Japan, Property Rights And Immigation

[workhou]

Interesting article about the property rights the citizens of a country have by law. Us Brits lost our country property rights of the UK without a whimper..

http://blogs.forbes.com/stephenharner/2011/04/09/in-defense-of-japans-immigration-policy-1/

Critically,

If the “country” is the property of its citizens, allowing non-citizens to take a piece of country—as residents of communities, neighborhoods, and homes—is a transfer of property rights. In a free society, people are free to transfer property rights, and will do so when they believe they are receiving something of equal for greater value. For me, it is this axiom that expresses the possible theoretical legitimacy of legal immigration (and the absolute illegitimacy of illegal immigration). Citizens, through their representatives, make laws that specify who and how many immigrants will be welcomed, and on what terms, as a legitimate exchange of property rights, for perceived benefits. Clearly, the persons whose interests should be considered first in this decision-making are those who are transferring their ownership rights—i.e., citizens—and not immigrants.

In contrast to the far east are countries, in the west, still 'owned' by nationals of the countries anymore?

(Being a citizen doesn't count for much nowadays We have the NHS but that's it really.)

Edited April 12, 2011 by workhou

[aa3]

Its funny how different democracies have such different ideas of mainstream. For example in Japan the BNP would be considered a centrist party.. limited immigration, national protectionist industrial policy, sort of a hierarchical school system.

While a party that wanted mass immigration, unfettered free trade and a feel good school system would be considered a lunatic fringe party.

[jonb]

Interesting article about the property rights the citizens of a country have by law. Us Brits lost our country property rights of the UK without a whimper..

http://blogs.forbes....ation-policy-1/

Critically,

If the "country" is the property of its citizens, allowing non-citizens to take a piece of country—as residents of communities, neighborhoods, and homes—is a transfer of property rights. In a free society, people are free to transfer property rights, and will do so when they believe they are receiving something of equal for greater value. For me, it is this axiom that expresses the possible theoretical legitimacy of legal immigration (and the absolute illegitimacy of illegal immigration). Citizens, through their representatives, make laws that specify who and how many immigrants will be welcomed, and on what terms, as a legitimate exchange of property rights, for perceived benefits. Clearly, the persons whose interests should be considered first in this decision-making are those who are transferring their ownership rights—i.e., citizens—and not immigrants.

In contrast to the far east are countries, in the west, still 'owned' by nationals of the countries anymore?

(Being a citizen doesn't count for much nowadays We have the NHS but that's it really.)

Was England ever "owned" by its people. Scottish land law is very different, but in England, the best you can hope for in terms of land ownership is freehold which is permission granted in perpetuity to occupy land owned by the queen.

[Chuffy Chuffnell]

England has never* belonged to the people who live in it. Its residents, many - but by no means all - are now citizens of the United Kingdom, and just happen to exist within it. The kingdom belongs to the Crown, as has been the case since 1066.

*although pre-1066 it's a slightly different picture, though the nobility and the church were very much The landowners

And no, I'm not some conspiracy loony and I'm also not terribly bothered by the fact. (Indeed I'm a [constitutional] monarchist.) But people need to know it.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Mr Deflation

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

England has never* belonged to the people who live in it. Its residents, many - but by no means all - are now citizens of the United Kingdom, and just happen to exist within it. The kingdom belongs to the Crown, as has been the case since 1066.

*although pre-1066 it's a slightly different picture, though the nobility and the church were very much The landowners

And no, I'm not some conspiracy loony and I'm also not terribly bothered by the fact. (Indeed I'm a [constitutional] monarchist.) But people need to know it.

There is a lot of confusion surrounding this issue, mainly in the form that the people of Britain are uniquely subjugated or something, but this is not the case. Just about everywhere in the developed world it is not the case that citizens actually own the land they live on. Even the much-heralded USA has a law that makes it clear citizens do not actually own the land the occupy. However, small areas of USA and Australia have areas that are not covered by these laws, I believe - native title, etc.

In a way, it is irrelevant, because no one could ever abuse this system without massive outcry. I speak as a republican, so opposite to your position, but we agree on this I think. Even if citizens could absolutely own outright the land, it still wouldn't stop the state doing things like compulsory purchase, etc.

[Chuffy Chuffnell]

Yes, indeed a state wouldn't be sovereign if it wasn't able to control the land within its territory. It's just semantics in how one defines "ownership". Owning a freehold in England is to all intents and purposes owning the land, although in law you just own an estate in the land. But even then the state imposes restrictions, such as planning laws, and similar controls are placed over landowners in almost all advanced territories/states around the world, be they republics, monarchies, whatever. Total control over land owned/occupied by a person would mean that person has his very own sovereign state!

As for republic v kingdom... in either case, it really hardly matters if the country is on the whole democratic. The UK is often described as a "crowned republic". All land in theory belongs to the Crown. If we became a republic then it would in theory belong to the Republic. Makes diddly-squat difference, as the Crown Estate is government-controlled already (ie it is not the personal property of the Queen).

Edited April 12, 2011 by Mr Deflation

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Yes, indeed a state wouldn't be sovereign if it wasn't able to control the land within its territory. It's just semantics in how one defines "ownership". Owning a freehold in England is to all intents and purposes owning the land, although in law you just own an estate in the land. But even then the state imposes restrictions, such as planning laws, and similar controls are placed over landowners in almost all advanced territories/states around the world, be they republics, monarchies, whatever. Total control over land owned/occupied by a person would mean that person has his very own sovereign state!

As for republic v kingdom... in either case, it really hardly matters if the country is on the whole democratic. The UK is often described as a "crowned republic". All land in theory belongs to the Crown. If we became a republic then it would in theory belong to the Republic. Makes diddly-squat difference, as the Crown Estate is government-controlled already (ie it is not the personal property of the Queen).

You make an excellent point here about sovereignty. Granting every person total land ownership rights would mean ceding that part of the state to him and making him sovereign over it. This would of course lead to anarchy because there would be no limits on planning and so on. Also, it border the issue of "micronations" which is really interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation

And check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations

"Austenasia - a constitutional monarchy comprising three privately owned properties that have declared themselves independent under the leadership of a house in south London" etc.

As for the monacrhy debate, I respect and support the Queen as she has been an exemplary role model her whole life, but I support the transition to an Australian Republic when she dies. And in terms of land rights as you point out it makes no difference.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Tecumseh

[catsick]

I thiink Japan has its immigration just about right, It is not racist in the way it works, it just does not allow floods of people in with little or no assessment of how they will integrate.

For a person with useful skills it is not difficult to get a 1-3 year visa to live and work in Japan, you can get a 1 year visa with little more than a few thousand quid and an idea, to renew you need to show you have paid something into the system and not got into trouble. To get permanent residence you need to have lived there for 10 years and be good at the language and shown cultural and business value to the country, I cannot see what is wrong with this policy, I have always found the visa process fair.

I have spent 10 years in total in Japan on and off, and will probably live there again in the future, the standard of living is excellent and the society that they are trying to protect is one of the safest and most considerate in the world. They clearly have a big demographic issue but they are showing that the solution to this does not have to be mass immigration.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

I thiink Japan has its immigration just about right, It is not racist in the way it works, it just does not allow floods of people in with little or no assessment of how they will integrate.

For a person with useful skills it is not difficult to get a 1-3 year visa to live and work in Japan, you can get a 1 year visa with little more than a few thousand quid and an idea, to renew you need to show you have paid something into the system and not got into trouble. To get permanent residence you need to have lived there for 10 years and be good at the language and shown cultural and business value to the country, I cannot see what is wrong with this policy, I have always found the visa process fair.

I have spent 10 years in total in Japan on and off, and will probably live there again in the future, the standard of living is excellent and the society that they are trying to protect is one of the safest and most considerate in the world. They clearly have a big demographic issue but they are showing that the solution to this does not have to be mass immigration.

Japan does not allow dual citizenship though, does it, and it makes attaining Japanese citizenship about as difficult as it can thereby guaranteeing that most foreigners there stay foreign. What measures are they taking to stop the demographic timebomb they have ticking in their laps? An ageing, shrinking society can only be saved by an increased birthrate or more immigration, surely.

[aa3]

Japan does not allow dual citizenship though, does it, and it makes attaining Japanese citizenship about as difficult as it can thereby guaranteeing that most foreigners there stay foreign. What measures are they taking to stop the demographic timebomb they have ticking in their laps? An ageing, shrinking society can only be saved by an increased birthrate or more immigration, surely.

That was definately true throughout history.. nations needed strong, young, vital populations to grow and increase in power. But today we don't need very many young workers. Like there is horrific youth unemployment in most western nations, around 50% now in some large western metropolises, like Madrid and New York.

[Bloo Loo]

Japan does not allow dual citizenship though, does it, and it makes attaining Japanese citizenship about as difficult as it can thereby guaranteeing that most foreigners there stay foreign. What measures are they taking to stop the demographic timebomb they have ticking in their laps? An ageing, shrinking society can only be saved by an increased birthrate or more immigration, surely.

except, the populations from where the immigrants comes from, need the young vibrant youth just as much.

[catsick]

Well as long as the old can be looked after by the young or middle aged then I don't see an issue in the population falling from 125 million to 50 million , most japanese would probably prefer this to a population of 125 million , 75 million of whom are from an alien culture.

The old in Japan seem to be fairly low maintenance and looking at relatives of my japanese friends having 100 year olds living with the 75 year old kids and 50 year old grandkids all seems to work OK.

The answer as to how things will pan out in the long term we really just don't know until it happens, but the quality of life in Japan in my observation has remained high and they do not seem to require to import vast numbers of overseas young workers to keep things running smoothly.

The issue with the debt is also something that is difficult to predict forwards, the main thing is the japanese owe this money to themselves and are still accumulatine large amounts of overseas assets so in many ways it is a much more sustainable system than in the uk or us where the foreign claims are increasing while the floodgates are open ....

As far as citizenship goes, I don't really care, if they will allow me to live there or visit while I am alive then it does not really matter to me that they won't give me a passport, I am not ethnically Japanese so why should they give me one ...

[Riedquat]

Well as long as the old can be looked after by the young or middle aged then I don't see an issue in the population falling from 125 million to 50 million , most japanese would probably prefer this to a population of 125 million , 75 million of whom are from an alien culture.

The old in Japan seem to be fairly low maintenance and looking at relatives of my japanese friends having 100 year olds living with the 75 year old kids and 50 year old grandkids all seems to work OK.

+1 to that (and the rest). Trying to solve demographic "problems" by population boosting (by whatever means) always strike me as a very dangerous game (as does anything that relies on continual increase). I'm not even convinced that there are any practical reasons why need lots of young to support the old, considering how efficient the production of essentials is these days, and in the long run quality of life will be increased with a smaller population (fancy not having anywhere near as many traffic jams?) People, or at least governments, are simply too scared of facing the entirely artificial economic problems of getting there.

Japan sounds like they've got quite a lot right, apart from living in a natural disaster zone.

[Odakyu-sen]

+1 to that (and the rest). Trying to solve demographic "problems" by population boosting (by whatever means) always strike me as a very dangerous game (as does anything that relies on continual increase). ...Japan sounds like they've got quite a lot right, apart from living in a natural disaster zone.

While the low birthrate in Japan continues, the ratio of elderly to young will be high, and the Japanese population will decline. This will be a good thing as house prices will decline, making it easier for young families to by decent accommodation within a relatively short commuting distance from work. It will be possible for a man to support a wife and a couple (2-3) children, and so once again there will be a "baby boom" and the Japanese population decline will end.

Off the top of my head, I think the current population of 127 million could shrink to 60 million or so and the country would be a lot better off in terms of being able to feed itself and have sufficient living space in the main city centers.

The Japanese value their culture far too much to allow mass immigration. They are well aware that do so would permanently change their society, and they are not about to do that. I do not say that the change would necessarily be a bad thing, but it would be a change nevertheless. A society that is conservative and values its traditions tends to be suspicious of change. (Not fearful of change, but suspicious of change.) I mean, how would you feel if your government allowed large numbers of foreigners to flood into your country and change the urban social fabric without first asking you (the general population) for your consent. This would suggest that your government places very little value on its cultural heritage.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Odakyu-sen

[Lagarde's Drift]

Sorry for ot, I just had to mention that it is a common misconception that nhs treatment is provided on a basis of citizenship. And ni contributions.

[Bob Loblaw]

Its funny how different democracies have such different ideas of mainstream. For example in Japan the BNP would be considered a centrist party.. limited immigration, national protectionist industrial policy, sort of a hierarchical school system.

While a party that wanted mass immigration, unfettered free trade and a feel good school system would be considered a lunatic fringe party.

Great way of looking at it. Shame the idiot masses of the UK have been brainwashed into thinking the opposite.

[Big Orange]

Most Brits if being honest do not like mass immigration and self-destructive free markets.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

except, the populations from where the immigrants comes from, need the young vibrant youth just as much.

They might be coming from socieities with a very high birthrate.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

While the low birthrate in Japan continues, the ratio of elderly to young will be high, and the Japanese population will decline. This will be a good thing as house prices will decline, making it easier for young families to by decent accommodation within a relatively short commuting distance from work. It will be possible for a man to support a wife and a couple (2-3) children, and so once again there will be a "baby boom" and the Japanese population decline will end.

Off the top of my head, I think the current population of 127 million could shrink to 60 million or so and the country would be a lot better off in terms of being able to feed itself and have sufficient living space in the main city centers.

The Japanese value their culture far too much to allow mass immigration. They are well aware that do so would permanently change their society, and they are not about to do that. I do not say that the change would necessarily be a bad thing, but it would be a change nevertheless. A society that is conservative and values its traditions tends to be suspicious of change. (Not fearful of change, but suspicious of change.) I mean, how would you feel if your government allowed large numbers of foreigners to flood into your country and change the urban social fabric without first asking you (the general population) for your consent. This would suggest that your government places very little value on its cultural heritage.

Name me some examples of depopulated socieites that have righted themselves and started to grow again in the manner you describe in your first paragraph.

[Odakyu-sen]

Name me some examples of depopulated socieites that have righted themselves and started to grow again in the manner you describe in your first paragraph.

Fair point. I don't know of any, large, post-industrial ones. We are really in uncharted territory, but the Japanese experiment-in-progress (when their birthrate lifts, which I am sure that it will) will be a contrast to the Western let-the-imigrants-flood-in approach.

I must admit that the price of rural housing in many small villages in Japan really is cheap. (And likely to get even cheaper as the villages depopulate.)

[catsick]

There is no example as this is the first time we have faced declining populations as a result of increasing prosperity rather than starvation or some other negative impact, Japan is the canary in the mineshaft.

My observation is that the demographic situation has led to very real falls in house prices, however they are now pretty much at the limit, as houses are only built to last 30 years and then get bulldozed, in most areas outside Tokyo the land element of the house is now only 20%-30%, in most parts of japan you can buy a nice plot for 5-10 million yen , or 30-60k gbp, when it is a low portion of total build cost the price of the land is no longer much of an issue. Even in Tokyo land is now very reasonably priced so that a couple wanting to build a nice house should be able to afford something in line with their status/jobs without needing help from parents, it is a lot cheaper to own than rent so household cash flow also improves after buying. I am planning to build a house in a nice part of Tokyo ( Omotesando ) this year and ten years ago this would have been unthinkable.

The quality of life for working Japanese is really getting better, especially in Tokyo, Central Tokyo is experiencing a population increase as the countryside becomes more hollowed out and I see this continuing.

[Odakyu-sen]

The quality of life for working Japanese is really getting better, especially in Tokyo, Central Tokyo is experiencing a population increase as the countryside becomes more hollowed out and I see this continuing.

Japan really needs to try to reverse the let's-move-to-Tokyo drift that started in the 1960s. One way would be for local villages to offer really cheap housing for young families who are able to tele-commute to work. I can see this happening in many service industries where the service provider does not need to hold the client's hand all the time. In my case, my Japanese clients are half a world away, while I work as a translator in Auckland, NZ. I could just as easily be holed up in some little willage in the Japanese Alps.

Of course there are other considerations such as schooling and keeping the wife from getting bored. One downside is that you know that as soon as your children turn 18, it's off to college and then work overseas. They ain't ever coming back home to the village where you live. I think a lot of Japanese really look forward to doing the grandparent thing, which is why they want to live in a part of Japan (Tokyo) where there is a good chance that their children will also settle.

As for myself, I would like to get hold of some land with a sea view somewhere on the Izu Peninsula. (Around Shimoda, perhaps.) Nice weather, lots of onsen, great motorcycling and hang gliding, fishing, only a 2-hour train ride on the Odori-ko up to see clients in Tokyo.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Odakyu-sen

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Japan really needs to try to reverse the let's-move-to-Tokyo drift that started in the 1960s. One way would be for local villages to offer really cheap housing for young families who are able to tele-commute to work. I can see this happening in many service industries where the service provider does not need to hold the client's hand all the time. In my case, my Japanese clients are half a world away, while I work as a translator in Auckland, NZ. I could just as easily be holed up in some little willage in the Japanese Alps.

Of course there are other considerations such as schooling and keeping the wife from getting bored. One downside is that you know that as soon as your children turn 18, it's off to college and then work overseas. They ain't ever coming back home to the village where you live. I think a lot of Japanese really look forward to doing the grandparent thing, which is why they want to live in a part of Japan (Tokyo) where there is a good chance that their children will also settle.

As for myself, I would like to get hold of some land with a sea view somewhere on the Izu Peninsula. (Around Shimoda, perhaps.) Nice weather, lots of onsen, great motorcycling and hang gliding, fishing, only a 2-hour train ride on the Odori-ko up to see clients in Tokyo.

I just looked Izu up on Google Earth and it looks fantastic. I've always wanted to visit Japan and certainly will do so one day. It's one of only about half a dozen countries I still have to visit and I'll consider my traveling days over. I'm not sure about living there because of the formidable written language issues and also the speech particles that I have never been able to get my head round (apart from "no" because the genetive concept I understand). If I were to live in the "east" it would be Malaysia or SIngapore I think. Good luck with your seaview anyway.

[Guest sillybear2]

The UK is no longer a sovereign country, it's a de facto "economic venue", the desires and wishes of its citizens are an irrelevance. If you visit a farm you may see lots of animals, but that doesn't mean they own the place, they are the direct or indirect chattel of the land owners.

http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city

[catsick]

Yeah Izu is nice , I would not want to live at the bottom though, In the summer Shimoda is a zoo and the traffic is impossible at weekends, I would prefer up at the top in the woods near the Pola art gallery which is amazing ..