‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Japan moves to tighten rules for foreigners

206 points · 623 comments · mikhael

  1. autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
    Requiring 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.
    1. Animats · · focus · HN ↗
      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] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.uscis.gov&#x2F;newsroom&#x2F;alerts&#x2F;uscis-issues-guidance-on-making-public-charge-inadmissibility-determination" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.uscis.gov&#x2F;newsroom&#x2F;alerts&#x2F;uscis-issues-guidance-...

      1. TMWNN · · focus · HN ↗
        Every single person who came through Ellis Island &lt;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newspapers.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-precautions-tak&#x2F;20781025&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newspapers.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-...&gt;

        * was a legal immigrant

        * had passed a medical inspection

        * had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same

        * was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal

        Shipping liner companies were charged to return ineligible passengers to their origin (the same is true with airlines today), so they had every incentive to verify ahead of time that they could enter the destination country. The &quot;only 2% of immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island&quot; statistic often bandied-about by the pro-open borders side elides the restrictions that caused the rate to be so low in the first place.

        I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.

        1. dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
          Why? The US doesn’t have a problem of too many people „draining“ the country resources.
          1. cdot2 · · focus · HN ↗
            Something like two thirds of the US federal budget is spent on some form of welfare. Assuming you want to keep that ratio you could spend more per person with fewer people withdrawing from that system.
            1. lokar · · focus · HN ↗
              On average, foreign born US residents use less public assistance then native born.
              1. zdragnar · · focus · HN ↗
                I&#x27;d love to see some source for this, because from what I&#x27;ve seen, 59% of undocumented immigrants receive some form of welfare (the state of California spends roughly $10 billion a year alone on this) and documented migrants are at roughly the same rate, double the native born population&#x27;s rate of 28%.
                1. stackskipton · · focus · HN ↗
                  I can&#x27;t find study now from CIS but when I dug into it, it lumped citizen children of undocumented immigrants into &quot;undocumented immigrant&quot;, and other studies classify them as native&#x2F;citizen. It also looked at estimated education costs since schools are required to take all school age kids without regard to immigration status and many of big school systems don&#x27;t have a breakdown of immigration status. CIS argument was: If parents are immigrants, shouldn&#x27;t be contribute the kids cost to them regardless of kids status?

                  Looking at CBO numbers, CBO reports that recent immigration into United States is drain, in particular, at state and local level since that&#x27;s generally budget that gets impacted the most by people. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbo.gov&#x2F;publication&#x2F;61464" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbo.gov&#x2F;publication&#x2F;61464

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.