alt Hacker NewsRequiring proficiency in the language is reasonable, but requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane. That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
Replies
The US has something like this, but the income threshold is lower.[1] US immigrants in most categories have to show that they will not become a "public charge", that is, need US welfare benefits.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-...
> That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
That’s not the standard. The standard is making sure someone is really a huge contribution to the society such that it offsets the burden of immigration.
> requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane
It isn't that hard to have above-average income – around 40% of Japanese workers do.
I think "a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts" may be much more challenging to meet, however.
> That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
I am not sure in understand the issue, if Japanese want this, what’s the problem?
They don't want to risk someone coming for a job, getting fired and becoming a drain on the social safety net. Able to care for themselves not just now, but for a while. It's a reasonable position.
The more welfare you have, the better of an idea this is. An aging country especially cannot afford to risk more wards of the state.
> and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years
It's a confusing guideline but this isn't accurate. You need to show an expected future pension (could be savings) equivalent to a salaried worker who paid into an employee's pension for 30 years. That's strict, but there will probably be a bunch of ways to show that.
I think the argument is that the requirements should be stricter than "able to care for themselves".
The 30 years thing is insane for sure. Making more money than the average might be insane, it depends on how much more (which I didn't spot in the article, maybe I missed it).
It's not about being reasonable, it's about having a good reason to kick basically everyone out who isn't 100% Japanese, or who has enough money to prop up their aging population and get almost nothing in return.
Seems like they want to keep their culture and their country for their people. Yes… villains, apparently.
That seems completely sane and I am happy for the people of Japan that they get to enjoy such a law.
> requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population
In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors. I can't find what the same statistic is for Japan. I don't believe it's wrong for there to be an expectation that they be a net contributor.