anyone may or may not have.

Sorry, let me clarify the scenario I was talking about (which is what I thought you were talking about too, but maybe I was mistaken). Couple with Japan nationality, but the husband also has U.S. nationality. Let's say they have joint assets in banks in the U.S. If he didn't have U.S. citizenship, he might only be able to get a small part of the rich wife's assets based on Japan's legal system. But by using his U.S. nationality, he flees to the U.S. and gets a U.S. judge to issue a court order to transfer half the assets to him. (yes, you're right, the U.S. probably has no ability to garnish the wife's wages in Japan, but they can garnish any income from U.S. investments and they can move U.S. assets from her account into his).

And now you see the problem.

Yes, but there is also a quote attribution problem.

[Wage Slave]

Hmmm. Anyway, as far as UK citizens are concerned there is another angle. You have a right to reclaim your citizenship after you have renounced it in order to gain or avoid losing another citizenship. You have a right to do this once. The second or further times it is discretionary.

It costs though. £844 or so.

As I said, I have no interest at all in getting Japanese citizenship if it means getting involved in this sort of nonsense but for my kids that might be a possible way out of the impasse.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279405/Guide_RS1_January_2014.pdf

[Wage Slave]

Sorry, let me clarify the scenario I was talking about (which is what I thought you were talking about too, but maybe I was mistaken). Couple with Japan nationality, but the husband also has U.S. nationality. Let's say they have joint assets in banks in the U.S. If he didn't have U.S. citizenship, he might only be able to get a small part of the rich wife's assets based on Japan's legal system. But by using his U.S. nationality, he flees to the U.S. and gets a U.S. judge to issue a court order to transfer half the assets to him. (yes, you're right, the U.S. probably has no ability to garnish the wife's wages in Japan, but they can garnish any income from U.S. investments and they can move U.S. assets from her account into his).

OK same scenario and suppose he doesn't have Japanese nationality as is the law now. He has PR. What is to stop exactly the same thing happening? What difference would allowing him Japanese nationality make? And if the wife also had both then I assume she would be in a better position to fight him in the US.

It's about inclusion, equal rights and justice for people with a substantial connection to the country. It shouldn't be about emotion, blood, hocus pocus or trying to privilege a particular group over another.

[Wage Slave]

I didn't write that.

Oops, my bad, you're right. Editing on a cell phone is Hard. Sorry. Deleting.

That's OK - Nothing to worry about.

[omae mona]

OK same scenario and suppose he doesn't have Japanese nationality as is the law now. He has PR. What is to stop exactly the same thing happening? What difference would allowing him Japanese nationality make? And if the wife also had both then I assume she would be in a better position to fight him in the US.

Yes, you're right for this divorce issue, but there might be a completely different issue in his life (relating to something domestic in Japan) where he would be at a disadvantage by having PR and missing out on some rights granted to Japanese citizens. Presumably that's why he wanted Japanese citizenship (I guess our make believe guy naturalised in Japan but retained his U.S. citizenship in a make believe world where this is allowed).

I think Havill's point is that having two nationalities allows you to choose your jurisdiction for any legal issue that comes up, picking whichever one suits you better and escaping the other. This guy might flee to the U.S. for divorce issues, and might flee to Japan for murder issues (where he can get off easier for "abandoning a body" rather than murder) You really can't do this with single citizenship. I think it's a rational reason for a country to take a stand against dual citizenship.

That doesn't mean I agree with Japan's stance. I personally think they'd see more benefits from allowing dual citizenship than harm that comes from issues like the above (not that my uninformed opinion counts or will sway Japan's stance!). But I do recognise that there is a basis for their stance.

[havill]

That doesn't mean I agree with Japan's stance. I personally think they'd see more benefits from allowing dual citizenship than harm that comes from issues like the above (not that my uninformed opinion counts or will sway Japan's stance!). But I do recognise that there is a basis for their stance.

I think India's solution is good: they have something called a "OCI": Overseas Citizen of India.

You could get something that looks like a passport that serves as the pseudo "proof of cultural/ethnic identity" that is often more important than the legal meaning of nationality for many hyphenated people.

It basically gives you a REAL permanent ability to enter, live, and work in India. But you're not legally linked to India's constitution or laws, and you can't vote or run for office. It also means you're not bound to any legal duties or responsibilities, present or future, that Indian law may require of its nationals.

Anyway, if Japan adopted something similar, it would give Japanese-Americans etc the legal ID they could use as proof of their "cultural identity/heritage", and give them an unlimited pass to enter and work and leave and come back. Without needing the commitment of formally linking the the political entity of Japan, meaning they could keep their other nationalities.

[Wage Slave]

I can see that could be a solution for people who are overseas citizens of Japan. ie They grew up outside Japan. But what about people who grew up in Japan? In that case, the other country would need to issue an overseas citizen's passport. A lot of countries won't want to do that because it is discriminatory and anti inclusive apart from being just dumb. I don't deny there is a basis for the policy but I don't accept it is a sound basis or one that serves any useful purpose.

[wangta]

:wink:

I don't understand why it is a significant concern or even a threat to a nation's sovereignty.
As for the PR issue, PR, at least in Japan, is nothing special wrt citizenship and legal connections. The foreigner doesn't promise to be in Japan forever, and Japan doesn't promise that PR is forever. There's nothing "permanent" about it. It's merely a "super visa". PR IS an issue in many cases: one reason that landlords/banks are hesitant to lease/rent/loan to foreigners is because if they flee without paying to a foreign country, the penalty for abandoning your debt and payments isn't high enough (usually three years) to qualify for extradition.

What always gets me about the issues here and in this thread is how much people who are not Japanese tend to fall into the whole Japanese 'exceptionalism' error. Not saying you are Havill. But the Japanese Govt and other entities with authority in Japan need a good 'Japan is not exceptional' kick up the arse IMO.

The ol 'but foreigners leave/might leave Japan without paying their (insert taxes, loans, rent, bills, etc) which is why blah blah blah just doesn't stand up to reality. Guess what - Japanese and a whole host of other people enter my country Australia, the UK, the US, Canada, New Zealand etc to study, on working holiday visas, sometimes get permanent residency while they are living in those countries (very easy in Australia especially by contrast to all the nonsense gaijin go through to get theirs in Japan including having their fridge inspected by nosey parkesu sans) and unsurprisingly more often than anybody cares to recognise or admit leave without paying their dues.

I remember when I worked in student services at a university we would sometimes get calls from people who had rented their homes or rooms to international students including Japanese through our university's housing service asking could we contact them as they had left without paying bills. In some cases the bills were big. International students who did scams like getting cars on loan schemes, using the cars extensively and then leaving the country without ever paying the loans were mostly from China, Korea, and Japan.

I'd say given the huge increase in international students since then, that unpaid bills and car loan rorts have increased. And then there was the HECS scam committed by permanent residents, mostly from countries like Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Lebanon. At the time I was working at uni, trendy lefties in the Labor Party managed to get the Govt to allow permanent residents as well as citizens to defer their university fees through HECS - you could defer paying tuition fees to when you earned enough as a taxpayer and then had to repay a certain percentage.

Of course guess what happened - a lot of those permanent residents from Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Lebanon moved back home after graduation, didn't return and thus got a free education courtesy of Aussie taxpayers. I fail to see how Japan can make such a self-important fuss about not trusting gaijin with this or that because they are transitory when Japan's own citizens are precisely the same in western countries and have their cake and eat it too. And they get more benefits from permanent residency in other countries than gaijin permanent residents do in Japan.

As for the idea that gaijin can just go and kick rocks over the fact that their tax contributions are the same as Japanese people's but have less value in terms of according basic rights to services that have been well paid for such as healthcare, city hall services etc, it's abominable especially in the case of the Chinese woman in the news story in this thread.

Short term residents, long term residents, permanent residents who are gaijin contribute to the social and other systems and in a logical and decent society would be entitled to receive payments when they need them from the various schemes they paid into at government level. And at other levels.

I paid neighbourhood fees the first time around in Japan - each month I had to pay 1,500 yen in my first neighbourhood and then I paid 800 yen per month in the second neighbourhood I lived in. Did I get any tangible benefits? No. I didn't mind but I also had to fork out more money in 'condolences' when neighbours' relatives died who had not actually lived in the neighbourhoods. I did mind that. And I noticed nobody gave me any collected monies when relatives in Oz died and I had to go home for funerals.

The Japanese need to take a long, hard look at how their govt and society are keen to establish one rule for them and one rule for gaijin even while the financial contributions are the same. It is 2014, not 1914.

[Wage Slave]

And Japanese people never ever skip out on their loans or other bills, do they? Or do they? And Japanese companies and people never take out huge loans and then crash and burn leaving banks and anyone in contact with them nursing huge losses.

Of course they do. But it is part of the cost of doing business - there is always some risk. However, over a large number of transactions that risk can be managed and covered unless you are Ishihara running a bank of course. Oh whoops, that was all Japanese businesses not repaying their loans wasn't it? Their lack of a foreign passport didn't seem to do much to prevent that. It makes not a jot of sense to say that all foreigners are a greater risk than all Japanese people. It's discriminatory, stifles industry and is just bad business. Inclusion and equal opportunities make vast amounts of economic sense - Note how good, growing businesses are always strong supporters.

Still, Japan has a young and growing population and a dynamic economy with obviously rosy prospects so doesn't have to worry about all that stuff eh?

[Russell]

Wangta, you suddenly make sense.

What happened?

[matsuki]

Still, Japan has a young and growing population and a dynamic economy with obviously rosy prospects so doesn't have to worry about all that stuff eh?

This is what irks me beyond all belief....in the face of the next impending nuclear bombs (this time demographic and financial) blowing up in the cuntry, in 2014 even....prejudices and stereotypes are winning the battle over reason and facts.

[kurogane]

Still, Japan has a young and growing population and a dynamic economy with obviously rosy prospects so doesn't have to worry about all that stuff eh?

This is a very important point that I think most died in the wool Japan-Bashers forget. Have any of you been to Akihabara lately? I have. If there is one single intersection in any country that displays the vitality and potential of that land, surely that is it. People will tell you that Japan is done, Japan is dead, Japan is yesterday's news.................those people forget that Japan has not just anime, but also manga.

That's a one two punch if I ever saw one or I don't have a PhD in International Global Developmentalist Economics.

Which I don't, btw.


BTW, is there any advanced country that actually does give welfare to non-residents?????? I would be surprised. I am quite sure foreign workers can't even collect on unemployment in Canada even if they have paid premiums. PRs are different because it's Canada.

And, just to Wagyl it up, .................EDIT...................SORRY!!!!!! .................END EDIT

That should get YokoHammer going again

[Russell]

Still, Japan has a young and growing population and a dynamic economy with obviously rosy prospects so doesn't have to worry about all that stuff eh?

This is a very important point that I think most died in the wool Japan-Bashers forget. Have any of you been to Akihabara lately? I have. If there is one single intersection in any country that displays the vitality and potential of that land, surely that is it. People will tell you that Japan is done, Japan is dead, Japan is yesterday's news.................those people forget that Japan has not just anime, but also manga.

That's a one two punch if I ever saw one or I don't have a PhD in International Global Developmentalist Economics.

Which I don't, btw.


BTW, is there any advanced country that actually does give welfare to non-residents??????

Time to look around in Europe. You will be surprised.

I would be surprised. I am quite sure foreign workers can't even collect on unemployment in Canada even if they have paid premiums. PRs are different because it's Canada.

And, just to Wagyl it up, the Ching Chang in question wasn't broke. So she didn't need welfare. But she's Chinese so she tried. Her non-Japakneezeeness is actually irrelevant. Still, nice to see that somebody still cares about Chinese. I know I don't.

Nachulize yoself, Beeyotch.

That should get YokoHammer going again

If you just read this thread through you will see that all assets of the Chinese old women were taken by her Japanese brother in law after her husband passed away.

Please, stop your discriminatory rhetoric.

[kurogane]

Yeah, fair enough. My bad.

I did consider the EU situation, btw, but to me that is a touch different, as it is a treaty based definition of residency and such. I would be very surprised to hear that many non-EU countries give welfare to non-citizens, though like I noted, Canada does, but that is only to PRs, and that's Canada.

Anyways, allowing that she argues she has no money and the court argues she does, it seems her nationality is rather tangential, and this whole argument still strikes me as a little Chicken Little.

But this idea that the Japanese government is hopping on it as a ready opportunity is rather weird. Still, non-naturalised Special Foreign Residents are usually fuckheads.

[Yokohammer]

... Still, non-naturalised Special Foreign Residents are usually fuckheads.

Really? My curiosity is aroused.

Is that a statistically verifiable trend, or just your personal opinion?

[kurogane]

Scientifically unscientific experiential BS, mostly.

Based on a purported and often loudly stated loyalty to a state and nation most have never even visited and have no connection to, and not even considering what shitholes all but Taiwan are, I am still sticking with the diagnosis. And that allows for the historical legal discrimination that has only been ameliorated since you and I first landed here.

I used to work with the Korean High School, FTR. Really nice people, really weird ideas. They're just Japanese, after all. That sort of childish idealism gets up my nose. Almost as much as white people complaining about discrimination (AKA History's Greatest Irony), allowing that I fully understand your gut reaction to the ruling under discussion, if not the thread of the subsequent discussion.

PS We are clear when I say Special Foreign Residents I assume. You're special to me, but not that Special.............

[Wage Slave]

I venture that it is absolutely standard practice to fully include Permanent Residents in tax AND welfare systems. If you are not a citizen then you don't have the right to vote or stand for political office but in matters health and economic why should you be discriminated against?

I don't mean students on student visas, I don't mean expats/migrant workers on work permits of some kind. I mean people who hold a PR visa or Indefinite leave to remain or whatever other name you give it who live, work and pay taxes in the country.

As an further aside. Note that Japan's taxation is so comprehensive that they even demand to heavily tax money you inherit from your parents who never set foot in the country and whether or not the money ever comes to Japan. OK, so you are resident here so everything you receive from anywhere is taxable by them. It is hard to see why you should then be then deemed to be "special" and excluded from the welfare system.

[Russell]

I venture that it is absolutely standard practice to fully include Permanent Residents in tax AND welfare systems. If you are not a citizen then you don't have the right to vote or stand for political office but in matters health and economic why should you be discriminated against?

I don't mean students on student visas, I don't mean expats/migrant workers on work permits of some kind. I mean people who hold a PR visa or Indefinite leave to remain or whatever other name you give it who live, work and pay taxes in the country.

As an further aside. Note that Japan's taxation is so comprehensive that they even demand to heavily tax money you inherit from your parents who never set foot in the country and whether or not the money ever comes to Japan. OK, so you are resident here so everything you receive from anywhere is taxable by them. It is hard to see why you should then be then deemed to be "special" and excluded from the welfare system.

Good point! Yes, it works two ways.

[Yokohammer]

Scientifically unscientific experiential BS, mostly.

Based on a purported and often loudly stated loyalty to a state and nation most have never even visited and have no connection to, and not even considering what shitholes all but Taiwan are, I am still sticking with the diagnosis. And that allows for the historical legal discrimination that has only been ameliorated since you and I first landed here.

I used to work with the Korean High School, FTR. Really nice people, really weird ideas. They're just Japanese, after all. That sort of childish idealism gets up my nose. Almost as much as white people complaining about discrimination (AKA History's Greatest Irony), allowing that I fully understand your gut reaction to the ruling under discussion, if not the thread of the subsequent discussion.

PS We are clear when I say Special Foreign Residents I assume. You're special to me, but not that Special.............

I think you need to consider the fundamental human need to belong ... to identify with some sort of home base.

If people are denied the "right" to identify with wherever they feel they should belong, if they feel disenfranchised, their loyalties will naturally gravitate to somewhere else. If there's some sort of ancestral homeland, that's where the focus is likely to go. There's nothing unusual about that. It's just human nature. And for Japan, a country that still insists on keeping second and third generation residents at arms length, I think it is a huge problem that is still fermenting and will burst out of its bubble and do some serious ass-biting at some point in the future.

[Russell]

I think you need to consider the fundamental human need to belong ... to identify with some sort of home base.

If people are denied the "right" to identify with wherever they feel they should belong, if they feel disenfranchised, their loyalties will naturally gravitate to somewhere else. If there's some sort of ancestral homeland, that's where the focus is likely to go. There's nothing unusual about that. It's just human nature. And for Japan, a country that still insists on keeping second and third generation residents at arms length, I think it is a huge problem that is still fermenting and will burst out of its bubble and do some serious ass-biting at some point in the future.

Hammer, I really like this explanation.

It very well sums up the feelings that ethnic residents may have in one paragraph.