[ue_]

How does immigration mean that you're "destroying their own culture"? Please stop talking in hyperbole and being sarcastic, it isn't helpful.

I can't see why a unique culture ought to be 'preserved' as people say, either. And I can't see why the 'bad' parts cannot be slowly eroded over time. Nor do I see why certain 'races' ought to be kept. This has always been an argument that's been relatively ignored - why exactly is it desirable to keep a certain race or culture, especially when certain elements of that culture are horrible?

Please do not misinterpret me; I do not speak in terms of some 'white man's burden' in a colonial way. It is ultimately the decision of the Japanese citizens. But I do not see why they should be motivated in the name of nebulous and vague concepts of pride rather than what is best pragmatically.

[ng12]

> It is ultimately the decision of the Japanese citizens

I mean, that's exactly it. Why is it so shocking an idea that the Japanese apparently prefer to retain their homogeneity even if it weakens their economy?

[ekianjo]

countries In europe with massive immigration levels are not doIng extremely well. Lets not pretend immigration solves everything please.

[ue_]

I assume you are referring to the refugee crisis. Nobody claims that refugees help with the economy. Nobody is saying immigration solves everything.

[michaelbuddy]

Actually there are people in this thread who think that destroying culture is a positive thing, so people are in fact saying that and sometimes they are pushing for it whether they say it outright, or they do it without knowing it will be the consequence.

And as far as the places that have refugees where people are not happy about it, many people are insisting that refugees "help the economy" as a reason it should continue of course it's a narrow assessment and totally invalidates citizens concerns and that's the problem. Not to mention those pushing for refugees never seem to live in the neighborhoods where the burden or problems will need shouldered. It's always some moral stance rather than an empirical one and frankly a citizens preference to not have to deal with the trouble should be the first consideration but lately it hasn't been.

[flamedoge]

It's not.

[edblarney]

I don't think it's fair to assume that 'lack of immigration' = 'bad economy'.

There are tons of places in the world with fairly massive immigration and/or multicultural societies - that are far worse than Japan.

Brazil is a very, very multi-ethnic and blended society - and it's not exactly a paradise.

In fact - the opposite may be true: Japan is not a huge-huge country, and they hit massively 'above their weight' on so many things.

One could possibly argue that their ethnic cohesion and national identity are actually drivers of their success.

On the whole I guess it's hard to tell, but again I don't think it's fair to always assume 'immigration = good for economy'.

[ue_]

>Why is it so shocking an idea that the Japanese apparently prefer to retain their homogeneity even if it weakens their economy?

Is this true? How do you know?

[ng12]

I'm mostly judging by the fact that Japan is a democratic country in which immigration is incredibly restricted. The country is over 98% ethnically Japanese.

[fiblye]

Immigration here is incredibly relaxed. If you have a college degree, you can find someone willing to offer you a job, and you haven't committed a felony, you're welcome. People just choose not to come to Japan because they endlessly hear how supposedly racist it is here and how difficult it is to get over the language barrier.

And it may be a surprise to many westerners who find a need to push their cultural and political perspectives everywhere, but some people do indeed prefer protecting a cultural or national identity over quick economic gains. A non-insignificant portion of the world looks at America and and instead of thinking, "Wow, this is what we need to be", thinks, "This is what I don't want to become."

[chillwaves]

> "This is what I don't want to become."

Very much doubt this is due to our history of immigration.

Is this the same kind of logic that says gay people shouldn't have kids people the bigots will bully them?

[posterboy]

> gay people shouldn't have kids people

Come again?

> Very much doubt this is due to our history of immigration.

The south is full of racists anyway, according to media portrayal.

> Is this the same kind of logic

Since the US is a multi faceted country you can reasonably assume that it's not all ideally awe-inspiring.

> the bigots will bully

Whereas you take extra care to remain neutral or at least not to flame offensively in an unrelated thread? That doesn't seem to be working for you either.

[ng12]

I appreciate your insight. I think that's a big part of the difference -- in the US "relaxed immigration" would mean people without money or skills.

[ue_]

That's not evidence; you'll have to show that at least 50% of the population believe in 'preserving Japanese identity' and have voted as such to limit immigration, for that purpose. Otherwise you're talking from nothing, just your intuition. It's an easy intuition to have, I'll give you that.

[ng12]

I thought the use of "apparently" would imply it was intuition.