Immigration: let's learn from Japan

[Player Twelve]

ROFLMAO. You clearly don't even know what's being discussed then. Freighter claims you don't have a human right to emigrate... Which you do. Now, for you to exercise that right you have to find a country willing to let you immigrate. Again, all rights have restrictions placed upon them. That doesn't negate the fact that they're rights.

I don't give a shit what Freighter claims or does not claim. You claimed:

Freedom of movement inherently includes a right to emmigrate, and, thus, a right to immigrate. Without the basic human right of freedom of movement you and your family would be praising Kim Jong Un for discovering the unicorn cave.

Right to immigrate does not logically follow right to emigrate. Freedom of movement is about your states territory and your right to leave any country. It does not mean you can just say "Bye bye USA, I'm moving to Sweden now". You can't just fucking show up here and say you want to live here. That's not what freedom of movement is about.

[Deldavala]

ROFLMAO. You clearly don't even know what's being discussed then. Freighter claims you don't have a human right to emigrate... Which you do. Now, for you to exercise that right you have to find a country willing to let you immigrate. Again, all rights have restrictions placed upon them. That doesn't negate the fact that they're rights.

Em, she said immigration isnt a right, its a privilige.

[Player Twelve]

I never fucking said it did. Why are so many morons making that logical leap when I never did?

Freedom of movement inherently includes a right to emmigrate, and, thus, a right to immigrate. Without the basic human right of freedom of movement you and your family would be praising Kim Jong Un for discovering the unicorn cave.

Yes, you fucking did.

[Theodarzna]

They don't plummet world wide. They plummet first-world wide. The population bomb is a busted myth, it doesn't form any genuine concern for the future of our planet, we'll peak in global population somewhere around mid-century and then start to fall back or at least level off. You may start seeing in the next couple decades too-late efforts by US/Canada/Australia, western and eastern europe including Russia, to start incentivizing people to get back into the business of human reproduction with an eye on the laws/art/history/values of those societies having someone around in future generations that still considers them important. Last time I checked the stats, of any of those countries, only the US has a non-immigrant birthrate that still hovers around replacement level (which is 2.1 live births per woman).

The map above shows the drop in fertility rate between 1970 and 2014. Globally the TFR has dropped from 4.45 in 1970 to around 2.5 in 2014. If the rate keeps falling, the world population will eventually stop growing and may actually start shrinking towards the end of the 21st century. Moreover, if the precedent of every other country on Earth is to go below 2.1, then all signs point to an inevitable point somewhere between 2030-2080 in which everywhere on Earth will be in the negative. In terms of absolute decreases, the biggest drops have happened in Libya, Maldives, Kuwait, Qatar and Bangladesh. In terms of relative decreases, the biggest drops have occurred in St. Lucia, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, Brunei and Iran. Finally, the world’s two most populous countries have both seen their TFR drop significantly between 1970 and 2014. India’s dropped from 5.5 to 2.4 a 56% decrease, while China’s dropped from 5.5 to 1.6 a 71% decrease and well below replacement. China's situation is exceptionally dire actually because they have a lopsided proportion of men to women, meaning even if they had a 2.1 birth rate, the physical number of women could not produce enough to replace the population so even if every Chinese woman today had three children a pop there would still be a point starting in 2050 in which they would begin losing 15-20 million people every 2-5 years or so.

(Source)

As for Policy to encourage natalism, Good Fucking Luck. Societies have been trying everything to encourage natalism and so far very few have achieved much success. I think Georgia had the biggest boom, or maybe it was Armenia? After the arch-bishop or chief patriarch agreed to personally baptize every family third child. Incentivizing breeding is incredibly difficult because it amounts to trying to pay women to make a life-changing decision, how much money will it take. I need little motivation to have babies, but I am motivated by religion. Fanaticism, or perhaps delusion depending on who you ask, convinced me to pop a baby out and to likely make more. Convincing other women will take probably an obscene amount of money. But countries have tried, and also tried the right-wing answers too like restrictions on family planning and to no avail. Nothing has actually yielded many results.

I could suggest countries offer some incentives. Maybe if you have two kids you get out of paying taxes into the pension system since you've already committed yourself to the countries future in a more substantial way. Hell, maybe "Make two babies, debts are forgiven" kind of scheme might even work to some degree. But there are no gaurentees that it will be enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Em, she said immigration isnt a right, its a privilige.

Yes, you fucking did.

Also not having a Right to resettle in whatever country you chose is self-evident by the fact that after WW2 all the signatory nations to that largely worthless charter did not immediately have an open borders policy.

[RickJamesLich]

Japan is famously xenophobic and their population is declining.

They're hardly the posterchild for viable immigration strategies.

I'm curious here - what is the problem with a population declining? It's not like the japanese are dealing with some sort of issue where they may be extinct or anything like that. Does anyone have a legit reason why this is considered bad?

[DrStiglit]

I'd like to point out that unless you're prepared to become a really big boy and provide for all that fresh underclass personally, we are under no real obligation to do so, and all your attempts to shame us into taking them will only be met with more resentment.

So no. What you going to do, inflame the situation so that it'll only get worse? You could try to institute proper economic models that would allow Western countries to utilize this wave of gold sinks, but with contemporary late stage democracies it's never going to happen, especially when the fresh underclass has no reason whatsoever not to vote left. Not that your corps would pick up the slack either since they'd be in an empowered position to drive for wage stagnation and even worse unemployment for locals.

So no. Go away, don't bother us no more.

First I'd like to point out I am already a big boy and provide by paying my taxes. I'm allowed to believe the tax money is mishandled and be upset that instead of it going to serve the under privileged it's continually being used to elevate the already wealthy. So what I don't want to do is make the rich richer while screwing over the middle & lower classes.

You're assuming I am talking about immigration when in fact I'm referring to legitimate American citizens. I never brought up immigration. You're also assuming I'm super liberal. I'm more middle ground. I agree immigration is an issue and should be addressed, but it's a very small issue in the grand scheme of the government and far from the cause of any major issues. Our problem is the politicians and the fact we have a self serving government, not a government for the people.

We also don't need a new economic plan. If we properly taxed corporations and the super wealthy instead of consistently providing tax breaks and screwing over the lower & middle class we would be able to fund healthcare and education for American citizens. If we stopped using inflated defense contracts as slush funds for politicians & corporations to send tax money to their own businesses, friends or launder money then we wouldn't have a funding issues.

This is what makes me lean towards democrat. While most politicians are awful and self serving, the democrat ideal is at least to try and provide some basics for the people while the republican ideal is essentially screw over everyone who isn't rich and blow all of the much smaller problems out of proportion and use fear to make people hate so you'll be distracted while they continually screw you over and you think it's all the immigrants fault.

[schwank05]

Can't bother to actually read our existing laws? Why do we need you again?

Because I have actually contributed to society, I have paid taxes since I was 14, I work and provide for my family, I support the Constitution, I can communicate with my neighbors. The list goes on and on as it does for most middle class Americans that are sick of carrying the weight of the illegal immigration Plague.

[Sky High]

Because I have actually contributed to society, I have paid taxes since I was 14, I work and provide for my family, I support the Constitution, I can communicate with my neighbors. The list goes on and on as it does for most middle class Americans that are sick of carrying the weight of the illegal immigration Plague.

ah yes, how put upon you really are.

[Deleted]

Japan is in deep shit.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/j...17-4?r=US&IR=T
http://www.businessinsider.com/japan...re-2017-7?IR=T
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...h-rate/534291/
https://www.ft.com/content/62f066cc-...7-502f7ee26895
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ped-having-sex
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...ecline/537375/

This is just from the first page of google if you type in "Japan population".

Like most first world nations, their natural born population is well below replacement rates. But they aren't able to compensate for that with immigration, due to their insular culture.

Ahh "the narrative". We've all seen articles like that since the late 80s. Yet here we are in 2018 and Japan still going strong.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm old enough that I remember articles from 1980's when every single country still had +2.5 replacement rate and how that growth would doom us all.

Will it?

Some and increasingly more demography researches doubt it.


Source.


Spoiler alert : the most rapidly developing countries in the nominally Western world are - ALL - losing population and are resisting mass immigration.
Think about that.

Yes thank you! Us older folks have been seeing the same propaganda since the 80s.

[Sharein]

negative population growth.

This is a problem because?

[GennGreymane]

So how many waifu pillows do I need?

[GennGreymane]

69

Huehue

huehuehuehue

[JohnBrown1917]

This is a problem because?

Somebody has to support the elderly.

[Player Twelve]

Somebody has to support the elderly.

Tell them to fuck off if they haven't saved money to last until they die after retirement.

[Paulosio]

Yes, let us learn from Japan how to not be so xenophobic and isolationist we experience negative population growth.

A system that relies on constantly increasing population is not smart in a world of decreasing resources and liveable land... Especially for a country like Japan with very limited living space. Eventually we are going to have to come up with another way of doing things because the current trend is just storing up problems for the future.

[Jastall]

Tell them to fuck off if they haven't saved money to last until they die after retirement.

And immediately lose your election because the elderly are a powerful voting group and telling your constituents to fuck off is hardly good policy.

Some of ya'll need to understand why some things don't happen in the real world.

[Rasulis]

To get a sense of Japan's population problem, one need to leave the big cities and spend some time in the countryside (small towns and villages.)

Closed schools because of not enough children.

No mail delivery. You pick up your mail at the post office which is only open half-day four days a week. If the old lady that run the post office ever decides to retire, they will probably close the post office, and people need to pick up their mail at the next town.

Good luck finding a gas station (sometimes).

The sign said population of 300, but during daytime you don't see anybody. The people that are left usually take the Shinkansen and work at the cities.

No businesses. Other than maybe some small inns and grocery stores.

You can ride your bike for miles and not see a single car.

Small towns in Japan takes the meaning of “Sleepy Little Town” to a completely different level. The word "dying" is probably more appropriate than "sleepy".

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Because I have actually contributed to society, I have paid taxes since I was 14, I work and provide for my family, I support the Constitution, I can communicate with my neighbors. The list goes on and on as it does for most middle class Americans that are sick of carrying the weight of the illegal immigration Plague.

I thought most illegals worked under the table and couldn't get benefits they also have to pay sale tax.

[Blur4stuff]

Japan is a very nice country. They do a lot of things right which makes them better than the US and most of Europe in most ways. But yes, they do have a declining population. So does most of white america/europe. Even China's population will do the same thing and eventually India.

Let's not forget, though, that the USA is not Japan. The USA exists as it does because of mass immigration right from the very start hundreds of years ago. We are a huge mix of different people and cultures. Japan is not and never has been. These two countries should not have the same immigration laws.

It's been something white nationalists love to drool over, though.

[tttsssrrr]

Japan is a very nice country. They do a lot of things right which makes them better than the US and most of Europe in most ways. But yes, they do have a declining population. So does most of white america/europe. Even China's population will do the same thing and eventually India.

Let's not forget, though, that the USA is not Japan. The USA exists as it does because of mass immigration right from the very start hundreds of years ago. We are a huge mix of different people and cultures. Japan is not and never has been. These two countries should not have the same immigration laws.

It's been something white nationalists love to drool over, though.

"Mass immigration right from the very start hundreds of years ago" might be a rather one sided perspective on what American immigration policy actually was. In 1921, the immigration was tied to the National Origins Formula. In 1965, this was replaced with Immigration and Nationality Act. We tinkered with it a little bit in the 80's but immigration law hasn't really changed massively since then. It's been over 50 years. There is a lot of data out there that deserves an examination and honest debate about the effectiveness of the act.