Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frank Hovis

Think Australia has immigration right, how about Japan?

Recommended Posts

99% rejection rate for refugees but giving a lot of money to help them where they are, and putting its existing population. How is this a bad thing?

 

Abe claimed that Japan should prioritize the welfare of its own citizens.

“I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise [the] birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants," Abe told reporters following the UN General Assembly in 2015.

 

 

https://www.rt.com/news/376891-japan-accepted-few-refugees-abe/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japans a bit extreme.

US migration tends to be based around skills. So does Oz.

Both have been lobbied to take on some of the unemployable scum that normally washes up in the UK +EU.

My migration would be no recourse to benefit for lifetime. No employment skill then no asylum.

Be OK on asylum - for those that need it i.e. war, not some made up crp.

Any crime by serious crime (over 6 month sentence) and the entire family are kicked out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spyguy said:

Japans a bit extreme.

US migration tends to be based around skills. So does Oz.

Both have been lobbied to take on some of the unemployable scum that normally washes up in the UK +EU.

My migration would be no recourse to benefit for lifetime. No employment skill then no asylum.

Be OK on asylum - for those that need it i.e. war, not some made up crp.

Any crime by serious crime (over 6 month sentence) and the entire family are kicked out.

 

That's pretty much the US system isn't it, if you go there to work say in your middle years you assume no free health, housing and a limited earned retirement pension at best. Indeed as soon as you have no resources or a serious medical condtion you are back on the first plane to Blighty.

I think if the same commonsense had been applied to the UK system then there  would now be no Brexit. The fact that you could come into the country as a Bulgarian big issue seller in your sixties and then enjoy the same Ponzied  benefits of a long State supported retirement as the indigenous population was the last straw that broke the camel's back. That's just taking a free ride on 300 years of endeavour of our own citizens and their forebears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

99% rejection rate for refugees but giving a lot of money to help them where they are, and putting its existing population. How is this a bad thing?

 

Abe claimed that Japan should prioritize the welfare of its own citizens.

“I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise [the] birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants," Abe told reporters following the UN General Assembly in 2015.

Wanting to raise the birth rate shows they've not got everything right. Sure, they've got a (slightly) declining population, which is good (especially for a densely populated country like Japan), but if they're worrying about the demographics, well, that's the reality of the world when people live longer, sounds like the usual "let's have a pyramid scheme approach because we refuse to accept reality or have forgotten that young people turn into old people in time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Wanting to raise the birth rate shows they've not got everything right. Sure, they've got a (slightly) declining population, which is good (especially for a densely populated country like Japan), but if they're worrying about the demographics, well, that's the reality of the world when people live longer, sounds like the usual "let's have a pyramid scheme approach because we refuse to accept reality or have forgotten that young people turn into old people in time."

They're not looking at a drift down. Their birth rate has collapsed.

japan-birth-rate.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hotairmail said:

Fertility rate tends to decline during economic depressions. But conversely and counter intuitively, health and longevity improves.

Japans fertility rates have been dropping sharply since the early 70s, so I don't think it can be ascribed to the economic depression which didn't hit until 1990.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Jersey - quite tricky to get into

https://www.gov.je/LifeEvents/MovingToJersey/Pages/BecomingJerseyResident.aspx

And if you do get to get a work permit and move...

e.g.

 

 

And i bet the wily Jersey folk have anything expensive via health tourism here. Whose going to ask for papers with someone that sounds indigenous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes me laugh when the left of the UK think Farage represents a racist little Englander.  Farage wants a balanced approach.  Japan are far far more extreme.  They are 99% homogemous Japanese, yet you still get overtly rightwingers with their megaphones blaring out openly racist statements in public.  It's like 99% isn't enough - they want it 100%. If you're a gaijin, you're openly discussed as a "gaijin" by Japanese right as you stand there.   South Koreans are bullied at school, or even those who might have a South Korean mother or father.  Don't know if it's still the case, but when I lived there, I couldn't even rent a property in my name - had to be in a Japanese person's name. I was stopped by the police a few times who asked me for my gaikokojin card. How come the SJWs aren't all over Japan about this kind of thing? I guess they love manga too much, and Japan has a certain "cachet" amongst the uber-cool SJWs.  It's all about image when it comes to protesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hail the Tripod said:

They're not looking at a drift down. Their birth rate has collapsed.

japan-birth-rate.png

Japan are still wedded to keeping their bubble pricing afloat. Price to income ratios are still stratospheric, it is no surprise the young don't see families as viable compared to 70's. 8-10x income for an apartment, not viable long term as an economic environment for a balanced economy/life.

New-apartment-price-to-income-ratios-Tokyo.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hail the Tripod said:

They're not looking at a drift down. Their birth rate has collapsed.

japan-birth-rate.png

That chart looks dramatic, but when you have a population boom/bubble moving through the statistics, a simple births per 1000 exaggerates the situation. Japan has gone from low post war population with bubble high births,  to high bubble population with low births, and so numerator and denominations both are impacted by the change, making it look twice as extreme. 

 

The relevant fertility rates per woman per lifetime seem to have gone from postwar over 5 to current 1.6. Still extreme, but but the postwar figure is irrelevant.  Stable population requires 2.1 (There would still be a population decline as the boomers die off) 

I think Italy has a similar fertility rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:

The relevant fertility rates per woman per lifetime seem to have gone from postwar over 5 to current 1.6. Still extreme, but but the postwar figure is irrelevant.  Stable population requires 2.1 (There would still be a population decline as the boomers die off) 

I think Italy has a similar fertility rate. 

For most countries 1.6 sounds like a fairly reasonable rate these days, to counteract past growth.

Why 2.1 for stable instead of 2.0? Sure not all children have children but then that would put the average below 2 (if no-one else had more than 2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Abe claimed that Japan should prioritize the welfare of its own citizens.

“I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees

Asylum and immigration systems should be entirely separate.  One is humanitarian, the other is economic.  Some refugees may provide economic benefit to their host country, but this is entirely secondary to humanitarian concerns and needs to be weighed against the economic benefit those refugees would provide to their own country if and when returned to that country.

Unfortunately the asylum system in the UK is so badly implemented that it undermines any attempt at an immigration policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

If you offer up entry to a rich western country, you can make things worse by providing an economic incentive and then you are into the almost impossible task unwinding one from the other when individuals deliberately lie/ lose their papers to gain entry.

The Germans have found a solution to that.  Give 'aid' to countries in Africa in return for them printing up the 'lost' documentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Will! said:

Asylum and immigration systems should be entirely separate.  One is humanitarian, the other is economic.  Some refugees may provide economic benefit to their host country, but this is entirely secondary to humanitarian concerns and needs to be weighed against the economic benefit those refugees would provide to their own country if and when returned to that country.

Unfortunately the asylum system in the UK is so badly implemented that it undermines any attempt at an immigration policy.

Asylum shouldn't ever have any intention of being long-term either, whilst having to make provisions for the fact that the reality might be that it's never safe for people claiming asylum to return home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

If you offer up entry to a rich western country, you can make things worse by providing an economic incentive and then you are into the almost impossible task unwinding one from the other when individuals deliberately lie/ lose their papers to gain entry.

Personally I favour something like the Australian asylum system, but giving asylum seekers full protection under UK law and without third country processing.  Asylum seekers without valid visas could be held in immigration detention on one or more of the British Overseas Territories islands in the Atlantic while their claims and appeals are processed.  An immigration detention centre on some of the BOT islands might provide some employment on some of the more economically moribund ones.  For once their remoteness could be an asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Asylum shouldn't ever have any intention of being long-term either, whilst having to make provisions for the fact that the reality might be that it's never safe for people claiming asylum to return home.

Indeed.  I think paying off third countries to take refugees as the Australians do is a mistake though.  The country in which the refugee first sought asylum retains responsibility for the refugee and so it's that country's problem if the refugee is mistreated in the third country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

For most countries 1.6 sounds like a fairly reasonable rate these days, to counteract past growth.

Why 2.1 for stable instead of 2.0? Sure not all children have children but then that would put the average below 2 (if no-one else had more than 2).

I don't think it's necessary to counteract the bubble, you just need a steady state replacement level and wait for the boomers to die off. 

 

I don't really know statistics, but I guess that the 2.1 accounts for women who die before reaching child bearing age. It's probably fiendishly complicated to calculate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:

That chart looks dramatic, but when you have a population boom/bubble moving through the statistics, a simple births per 1000 exaggerates the situation. Japan has gone from low post war population with bubble high births,  to high bubble population with low births, and so numerator and denominations both are impacted by the change, making it look twice as extreme. 

 

The relevant fertility rates per woman per lifetime seem to have gone from postwar over 5 to current 1.6. Still extreme, but but the postwar figure is irrelevant.  Stable population requires 2.1 (There would still be a population decline as the boomers die off) 

I think Italy has a similar fertility rate. 

http://www.indexmundi.com/japan/total_fertility_rate.html

Quote

Total fertility rate: 1.41 children born/woman (2016 est.)

And seemingly still edging down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spyguy said:

Japans a bit extreme.

US migration tends to be based around skills. So does Oz.

Both have been lobbied to take on some of the unemployable scum that normally washes up in the UK +EU.

My migration would be no recourse to benefit for lifetime. No employment skill then no asylum.

Be OK on asylum - for those that need it i.e. war, not some made up crp.

Any crime by serious crime (over 6 month sentence) and the entire family are kicked out.

 

Sounds good to me, when are you planning to run for office, I'll vote for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Stateless said:

Sounds good to me, when are you planning to run for office, I'll vote for that.

If you could get a Labour leader to stand up and state this then they'd probably when the next election.

None of what Ive said falls in the 'Kick the p.kis out' stuff'

The UK can be compassionate but without being a fcking mug.

No country wants a bunch of unskilled doleys - including the countries where these people are legging it from.

Abroad is no longer somewhere a long way away - £ 800 will buy a one way ticket to the other side of the world these days. The UKS migration policy should reflect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steppenpig said:

I don't really know statistics, but I guess that the 2.1 accounts for women who die before reaching child bearing age. It's probably fiendishly complicated to calculate. 

That only works if you're not counting them in the stats. One woman has zero (for whatever reason), another has four, average two, population remains steady.

One possible explanation I've just thought of would be if there aren't equal male and female births.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That only works if you're not counting them in the stats. One woman has zero (for whatever reason), another has four, average two, population remains steady.

One possible explanation I've just thought of would be if there aren't equal male and female births.

Yes there is a slight bias towards male births. Then there are those that die before reproducing. Those two things mean that 2.1 Total Fertility Rate is the rate that is needed to keep a population stable over time.

Of course people living longer can mean 2.1 is more than enough in the short term but in the long run we're all dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....does having low immigration make the population of that country happier? What countries have the most stressed and depressed people, those with high immigration or low immigration?.......immigration is good if everyone benefits from it not only a few......different people moving here does improve the country, but all rich countries must also provide for it (eg housing, health and education) so that everyone can benefit from it.....you can't keep having children if you cant afford them and expect someone else to pay for them, all be it one day all children will grow up and hopefully pay their own way.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That only works if you're not counting them in the stats. One woman has zero (for whatever reason), another has four, average two, population remains steady.

One possible explanation I've just thought of would be if there aren't equal male and female births.

Winkie should play the bad record collection again. Aretha Franklin is retiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   93 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.