Poll of the Day > Japan accepts only 3 refugees in 2017

(+) Yeah! (+)

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan accepted just three refugees in the first half of 2017 despite receiving a record 8,561 fresh asylum applications, the government said on Tuesday, highlighting the nations reluctance to accept foreigners.

Only four refugees were accepted in the first half of 2016, when fresh asylum applications totaled 5,011, the Justice Ministry said. The Human Rights Watch in January described Japans record on asylum seekers as abysmal.

http://archive.is/CdGAJ

What do you think about Japan's attitude towards refugees, and how does it differ from that of your own country?

Countries aren't obligated to accept refugees. Modern day Europe is a pretty good example of why this is a bad thing.
---

0 would be ideal
---

poll doesn't have enough options. where is the option for let japan do whatever the fuck japan wants to do.

I don't think the rest of the world should ever be able to dictate what one country should or shouldn't do.
---

TomNook posted...

Countries aren't obligated to accept refugees. Modern day Europe is a pretty good example of why this is a bad thing.

Yeah, fuck Modern Day Europe with its... um... low crime rates and good social safety net?

Hang on, I'm missing something here...

VeeVees posted...

0 would be ideal

Hell yeah, fuck those guys who are running from unimaginably horrific conditions! Why don't they go back to where they came from? Other than the fact that what was once their house is now a smouldering crater, that is.
---

darkknight109 posted...

TomNook posted...

Countries aren't obligated to accept refugees. Modern day Europe is a pretty good example of why this is a bad thing.

Yeah, fuck Modern Day Europe with its... um... low crime rates and good social safety net?

Hang on, I'm missing something here...

VeeVees posted...

0 would be ideal

Hell yeah, fuck those guys who are running from unimaginably horrific conditions! Why don't they go back to where they came from? Other than the fact that what was once their house is now a smouldering crater, that is.

japan is also a tiny island with limited room. they are not an ideal place to be taking refugees.

also to add, as I said earlier. no body outside that country itself should be able to dictate what they do within their own borders. that includes not having to accept refugees.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Hell yeah, fuck those guys who are running from unimaginably horrific conditions! Why don't they go back to where they came from? Other than the fact that what was once their house is now a smouldering crater, that is.

k
---

miki_sauvester posted...

What do you think about Japan's attitude towards refugees, and how does it differ from that of your own country?

Well, Japan's average IQ is higher than most of the rest of the world so they clearly know better about this. Meanwhile we dumb Americans want to import refugees by the boatload and stupid Canada wants to import whole countries. Actually, come to think of it, *all* of the world's top 5 (technically 6) smartest nations are Asian. And South Korea is #2 (or #3, since the lead is a tie) and, since 2001, they've taken in 600 non-Korean refugees so... idk. In general, I'm not a huge fan of refugees. But Americans apparently love refugees, except maybe Trump.

It's a sovereign nation, though, so it can take or refuse whoever it wants.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

japan is also a tiny island with limited room. they are not an ideal place to be taking refugees.

Nowhere is an ideal place to house refugees. They all have to be housed somewhere. Japan isn't really any better or worse in that regard than anywhere else.

Hell, Japan has a looming demographic crisis because their birth rate and immigration rate are so low.

VeeVees posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Hell yeah, fuck those guys who are running from unimaginably horrific conditions! Why don't they go back to where they came from? Other than the fact that what was once their house is now a smouldering crater, that is.

k

I mean, I guess I don't understand why you're saying no one should accept refugees. These are normal people fleeing war and disaster.

Zeus posted...

Meanwhile we dumb Americans want to import refugees by the boatload and stupid Canada wants to import whole countries.

Fun fact: by raw numbers, the US takes in more refugees than Canada.

As they should.
---

darkknight109 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

japan is also a tiny island with limited room. they are not an ideal place to be taking refugees.

Nowhere is an ideal place to house refugees. They all have to be housed somewhere. Japan isn't really any better or worse in that regard than anywhere else.

Hell, Japan has a looming demographic crisis because their birth rate and immigration rate are so low.

VeeVees posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Hell yeah, fuck those guys who are running from unimaginably horrific conditions! Why don't they go back to where they came from? Other than the fact that what was once their house is now a smouldering crater, that is.

k

I mean, I guess I don't understand why you're saying no one should accept refugees. These are normal people fleeing war and disaster.

Zeus posted...

Meanwhile we dumb Americans want to import refugees by the boatload and stupid Canada wants to import whole countries.

Fun fact: by raw numbers, the US takes in more refugees than Canada.

As they should.

once again japan is a tiny island. america is a big country, one is clearly more capable of housing refugees than the other. plus japan prefers to have less diversity in their country thats their right.

kindness is nice and all but it should never be forced.
---

Japan should accept more refugees, if a large majority of people in their country wants to accept more refugees, not because some hypocrites who want to personally contribute nothing significant to helping refugees want to feel better about themselves by saying more countries should be taking on more refugees.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

once again japan is a tiny island. america is a big country, one is clearly more capable of housing refugees than the other.

A country's ability to accept refugees has nothing to do with its physical size and everything to do with how much housing and infrastructure it has available.
---

Japan is extremely xenophobic. This is no surprise.

darkknight109 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

once again japan is a tiny island. america is a big country, one is clearly more capable of housing refugees than the other.

A country's ability to accept refugees has nothing to do with its physical size and everything to do with how much housing and infrastructure it has available.

Wouldn't being a smaller country also have less housing and infrastructure? No nation should be forced to take refugees if they don't want to.
---

> Do you think Japan should accept more refugees?

I think it's up to Japan and no one else.

yutterh posted...

darkknight109 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

once again japan is a tiny island. america is a big country, one is clearly more capable of housing refugees than the other.

A country's ability to accept refugees has nothing to do with its physical size and everything to do with how much housing and infrastructure it has available.

Wouldn't being a smaller country also have less housing and infrastructure? No nation should be forced to take refugees if they don't want to.

my main point. nothing should be forced if they do it willingly good for them, they are some nice people.

kindness/niceness should never be forced, it loses its meaning imo, and it can cause those forced into it to become spiteful/bitter etc.
---

yutterh posted...

darkknight109 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

once again japan is a tiny island. america is a big country, one is clearly more capable of housing refugees than the other.

A country's ability to accept refugees has nothing to do with its physical size and everything to do with how much housing and infrastructure it has available.

Wouldn't being a smaller country also have less housing and infrastructure?

Nope, that's far from a guarantee. Japan has 127 million people stuffed into an area the size of Montana - they are very efficient with housing and infrastructure.

yutterh posted...

No nation should be forced to take refugees if they don't want to.

No one's said anything about "forcing" Japan to do anything. The question is "should Japan take on more refugees", not "should Japan be forced to take more refugees".
---

and the answer should still be japan should do whatever the fuck Japan wants to do, no other people's input required.

the word should sorta implies you think they have some sort of obligation to do it, which they don't
---

Japan sort of has nothing to do with the middle east.

The US is kind of responsible.

Yellow posted...

Japan sort of has nothing to do with the middle east.

The US is kind of responsible.

It's true, the Middle East is a massive CIA experiment. Before about 1950 it was an ocean.

Yellow posted...

Japan sort of has nothing to do with the middle east.

The US is kind of responsible.

and i'd still say I don't think the US has any obligation to do it, but I don't bitch about them accepting refugees either as long as they are looked into as thoroughly as possible.

wouldn't be the first time we banned a group of people because we considered them "the enemy" but I will say i'm more accepting of refugees then people sneaking over the border. i'm happy as long as things are done legally.
---

Japan accepts only 3 refugees in 2017

That's [at least] four too many....
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

the word should sorta implies you think they have some sort of obligation to do it, which they don't

No, the word "should" means what they should ideally be doing, which is taking in as many refugees as they can reasonably accommodate with their available resources.

That's sort of like asking "Should you eat healthier?". It's ultimately your decision - you can eat what you want and no one should force you one way or the other, but the answer is (usually) "Yes, you should."

cute_fan posted...

That's [at least] four too many....

Again, I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction some people have over this. These are ordinary people fleeing war and persecution, not pariahs here to spread the plague.
---

darkknight109 posted...

No, the word "should" means what they should ideally be doing, which is taking in as many refugees as they can reasonably accommodate with their available resources.

That's sort of like asking "Should you eat healthier?". It's ultimately your decision - you can eat what you want and no one should force you one way or the other, but the answer is (usually) "Yes, you should."

as long as you agree it shouldn't be forced no point in further argument on this point I suppose.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Nowhere is an ideal place to house refugees. They all have to be housed somewhere. Japan isn't really any better or worse in that regard than anywhere else.

There are plenty bigger countries with closer cultural backgrounds that are closer, but no, apparently their neighbours aren't good enough so they want to be adoptee by countries that don't understand them for dat sweet first world privilege.

darkknight109 posted...

Hell, Japan has a looming demographic crisis because their birth rate and immigration rate are so low.

Their birth rate is low because they choose not to have kids because it's economically irresponsible to have them without a good amount of money to support their wife and kid. This won't be fixed by introducing jobless, qualification-less foreigners they can't communicate with and even if they could, would inevitably clash with culturally.

Japan has an open immigration policy to skilled professionals who can offer something Japan wants, and people who marry their citizens and can prove without a shadow of a doubt they're not coming to the country to mooch. Countries that Japan owes can try appealing to Japan for help, however Japan is naturally isolationist, they don't want your help so they don't owe you assistance either.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There are plenty bigger countries with closer cultural backgrounds that are closer, but no, apparently their neighbours aren't good enough so they want to be adoptee by countries that don't understand them for dat sweet first world privilege.

Most of the refugees would be content settling anywhere that has livable conditions and job prospects. They don't frankly care if that's Japan or Iceland, just as long as they're living in somewhere better than a tent city.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Their birth rate is low because they choose not to have kids because it's economically irresponsible to have them without a good amount of money to support their wife and kid.

You are apparently unaware that Japan offers significant tax breaks and stipends to new parents in an effort to avert this very issue.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This won't be fixed by introducing jobless, qualification-less foreigners they can't communicate with and even if they could, would inevitably clash with culturally.

a) Many refugees aren't "qualification-less". War is an equal-opportunity destroyer - it doesn't care if you're rich or poor, qualified or not; if you live in a war zone, you will be made a refugee. Plenty of highly qualified people are stuck in refugee camps because the war came their way. There seems to be this weird misconception that refugees are just poor, jobless types hoping for a free handout to a better life; that is not at all what the word "refugee" means. Most of them have had to work harder just to survive than anyone on this forum ever will in their lifetime.
b) Japan's issue isn't having too few jobs. If anything, they're trending in the opposite direction: too many retirees, not enough workers (if current trends hold, within a decade there will be twice as many retirees as people of working age). Immigrants of any kind would be a huge relief on a system that's now being stressed to breaking point.
c) Language can be taught (hell, I'm learning Japanese right now - in eight months of casual study, I can hold simple conversations and write at a ~3rd grade level). Culture can be learned. Culture clashes are far from inevitable.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Japan has an open immigration policy to skilled professionals who can offer something Japan wants, and people who marry their citizens and can prove without a shadow of a doubt they're not coming to the country to mooch

You know Japan approves ~99% of their citizenship applications, right?
---

darkknight109 posted...

Most of the refugees would be content settling anywhere that has livable conditions and job prospects. They don't frankly care if that's Japan or Iceland, just as long as they're living in somewhere better than a tent city.

And yet Syrians aren't all flooding to Turkey on foot, they're walking through China to get to Japan, or hiking all of Europe to get to England. What they're doing is trying to capitalise on their situation to get as much as possible.

darkknight109 posted...

You are apparently unaware that Japan offers significant tax breaks and stipends to new parents in an effort to avert this very issue.

It is an effort, however it isn't enough to convince people, otherwise we wouldn't have people like you citing birth rates to get them to take in refugees.

darkknight109 posted...

a) Many refugees aren't "qualification-less". War is an equal-opportunity destroyer - it doesn't care if you're rich or poor, qualified or not; if you live in a war zone, you will be made a refugee. Plenty of highly qualified people are stuck in refugee camps because the war came their way. There seems to be this weird misconception that refugees are just poor, jobless types hoping for a free handout to a better life; that is not at all what the word "refugee" means. Most of them have had to work harder just to survive than anyone on this forum ever will in their lifetime.

I don't know about you, but I don't think 3rd world doctoring qualifications are good enough to get you in to any doctor job, especially in Japan. They are also by definition without a job when they're refugees, they're not fleeing to Japan to live but commuting back to Syria to hold up that job they clearly have there.

I'm not saying they don't have abilities, but they're definitely not in a position to prove they're as good a native workers with recognised qualifications.

darkknight109 posted...

b) Japan's issue isn't having too few jobs. If anything, they're trending in the opposite direction: too many retirees, not enough workers (if current trends hold, within a decade there will be twice as many retirees as people of working age). Immigrants of any kind would be a huge relief on a system that's now being stressed to breaking point.

This is assuming these people can hold jobs (which is pretty hard without previously learning the language) which seems to have not happened in other countries that have accepted refugees. When Japan wants labour, they can get it from countries that have citizens that had the time to learn the language and merge with Japanese society, refugees are inherently a drain.

darkknight109 posted...

c) Language can be taught (hell, I'm learning Japanese right now - in eight months of casual study, I can hold simple conversations and write at a ~3rd grade level). Culture can be learned. Culture clashes are far from inevitable.

Considering how westerners who share closer values to Japan and aren't coming from a warzome often make a fool of themselves and damage the reputation of foreigners accidentally, there's very little hope for refugees not completely pissing off the country before they have any opportunity to adapt.

You have had eight months to study Japanese at your own leisure with vast resources and barely have enough Japanese to work as a 7-11 clerk, let alone knowing any keigo or medical Japanese. Do you expect Japan to accept refugees of questionable training and look after them for a year before they can fill part time cashier jobs and far, far longer to realise Syria isn't up to speed with Japan when in comes to medical practices?
---

The refugee crisis is pissing off countries that actually want to be international, what chance do you think they have in ethnically pure Japan?

darkknight109 posted...

You know Japan approves ~99% of their citizenship applications, right?

You do realise you have to live in Japan for 5 years to become a long term resident, right? 5 more years and yes, you can apply for naturalisation to become a Japanese citizen (and they will obviously approve as you managed to last 10 years without being deported). What does that have to do with refugees who can't integrate?
---

cute_fan posted...

Japan accepts only 3 refugees in 2017

That's [at least] four too many....

Does anyone else get a very conservative old lady vibe from cute_fan?

Kind of on topic, I wish Japan would bring in more people to bolster their workforce and pump out babies. Their population pyramid's starting to look pretty shitty.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

cute_fan posted...

Japan accepts only 3 refugees in 2017

That's [at least] four too many....

Does anyone else get a very conservative old lady vibe from cute_fan?

Kind of on topic, I wish Japan would bring in more people to bolster their workforce and pump out babies. Their population pyramid's starting to look pretty shitty.

Remember, the more children in this generation, the more retirees in the next.

Also, if you want to bolster the workforce and birthrate, go there and marry a Japanese woman.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

cute_fan posted...

Japan accepts only 3 refugees in 2017

That's [at least] four too many....

Does anyone else get a very conservative old lady vibe from cute_fan?

Kind of on topic, I wish Japan would bring in more people to bolster their workforce and pump out babies. Their population pyramid's starting to look pretty shitty.

Remember, the more children in this generation, the more retirees in the next.

Also, if you want to bolster the workforce and birthrate, go there and marry a Japanese woman.

actually sorta know someone who did that. never met the man himself but his son. US military man got stationed in japan. married a woman there and decided to stay. his son however left and came to america lol. he figured he'd get treated better here being half black.
---

I am very liberal in my views on refugees. If you arent then, trigger warning I guess?

I believe that all countries that are developed should take in refugees to help these people. What is the point of letting them suffer more? If done right, then it is perfectly fine. What we dont need is Europes refugee situation, where so many came in that some nations had no idea what to do with them, and then Germany got like half while Estonia took in...what, 10 families?

In Canada, we also took in refugees from the Middle East but it was more controlled. No single men and women, families only. Despite that we still took in 30,000 in nearly 2 years, just from that one program. No problems here apart from some cultural rifts, such as the kids dont seem to realise that youre supposed to throw out garbage and not leave it lying around, no matter how much someone tells them to. Also they put 90% of the ones in our city in my apartment complex, which causes problems because...they dont talk with anyone else. Apart from the ones under 7, their English is very limited even after 2 years. Because they only interact with other refugees due to how easy it is

I can say this because I interact with the refugees from Syria on a daily basis
---

Zeus posted...

Well, Japan's average IQ is higher than most of the rest of the world so they clearly know better about this.

That's possibly the least intelligent sentence you've ever posted on here. Nothing about what you said there resembles a rational thought.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Also, if you want to bolster the workforce and birthrate, go there and marry a Japanese woman.

So... your solution is still for Japan to accept immigrants to shore up their birth rate? Seems consistent with the point you're trying to make.
---

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Also, if you want to bolster the workforce and birthrate, go there and marry a Japanese woman.

So... your solution is still for Japan to accept immigrants to shore up their birth rate? Seems consistent with the point you're trying to make.

Immigration is fine, refugee asylum is not. These are very different concepts.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Immigration is fine, refugee asylum is not. These are very different concepts.

The only real difference is that refugees get some degree of temporary funding to help establish themselves, given that they don't have the option of waiting. The problems that refugees would face integrating into Japanese culture apply to immigrants as well, and stem more from Japan's intense xenophobia than anything inherently wrong with the concept of immigration.
---

Good for Japan. I wish the US would take a page from their book.
---

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Immigration is fine, refugee asylum is not. These are very different concepts.

The only real difference is that refugees get some degree of temporary funding to help establish themselves, given that they don't have the option of waiting. The problems that refugees would face integrating into Japanese culture apply to immigrants as well, and stem more from Japan's intense xenophobia than anything inherently wrong with the concept of immigration.

The only real difference is their country has to be in agreement with Japan, they have to have skills Japan wants and Japan can send them home if they misbehave.

Refugees are protected and on average less skilled than willing immigrants, once they're in you're committed to dumping funds in to their lives segragated from Japanese society or clogging up prisons.
---

The US makes a pretty hefty average net profit for every refugee we bring in. Even if you don't actually care about other humans, it's economically great sense to bring in refugees.

Japan especially should do this. They're suffering from a very low birthrate and an aging population. They need a massive boost in younger population. Grabbing a bunch of refugees would be an excellent economic decision for them.

And yes, there's the humanitarian concerns and the fact that these are human beings who need help, but clearly that doesn't matter to several people in this topic.

SushiSquid posted...

The US makes a pretty hefty average net profit for every refugee we bring in. Even if you don't actually care about other humans, it's economically great sense to bring in refugees.

But what if you don't want to exploit refugees? And if they're such great profit, why aren't Syria's neighbours taking in these bags of flesh and money?
---

I'm conflicted because Japan is apparently one of the "safe" countries in the world since nobody really bothers you. I can see that quickly changing if refugees are allowed in.

On the other hand, from what I've read/seen on documentaries nobody is really procreating so the population will inevitably decline.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

But what if you don't want to exploit refugees?

Well, that's how our refugee program works right now. We give them a couple of months of help, but then make them pay everything back while also paying taxes. It exploits them for economic benefit, but they also get to live here. So far people aren't complaining.

mastermix3000 posted...

I can see that quickly changing if refugees are allowed in.

First generation refugee crime rates are nearly non-existent. Even second generation aren't higher than the general populace. Again, all of this is based on the US, but we have a lot of experience with refugees.

SushiSquid posted...

So far people aren't complaining.

Apart from everybody who's complaining.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

SushiSquid posted...

So far people aren't complaining.

Apart from everybody who's complaining.

People aren't complaining about how we exploit refugees, because they're still benefiting too. Some people complain about taking refugees at all, but those people are horribly ignorant of the system and so their opinions are useless.

SushiSquid posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

SushiSquid posted...

So far people aren't complaining.

Apart from everybody who's complaining.

People aren't complaining about how we exploit refugees, because they're still benefiting too. Some people complain about taking refugees at all, but those people are horribly ignorant of the system and so their opinions are useless.

When refugees appear and rape cases spike, that alone is enough to decide against taking in refugees, regardless of slave labour profits.
---

SushiSquid posted...

Some people complain about taking refugees at all, but those people are horribly ignorant of the system and so their opinions are useless.

What an ignorant and generalized statement.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When refugees appear and rape cases spike, that alone is enough to decide against taking in refugees, regardless of slave labour profits.

This does not happen in the US. Refugees are the most strongly vetted immigrants we have.

Peterass posted...

What an ignorant and generalized statement.

What? No, it is literally not possible to be educated on the US refugee system and to be against it for economic reasons. You could be against it because it's somewhat exploitative (even though it's a benefit to the refugees still) or because you're racist or xenophobic (which aren't valid reasons), but you can't be against it economically. There aren't two sides to this issue. There's just the truth.

SushiSquid posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When refugees appear and rape cases spike, that alone is enough to decide against taking in refugees, regardless of slave labour profits.

This does not happen in the US. Refugees are the most strongly vetted immigrants we have.

Peterass posted...

What an ignorant and generalized statement.

What? No, it is literally not possible to be educated on the US refugee system and to be against it for economic reasons. You could be against it because it's somewhat exploitative (even though it's a benefit to the refugees still) or because you're racist or xenophobic (which aren't valid reasons), but you can't be against it economically. There aren't two sides to this issue. There's just the truth.

You're doing it again
---

SushiSquid posted...

This does not happen in the US. Refugees are the most strongly vetted immigrants we have.

We are not talking about the US, we are talking about Japan. This happened in Germany, so why can't it happen elsewhere?
---

Personally I wouldn't recommend Japan as a place to seek asylum. Do they speak fluent Japanese? Because even if they did they are still a dirty gaijin.
---

SushiSquid posted...

And yes, there's the humanitarian concerns and the fact that these are human beings who need help, but clearly that doesn't matter to several people in this topic.

What's wrong with people like you? Just because people disagree with you on this subject doesn't mean they care less about the people.