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

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Sarcasthma 10/05/17 1:45:50 AM #53:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Also, if you want to bolster the workforce and birthrate, go there and marry a Japanese woman. I am in Japan. No wife yet, though. --- What's the difference between a pickpocket and a peeping tom? A pickpocket snatches your watch. <cite>Sarcasthma posted [p:887840469] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, if you want to bolster the workforce and birthrate, go there and marry a Japanese woman.</quote> I am in Japan. No wife yet, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ssj4supervegeta 10/05/17 2:12:59 AM #54:	i think other people shaming countries for not accepting refugees is shameful. if you think it's so good, just take every single one then. if it's really not a big deal...im looking at you germany >.> --- LoL summoner: Vejitables Wanna know why me rogers so jolly? hehe <cite>ssj4supervegeta posted [p:887841402] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote>i think other people shaming countries for not accepting refugees is shameful. if you think it's so good, just take every single one then. if it's really not a big deal...im looking at you germany >.></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/05/17 2:20:44 AM #55:	darkknight109 posted... Fun fact: by raw numbers, the US takes in more refugees than Canada. As they should. Actually, they're under no obligation to take anybody so it's not "as they should." darkknight109 posted... You know Japan approves ~99% of their citizenship applications, right? Which is a pretty deceptive claim, given the hoops that people applying for citizenship have to jump through. Unless things have changed in the last five or six years, most people don't even get far enough through the process to put in an application. And, unlike other nations, Japan -- as well as China -- doesn't believe in spousal citizenship. Even after marrying a citizen, you still have to go through the normal process which, you know, is fairly restrictive. I was watching a documentary some time ago where a guy who had been married to a citizen for 6 or 7 years was finally being granted citizenship and the whole time I was thinking WTF... --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887841639] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Fun fact: by raw numbers, the US takes in more refugees than Canada. As they should.</quote> Actually, they're under no obligation to take anybody so it's not "as they should." <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote> You know Japan approves ~99% of their citizenship applications, right?</quote> Which is a pretty deceptive claim, given the hoops that people applying for citizenship have to jump through. Unless things have changed in the last five or six years, most people don't even get far enough through the process to put in an application. And, unlike other nations, Japan -- as well as China -- doesn't believe in spousal citizenship. Even after marrying a citizen, you still have to go through the normal process which, you know, is fairly restrictive. I was watching a documentary some time ago where a guy who had been married to a citizen for 6 or 7 years was finally being granted citizenship and the whole time I was thinking WTF...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/05/17 2:24:09 AM #56:	PKMNsony posted... 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. A few people in this topic have said "taking one refugee is too many!" I can see few other ways to read that other than not caring about them. Kyuubi4269 posted... 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. And you'd do the exact same thing in their shoes. Imagine you were dropped in the middle of Syria with no supplies and potentially with a few family members that were dependent on you. Where would you take them? To a tent city in Turkey? To a slum in Lebanon? Or, since you have to get out anyways, would you try and get them to the best place possible? If you say anything other than the last one, you're either stupid or lying. I hate this attitude that because refugees want the best life possible for their families, they're somehow horrible people (and that criticism usually comes from the same people who complain that poor people aren't ambitious enough and could solve their problems with a little gumption). Kyuubi4269 posted... 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. My point is the reason Japanese aren't having babies has very little to do with "fiscal responsibility", and dumbing down a complex societal issue to a two-word buzz phrase is ignorant. Kyuubi4269 posted... 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. I do know, actually, since I happen to be in a profession myself. In the professions - chiefly law, engineering, accounting, and medicine - it is possible to get a job with a degree from another country. Yes, even one like Syria. You typically have to pass a written exam that tests the same knowledge that graduates from a Western program would have to display, but as long as you do that your certification will stand up in most places. Hell, I've seen shittier grads coming out of American schools than I have from foreign ones, mostly because America has this weird, for-profit, de-regulated college industry that allows fly-by-night operations to set up shop and hand out diplomas like candy (incidentally, I think your current president set up one of those, didn't he?). I also love how you assume that no one in Syria might have actually travelled and gotten a degree from a university in Europe or the US. That's racist, dawg. Kyuubi4269 posted... 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. Never said they weren't. Kyuubi4269 posted... 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. Never said they were. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887841738] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>PKMNsony posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> 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.</quote> A few people in this topic have said "taking one refugee is too many!" I can see few other ways to read that other than not caring about them. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> And you'd do the exact same thing in their shoes. Imagine you were dropped in the middle of Syria with no supplies and potentially with a few family members that were dependent on you. Where would you take them? To a tent city in Turkey? To a slum in Lebanon? Or, since you have to get out anyways, would you try and get them to the best place possible? If you say anything other than the last one, you're either stupid or lying. I hate this attitude that because refugees want the best life possible for their families, they're somehow horrible people (and that criticism usually comes from the same people who complain that poor people aren't ambitious enough and could solve their problems with a little gumption). <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> My point is the reason Japanese aren't having babies has very little to do with "fiscal responsibility", and dumbing down a complex societal issue to a two-word buzz phrase is ignorant. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> I do know, actually, since I happen to be in a profession myself. In the professions - chiefly law, engineering, accounting, and medicine - it is possible to get a job with a degree from another country. Yes, even one like Syria. You typically have to pass a written exam that tests the same knowledge that graduates from a Western program would have to display, but as long as you do that your certification will stand up in most places. Hell, I've seen shittier grads coming out of American schools than I have from foreign ones, mostly because America has this weird, for-profit, de-regulated college industry that allows fly-by-night operations to set up shop and hand out diplomas like candy (incidentally, I think your current president set up one of those, didn't he?). I also love how you assume that no one in Syria might have actually travelled and gotten a degree from a university in Europe or the US. That's racist, dawg. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Never said they weren't. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Never said they were.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/05/17 2:24:13 AM #57:	Kyuubi4269 posted... 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. Are they going to be as employable or effective as native born workers? No, of course not, and I've never argued otherwise. Here's why this train of thought is so pointless, though - The (main) reason you're taking these people in has nothing to do with their employability. It has everything to do with the fact that these people are dying in droves and virtually every moral code in the world says the right thing to do in that situation is to help in whatever way we can. We can keep arguing about employability, but that's ultimately a side-point to the main issue here. These people have to go somewhere, or they die. That isn't a choice at all. Kyuubi4269 posted... 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. I take it you've never been to Japan. Yes, Japan tends to look on foreigners and visitors as being loud, obnoxious, and rude (and I've seen the behaviour of other tourists over there and can totally understand why). But the flipside of that is that they also cut you a lot of slack, because they tend to assume you know nothing of their culture. Thus, yes, you can get away with a lot while still learning that wouldn't fly for a native. Kyuubi4269 posted... 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. At my leisure being the key phrase here. I put in an hour or two a day, for the most part. Some days none, if I'm too busy. If I had to learn the language to get employed, you can bet I'd be spending a lot more time on it and progressing a lot faster. Kyuubi4269 posted... The refugee crisis is pissing off countries that actually want to be international, what chance do you think they have in ethnically pure Japan? Remote. That said, that's not what the question was - the question is what should be happening, not what will happen. Kyuubi4269 posted... 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? It's, again, racist as shit to presume that refugees can't or won't integrate. Yes, some won't. But some will. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887841741] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> Are they going to be as employable or effective as native born workers? No, of course not, and I've never argued otherwise. Here's why this train of thought is so pointless, though - The (main) reason you're taking these people in has nothing to do with their employability. It has everything to do with the fact that these people are dying in droves and virtually every moral code in the world says the right thing to do in that situation is to help in whatever way we can. We can keep arguing about employability, but that's ultimately a side-point to the main issue here. These people have to go somewhere, or they die. That isn't a choice at all. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> I take it you've never been to Japan. Yes, Japan tends to look on foreigners and visitors as being loud, obnoxious, and rude (and I've seen the behaviour of other tourists over there and can totally understand why). But the flipside of that is that they also cut you a lot of slack, because they tend to assume you know nothing of their culture. Thus, yes, you can get away with a lot while still learning that wouldn't fly for a native. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> At my leisure being the key phrase here. I put in an hour or two a day, for the most part. Some days none, if I'm too busy. If I had to learn the language to get employed, you can bet I'd be spending a lot more time on it and progressing a lot faster. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>The refugee crisis is pissing off countries that actually want to be international, what chance do you think they have in ethnically pure Japan? </quote> Remote. That said, that's not what the question was - the question is what should be happening, not what will happen. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>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?</quote> It's, again, racist as shit to presume that refugees can't or won't integrate. Yes, some won't. But some will.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/05/17 2:27:37 AM #58:	Zeus posted... Actually, they're under no obligation to take anybody so it's not "as they should." You're right, they're not. They're still doing what they should by taking them, though. That's what people who actually have empathy do - they help each other. Apparently this is a foreign concept for you. Zeus posted... And, unlike other nations, Japan -- as well as China -- doesn't believe in spousal citizenship This is half-false. Yes, marrying a citizen does not immediately make you a citizen as well; however, after getting married you can get a spousal Visa which allows you to live and work in Japan without the restrictions that usually apply to foreigners. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887841819] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Actually, they're under no obligation to take anybody so it's not "as they should." </quote> You're right, they're not. They're still doing what they should by taking them, though. That's what people who actually have empathy do - they help each other. Apparently this is a foreign concept for you. <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>And, unlike other nations, Japan -- as well as China -- doesn't believe in spousal citizenship</quote> This is half-false. Yes, marrying a citizen does not immediately make you a citizen as well; however, after getting married you can get a spousal Visa which allows you to live and work in Japan without the restrictions that usually apply to foreigners.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/05/17 2:34:27 AM #59:	adjl posted... 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. If you can't comprehend it, it might be a matter of insufficient IQ. Yellow posted... Japan sort of has nothing to do with the middle east. The US is kind of responsible. Except not really (or, at least, not exclusively), a lot of the problems started when the lines were drawn which was the result of the UK and France. Then a lot of the region's stability issues were inherent to its oil exports. While the US's foreign policy has repeatedly caused issues in the region (thanks, Obama! And Hillary... and GWB and... well, long list), the region has always had issues. SushiSquid posted... 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. The problem with those assessments is that the trends were based on non-Muslim refugees. If you look at countries like Germany which have mass-imported, they've had fairly substantial issues with refugee crimes which led to government pressure on police to underreport incidents. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887842001] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Well, Japan's average IQ is higher than most of the rest of the world so they clearly know better about this.</quote> That's possibly the least intelligent sentence you've ever posted on here. Nothing about what you said there resembles a rational thought.</quote> If you can't comprehend it, it might be a matter of insufficient IQ. <cite>Yellow posted...</cite> <quote>Japan sort of has nothing to do with the middle east. The US is kind of responsible.</quote> Except not really (or, at least, not exclusively), a lot of the problems started when the lines were drawn which was the result of the UK and France. Then a lot of the region's stability issues were inherent to its oil exports. While the US's foreign policy has repeatedly caused issues in the region (thanks, Obama! And Hillary... and GWB and... well, long list), the region has always had issues. <cite>SushiSquid posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> The problem with those assessments is that the trends were based on non-Muslim refugees. If you look at countries like Germany which have mass-imported, they've had fairly substantial issues with refugee crimes which led to government pressure on police to underreport incidents.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/05/17 2:37:47 AM #60:	darkknight109 posted... They're still doing what they should by taking them, though. That's what people who actually have empathy do - they help each other. Apparently this is a foreign concept for you. Sounds like the crazy cat lady version of empathy. darkknight109 posted... This is half-false. Yes, marrying a citizen does not immediately make you a citizen as well; however, after getting married you can get a spousal Visa which allows you to live and work in Japan without the restrictions that usually apply to foreigners. Which, I'll mention as a general aside, is better than China whose marriage visa doesn't allow foreign-spouses to work. However, it's still not citizenship. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887842073] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote> They're still doing what they should by taking them, though. That's what people who actually have empathy do - they help each other. Apparently this is a foreign concept for you.</quote> Sounds like the crazy cat lady version of empathy. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>This is half-false. Yes, marrying a citizen does not immediately make you a citizen as well; however, after getting married you can get a spousal Visa which allows you to live and work in Japan without the restrictions that usually apply to foreigners.</quote> Which, I'll mention as a general aside, is better than China whose marriage visa doesn't allow foreign-spouses to work. However, it's still not citizenship.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/05/17 2:47:51 AM #61:	Zeus posted... Sounds like the crazy cat lady version of empathy. Ah, yes, I see... the nation with the largest economy in the world shouldn't help dying people because it's "crazy cat lady" tendencies. Gotcha. You must be a real hit at parties. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887842321] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Sounds like the crazy cat lady version of empathy. </quote> Ah, yes, I see... the nation with the largest economy in the world shouldn't help dying people because it's "crazy cat lady" tendencies. Gotcha. You must be a real hit at parties.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 10/05/17 2:50:37 AM #62:	Japan is entirely in their rights to refuse refugees. They ARE a sovereign nation and part of being one is having the ability to close your borders. So... Go Japan! --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:887842410] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote>Japan is entirely in their rights to refuse refugees. They ARE a sovereign nation and part of being one is having the ability to close your borders. So... Go Japan!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/05/17 2:51:29 AM #63:	darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Sounds like the crazy cat lady version of empathy. Ah, yes, I see... the nation with the largest economy in the world shouldn't help dying people because it's "crazy cat lady" tendencies. Gotcha. You must be a real hit at parties. Oh, so this is about dying people? Then why aren't we mass-importing from Somalia? Why aren't we mass-importing through large parts of Central and South America? Why aren't we mass-importing from South-East Asia where genocide is happening at this very minute? Hell, why not India, for that matter? If we're going to be saving dying people, the world is full of them. And, rather than recognize our limits and pursuing cost-effective measures like local resettlement, you want to bring all of those cats inside our house. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:887842438] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Sounds like the crazy cat lady version of empathy. </quote> Ah, yes, I see... the nation with the largest economy in the world shouldn't help dying people because it's "crazy cat lady" tendencies. Gotcha. You must be a real hit at parties.</quote> Oh, so this is about dying people? Then why aren't we mass-importing from Somalia? Why aren't we mass-importing through large parts of Central and South America? Why aren't we mass-importing from South-East Asia where genocide is happening at this very minute? Hell, why not India, for that matter? If we're going to be saving dying people, the world is full of them. And, rather than recognize our limits and pursuing cost-effective measures like local resettlement, you want to bring all of those cats inside our house.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/05/17 3:06:53 AM #64:	Zeus posted... darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Sounds like the crazy cat lady version of empathy. Ah, yes, I see... the nation with the largest economy in the world shouldn't help dying people because it's "crazy cat lady" tendencies. Gotcha. You must be a real hit at parties. Oh, so this is about dying people? Then why aren't we mass-importing from Somalia? Why aren't we mass-importing through large parts of Central and South America? Why aren't we mass-importing from South-East Asia where genocide is happening at this very minute? Because... we are? I mean, people from any of those places can and do make refugee claims. It's not like all refugees only come from one or two countries and we don't allow anyone from anywhere else. Zeus posted... If we're going to be saving dying people, the world is full of them. And, rather than recognize our limits and pursuing cost-effective measures like local resettlement, you want to bring all of those cats inside our house. Where did "recognizing our limits" ever enter into the conversation? This topic has never been about "should we save ALL of them", it's been about "should Japan (or we) do more?" with the answer being "Yes, obviously". Yes, there is a finite amount of people our resources can provide for. Yes, we cannot save everyone and it would be folly to try. But that does not mean that we should not make reasonable attempts to save as many as our resources will provide for. "Local resettlement" only tends to work in places that don't produce refugees in the first place. It's hard to argue for local resettlement in somewhere like Syria, where an active war is taking place and the government is under heavy sanctions (meaning it's actually pretty difficult to fund resettlement activities, nevermind avoid getting them blown up three months after they're built). In those cases, the cost effective solution is to take people as refugees. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887842821] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Sounds like the crazy cat lady version of empathy. </quote> Ah, yes, I see... the nation with the largest economy in the world shouldn't help dying people because it's "crazy cat lady" tendencies. Gotcha. You must be a real hit at parties.</quote> Oh, so this is about dying people? Then why aren't we mass-importing from Somalia? Why aren't we mass-importing through large parts of Central and South America? Why aren't we mass-importing from South-East Asia where genocide is happening at this very minute? </quote> Because... we are? I mean, people from any of those places can and do make refugee claims. It's not like all refugees only come from one or two countries and we don't allow anyone from anywhere else. <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>If we're going to be saving dying people, the world is full of them. And, rather than recognize our limits and pursuing cost-effective measures like local resettlement, you want to bring all of those cats inside our house. </quote> Where did "recognizing our limits" ever enter into the conversation? This topic has never been about "should we save ALL of them", it's been about "should Japan (or we) do more?" with the answer being "Yes, obviously". Yes, there is a finite amount of people our resources can provide for. Yes, we cannot save everyone and it would be folly to try. But that does not mean that we should not make reasonable attempts to save as many as our resources will provide for. "Local resettlement" only tends to work in places that don't produce refugees in the first place. It's hard to argue for local resettlement in somewhere like Syria, where an active war is taking place and the government is under heavy sanctions (meaning it's actually pretty difficult to fund resettlement activities, nevermind avoid getting them blown up three months after they're built). In those cases, the cost effective solution is to take people as refugees.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 10/05/17 4:23:02 AM #65:	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. how is that some other country's problem? --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:887844438] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> how is that some other country's problem?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/05/17 5:19:53 AM #67:	Krazy_Kirby 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. how is that some other country's problem? darkknight109 posted... Zeus posted... Actually, they're under no obligation to take anybody so it's not "as they should." You're right, they're not. They're still doing what they should by taking them, though. That's what people who actually have empathy do - they help each other. Apparently this is a foreign concept for you. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887845506] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> how is that some other country's problem?</quote> <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Actually, they're under no obligation to take anybody so it's not "as they should." </quote> You're right, they're not. They're still doing what they should by taking them, though. That's what people who actually have empathy do - they help each other. Apparently this is a foreign concept for you.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 10/05/17 4:39:23 PM #68:	Where did "recognizing our limits" ever enter into the conversation? This topic has never been about "should we save ALL of them", it's been about "should Japan (or we) do more?" with the answer being "Yes, obviously". No. That's not the 'obvious' answer. One of the important bits of being a nation is deciding who lives within. Borders exist for a reason and if anyone can just go anywhere than there is no point in having a nation at all. Like it or not Japan is entirely within its rights as a nation to refuse refugee's for any reason. However, the point with this statement is not that we should take 'all' the refugee's but, rather, that a lot of people didn't care about rescuing refugee's until this specific group came up. Then suddenly they all went and became active and insisting that 'we need to take more' all while never talking about other groups of people. To borrow the cat analogy it's like getting outraged every time someone refuses to adopt a calico and claiming that they're part of a pro-dog conspiracy and utter monsters, but when someone refuses to adopt a tabby, Siamese, or Maine coon the same group is suddenly silent. It's not that you need to accept 'all' the refugee's (though if you can't close your borders or exclude people from traveling across them why aren't you accepting all of them?), it's that no one cared until this one group became an issue at which point they suddenly stopped being apathetic and started to care. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:887874943] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote>Where did "recognizing our limits" ever enter into the conversation? This topic has never been about "should we save ALL of them", it's been about "should Japan (or we) do more?" with the answer being "Yes, obviously". No. That's not the 'obvious' answer. One of the important bits of being a nation is deciding who lives within. Borders exist for a reason and if anyone can just go anywhere than there is no point in having a nation at all. Like it or not Japan is entirely within its rights as a nation to refuse refugee's for any reason. However, the point with this statement is not that we should take 'all' the refugee's but, rather, that a lot of people didn't care about rescuing refugee's until this specific group came up. Then suddenly they all went and became active and insisting that 'we need to take more' all while never talking about other groups of people. To borrow the cat analogy it's like getting outraged every time someone refuses to adopt a calico and claiming that they're part of a pro-dog conspiracy and utter monsters, but when someone refuses to adopt a tabby, Siamese, or Maine coon the same group is suddenly silent. It's not that you need to accept 'all' the refugee's (though if you can't close your borders or exclude people from traveling across them why aren't you accepting all of them?), it's that no one cared until this one group became an issue at which point they suddenly stopped being apathetic and started to care.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/05/17 6:53:47 PM #69:	Unbridled9 posted... No. That's not the 'obvious' answer. One of the important bits of being a nation is deciding who lives within. Borders exist for a reason and if anyone can just go anywhere than there is no point in having a nation at all. Like it or not Japan is entirely within its rights as a nation to refuse refugee's for any reason. Didn't say they weren't. Yes, it is absolutely their choice, and no one will force them to do more. However, as I have explained several times in this topic so far, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do more. They absolutely should. If I spent every weekend drinking myself into a stupor, that's my right as long as I'm not driving or causing public disturbances. No one is going to force me stop drinking. But if someone were to ask "shouldn't you cut down on your drinking", the answer is an unarguable yes. Same idea here. Unbridled9 posted... However, the point with this statement is not that we should take 'all' the refugee's but, rather, that a lot of people didn't care about rescuing refugee's until this specific group came up. Then suddenly they all went and became active and insisting that 'we need to take more' all while never talking about other groups of people. To borrow the cat analogy it's like getting outraged every time someone refuses to adopt a calico and claiming that they're part of a pro-dog conspiracy and utter monsters, but when someone refuses to adopt a tabby, Siamese, or Maine coon the same group is suddenly silent. It's not that you need to accept 'all' the refugee's (though if you can't close your borders or exclude people from traveling across them why aren't you accepting all of them?), it's that no one cared until this one group became an issue at which point they suddenly stopped being apathetic and started to care. Well, first off, no one in this topic has specified a specific group of refugees. The question wasn't "Should Japan take more refugees from _______", it was "Should Japan take more refugees". Second, addressing Syrian refugees specifically, you realise that the reverse of what you said is also true, right? Many people who were ambivalent, or even supportive, of refugee support and resettlement programs (particularly in conservative areas, given that most Christian churches and denominations have a long history of refugee outreach) suddenly vociferously objected to this particular group of refugees (fully half the governors in the US - all Republicans - attempted to block the resttlement of Syrian refugees within their states), largely because "OMG, MUSLIMS, THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!". It's discrimination and hysteria of the highest, most disgusting order. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887882498] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>No. That's not the 'obvious' answer. One of the important bits of being a nation is deciding who lives within. Borders exist for a reason and if anyone can just go anywhere than there is no point in having a nation at all. Like it or not Japan is entirely within its rights as a nation to refuse refugee's for any reason.</quote> Didn't say they weren't. Yes, it is absolutely their choice, and no one will force them to do more. However, as I have explained several times in this topic so far, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do more. They absolutely should. If I spent every weekend drinking myself into a stupor, that's my right as long as I'm not driving or causing public disturbances. No one is going to force me stop drinking. But if someone were to ask "shouldn't you cut down on your drinking", the answer is an unarguable yes. Same idea here. <cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>However, the point with this statement is not that we should take 'all' the refugee's but, rather, that a lot of people didn't care about rescuing refugee's until this specific group came up. Then suddenly they all went and became active and insisting that 'we need to take more' all while never talking about other groups of people. To borrow the cat analogy it's like getting outraged every time someone refuses to adopt a calico and claiming that they're part of a pro-dog conspiracy and utter monsters, but when someone refuses to adopt a tabby, Siamese, or Maine coon the same group is suddenly silent. It's not that you need to accept 'all' the refugee's (though if you can't close your borders or exclude people from traveling across them why aren't you accepting all of them?), it's that no one cared until this one group became an issue at which point they suddenly stopped being apathetic and started to care. </quote> Well, first off, no one in this topic has specified a specific group of refugees. The question wasn't "Should Japan take more refugees from _______", it was "Should Japan take more refugees". Second, addressing Syrian refugees specifically, you realise that the reverse of what you said is also true, right? Many people who were ambivalent, or even supportive, of refugee support and resettlement programs (particularly in conservative areas, given that most Christian churches and denominations have a long history of refugee outreach) suddenly vociferously objected to this particular group of refugees (fully half the governors in the US - all Republicans - attempted to block the resttlement of Syrian refugees within their states), largely because "OMG, MUSLIMS, THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!". It's discrimination and hysteria of the highest, most disgusting order.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby 10/05/17 7:16:55 PM #70:	^ maybe they objected because the democrats are puting refugees in states they don't control. they are trying to change voter percentage by placing them in republic majority states --- Kill From The Shadows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot <cite>Krazy_Kirby posted [p:887883794] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote>^ maybe they objected because the democrats are puting refugees in states they don't control. they are trying to change voter percentage by placing them in republic majority states</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfestedAdam 10/05/17 7:48:01 PM #71:	Zikten posted... Japan is extremely xenophobic. This is no surprise. I've heard the same. Even Japanese from outside of Japan are kinda treated different. Though I guess a Japanese American is technically American first and Japanese second. It's weird. I have heard they treat you well as a guest but differently if you're living there. Supposedly the population that accepts Western culture is a minority. --- "You must gather your party before venturing forth" "Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!" <cite>InfestedAdam posted [p:887885278] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>Japan is extremely xenophobic. This is no surprise.</quote> I've heard the same. Even Japanese from outside of Japan are kinda treated different. Though I guess a Japanese American is technically American first and Japanese second. It's weird. I have heard they treat you well as a guest but differently if you're living there. Supposedly the population that accepts Western culture is a minority.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 10/05/17 7:53:49 PM #72:	Krazy_Kirby posted... ^ maybe they objected because the democrats are puting refugees in states they don't control. they are trying to change voter percentage by placing them in republic majority states Let's ignore, for a second, this idea that all refugees are going to be Democrat voters by default (hint: the Republican party could very easily change that if they wanted to). Let's also not bother discussing how "No, those people can't come here, they might make the people want a different government in charge!" is a really, really shitty rationale to have. Instead, let's talk some numbers here: The US population in 2017 is 325 million. The US refugee cap, set by Obama, for 2017 was 110,000. Across all states, not just the Republican ones. You do the math. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:887885583] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote>^ maybe they objected because the democrats are puting refugees in states they don't control. they are trying to change voter percentage by placing them in republic majority states</quote> Let's ignore, for a second, this idea that all refugees are going to be Democrat voters by default (hint: the Republican party could very easily change that if they wanted to). Let's also not bother discussing how "No, those people can't come here, they might make the people want a different government in charge!" is a really, really shitty rationale to have. Instead, let's talk some numbers here: The US population in 2017 is 325 million. The US refugee cap, set by Obama, for 2017 was 110,000. Across all states, not just the Republican ones. You do the math.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/05/17 8:12:38 PM #73:	InfestedAdam posted... Zikten posted... Japan is extremely xenophobic. This is no surprise. I've heard the same. Even Japanese from outside of Japan are kinda treated different. Though I guess a Japanese American is technically American first and Japanese second. It's weird. I have heard they treat you well as a guest but differently if you're living there. Supposedly the population that accepts Western culture is a minority. They simply treat you as a foreigner because you are. You're actually treated exactly the same whether you live there or not, so people who emigrate feel patronised as they think they should be treated like a native. Japan only recognises lineage, citizenship doesn't make people not foreigners in their eyes. That's not to say they treat foreigners poorly, they just don't expect much from them as they don't know what to expect from different cultures. --- RIP_Supa posted... I've seen some stuff <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:887886639] in Japan acce... [t:75842378]...</cite> <quote><cite>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>Japan is extremely xenophobic. This is no surprise.</quote> I've heard the same. Even Japanese from outside of Japan are kinda treated different. Though I guess a Japanese American is technically American first and Japanese second. It's weird. I have heard they treat you well as a guest but differently if you're living there. Supposedly the population that accepts Western culture is a minority.</quote> They simply treat you as a foreigner because you are. You're actually treated exactly the same whether you live there or not, so people who emigrate feel patronised as they think they should be treated like a native. Japan only recognises lineage, citizenship doesn't make people not foreigners in their eyes. That's not to say they treat foreigners poorly, they just don't expect much from them as they don't know what to expect from different cultures.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Japan accepts only 3 refugees in 2017 (+) Yeah! (+)

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