Why can't our immigration policy be more like India or Japan?

The immigration policies in India and Japan are effective and not lenient:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../india-bangladesh-border-shoot-to-kill-policy

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uz6_tybfEY"]Illegal Immigration in Japan --cops arrest & deport illegal alien (English subtitled) - YouTube[/ame]

Japan stringently protects its ethnic composition.
sources:
http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/2009/Llewelyn.html
http://dallasfed.org/research/events/2011/immigration_chung.pdf

Israel also has ethnically discriminatory immigration policy and laws:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udO65M_KIOA&feature=related"]Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazars - Ashkenazi Jews are Israelites - YouTube[/ame]

Why can't our Western countries have the same strict laws, or in the case of the USA, protect our laws and borders with such effectiveness?

 

Under Israeli law, the acquisition of nationality differentiates between Jews and non-Jews. Under the Law of Return, a Jew gets Israeli citizenship automatically when immigrating to Israel, whereas the requirements for non-Jews are very restrictive. Essentially, a non-jew must either have a parent who is an Israeli citizen or

As can be seen, the laws are clearly designed to exclude non-jews, while trying not to be to restrictive to the palestinians already living in the area. Just because you are born in Israel and have lived there all of your life does not necessarily mean you will be able to become a citizen.

 

Granny says, "Obama said it himself...

McCain on Obama Granting Work Permits to Illegals: He Can't Do It Because He's Not King
June 19, 2012 - Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com on Monday that President Barack Obama does not have the authority to unilaterally grant illegal aliens the authorization to work in the United States because he is not a king.

See also:

60 Illegals From Countries That ‘Promote, Produce, or Protect’ Terrorists Caught Along U.S. Coastlines
June 19, 2012 – The U.S. Border Patrol in fiscal 2011 caught 60 aliens from countries “that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members” trying to enter the United States through its coastal boundaries, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

 

Look how they are handling illegal immigration in Italy:

[video=youtube;Uxy2ma5s2eM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxy2ma5s2eM[/video]



Also, reposting that video of Japanese immigration officials tracking down illegals:

[video=youtube;2Uz6_tybfEY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uz6_tybfEY[/video]

In an ethnically homogenous country, it's pretty easy to track down the ones who are not supposed to be there.
That's the problem when you let in a little immigration– because then it becomes harder and harder to tell who is really supposed to be there or not.

 

What percentage of Japans population is not Japanese? I know some Chinese and Koreans are residents there, but whats the actual percentage of people who arent Japanese?

 

This paper's main author is an Australian defence official who may not be entirely familiar with Japan and there are at least few million Asian immigrants in Japan mainly from Korea and China. Long-term Chinese or Korea residents often adopt Japanese surnames to integrate into mainstream society and they also intermarry with Japanese citizens, thus disappearing from official statistics as foreign residents. It's estimated that one in ten residents in Tokyo are foreigners nowadays and Japan is becoming a cosmopolitan country.

[video=youtube;QXAwnMxlE2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXAwnMxlE2Q[/video]

 

How do you know those residents are immigrants? Its possible most of them may be buisnesses people who temporarily work in Japan and arent permanent residents.

 

Preferential treatment for highly skilled foreign professionals

This has already been introduced from May 2012 in order to attract highly skilled foreign nationals who are likely to contribute to Japanese economy. Points are given according to the applicant's educational and professional background, income and academic achievement, and if you accumulate 70 points or more in the point evaluation, a special visa status is given which includes the following preferential treatment:

- Possibility of engaging in multiple activities that cover different visa categories
- 5 year visa granted
- permanent resident visa after 5 years residency in Japan
- preferential processing of Immigration procedure
- your spouse can also work
- possibility of bringing your parents to Japan
- possibility of hiring a domestic servant

http://www.juridique.jp/immchange12.html

 

Japan already has more than enough highly skilled professionals, in fact there are not enough professional jobs for all the graduates in Japan, leading to a very competitive job market.

Japan does however need some foreign professionals so the companies can interface with companies in other countries. There has been much outsourcing to China, and exports are still a big part of Japan's economy.

something else that might be of interest:
Goro Ono, honorary professor at Saitama University in Japan, wrote, "If industries where labor is in high demand pay adequate salaries, people will work there." Ono used nursing as a good example. "Japan is actively bringing in Indonesians and other foreigners to cover a shortage because nurses in Japan are woefully underpaid. While on the other hand, public entities never have trouble finding garbage collectors because they get decent salaries." Ono also brought up the lack of discussion about the cost of building infrastructure to accept more immigrants.
"Bringing Foreign Workers Ruins Japan", Goro Ono

 

Importing low-skilled Indonesian workers would create an integration problem in the long run as we saw in France but Japan should welcome skilled Indian and European workers as permanent settlers. The frequencies of West Eurasian haplogroups R and I are less than 1% in the Japanese population and the presence of Indo-Europeans will diversify the Japanese gene pool and strengthen the Japanese race. The photo above is a famous Japanese model whose father is from Bangladesh.

[video=youtube;Cvg0S-6ibpo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvg0S-6ibpo[/video]

 

The reason she almost looks white is because Bangladesh is within the distribution range of the wider Caucasian racial grouping (although Bangladesh has been mixed since ancient times, some have more Caucasian descent than others because of traditional social barriers that limited indiscriminate marriage between different groups). This, with the lighter skin of her Japanese mother (the Japanese in northern japan have the lightest skin of any asian group). The exact ethnic lineage is extremely complicated, too much to delve into here, but it is interesting how cross breeds can sometimes seem to "revive" ancient ancestral traits.

 

So why does Japan have a very high rate of homogeneity compared to Europe and the US if they allow immigration too?

 

Well, it is an island, which was on the far eastern edge of civilization. And from 1635 to 1853, Japan tried to isolate itself from the rest of the world, while the rest of the world was being colonized. The Japanese also have a collective consensus culture, difficult for outsiders to assimilate into. The Japanese are also very traditional and want to preserve their culture. Japan is a very orderly country, immigrants threaten this order. And Japan was not always the prosperous country it is today, so it did not really attract migrants from other countries until the twentieth century.

 

When you say their culture is difficult to assimilate into and is a collective consensus culture, what do you mean by that? I dont understand what a collective consensus culture means-and I dont understand how some of the factors you mentioned cause low immigration rates.

 

Japanese people in the northern region directly descended from the Ainu who were used to be called Ezo or Eminshi in medieval times and they had maintained their distinctive racial identity until the Meiji era in the late 19th century, when forced integration policies were implemented. The Japanese often face racial animosities from coloured people perhaps because of their pseudo-european physical traits, making Japan an undesirable destination for potential immigrants from the Third World, in addition to its shameful wartime history which makes it unpopular throughout Asia.

 

Why can't America's immigration policies be what's best for America not what's best for the immigrant, illegal alien or one political party ?

Before 1965 America's immigration policies were what was best for America.

 

The Immigration Act of 1924 set no limits on immigration from Latin American countries but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 introduced immigration quotas to Latin America for the first time in US history. Hispanic labourers could come and go as they liked prior to the civil rights era, which was best for the agricultural sector, but after the passage of the 1965 immigration law, there has been a rise in illegal immigration from Latin American countries. Moreover, the Immigration Act of 1924 was especially against the Japanese, paving the way for the Pacific War as the leader of the anti-Japanese movement in California was behind it.

 

More than 2500 people were caned in Singapore in 2012; almost half were illegal immigrants.​

https://www.dw.com/en/the-invisible-scars-left-by-strikes-of-the-cane/a-18298970

Singapore is an attractive destination due to its high living standards and wages. The punishment for illegal immigration in the country are a mandatory caning sentence of not less than 3 strokes and a prison sentence. Illegal immigration has been steadily declining from 2001 to 2011.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeg...ctive destination,declining from 2001 to 2011.

 

Here's an excerpt from the article in case the link stops working:

India's shoot-to-kill policy on the Bangladesh border
Brad Adams, Sun 23 Jan 2011

Security officials openly admit that unarmed civilians trying to enter India illegally are being killed. Will the government act?
Do good fences make good neighbours? Not along the India-Bangladesh border. Here, India has almost finished building a 2,000km fence. Where once people on both sides were part of a greater Bengal, now India has put up a "keep out" sign to stop illegal immigration, smuggling and infiltration by anti-government militants.

This might seem unexceptional in a world increasingly hostile to migration. But to police the border, India's Border Security Force (BSF), has carried out a shoot-to-kill policy – even on unarmed local villagers. The toll has been huge. Over the past 10 years Indian security forces have killed almost 1,000 people, mostly Bangladeshis, turning the border area into a south Asian killing fields. No one has been prosecuted for any of these killings, in spite of evidence in many cases that makes it clear the killings were in cold blood against unarmed and defenceless local residents.

Shockingly, some Indian officials endorse shooting people who attempt to cross the border illegally, even if they are unarmed. Almost as shocking is the lack of interest in these killings by foreign governments who claim to be concerned with human rights. A single killing by US law enforcement along the Mexican border makes headlines. The killing of large numbers of villagers by Indian forces has been almost entirely ignored.

The violence is routine and arbitrary. Alauddin Biswas described to Human Rights Watch the killing of his 24-year-old nephew, who was suspected of cattle rustling, by Indian border guards in March 2010. "The BSF had shot him while he was lying on his back. They shot him in the forehead. If he was running away, he would have been shot in the back. They just killed him." The BSF claimed self-defence, but no weapons were recovered.
Nazrul Islam, a Bangladeshi, was luckier. "At around 3am we decided to cross the Indian border," he said. He was headed to India to smuggle cows back to Bangladesh. "As soon as the BSF saw us, they started firing without warning." Islam was shot in his arm, but survived.

India has the right to impose border controls. But India does not have the right to use lethal force except where strictly necessary to protect life. Yet some Indian officials openly admit that unarmed civilians are being killed. The head of the BSF, Raman Srivastava, says that people should not feel sorry for the victims, claiming that since these individuals were illegally entering Indian territory, often at night, they were "not innocent" and therefore were a legitimate target.
But there is some reason for hope. Under pressure, senior Indian officials have expressed revulsion at the behaviour of the BSF and have promised to send new orders to end the shoot-to-kill policy. They have committed to use nonviolent means to apprehend illegal border crossers or smugglers where they pose no risk to life. The question is whether this will be translated into action on the ground. Similar promises of "zero tolerance" for abuses have been made in Kashmir and elsewhere but have not been fulfilled.

As India's economy has grown and foreign investors have flocked in, its human rights record has largely flown under the radar in recent years. But India is a growing world power with increasing influence. It should understand that its behaviour will come under increasing scrutiny. Routinely shooting poor, unarmed villagers is not how the world's largest democracy should behave.​

https://www.theguardian.com/comment.../india-bangladesh-border-shoot-to-kill-policy

 

Rich people do not want it that way, they want cheap labor

they first brought slaves here, now they hire immigrants on the cheap

even Trump businesses caught hiring illegals

they also do jobs most Americans won't.... like be Trump's wife

 

A country like India already has too much poverty, and a plentiful surplus - really an oversupply - of labor, so there is not much incentive for anyone to want to bring in cheap labor from some outside foreign country.

Plus, India is probably habituated into being a little bit xenophobic by their long history with the muslims. That may be another smaller reason.
(If it wasn't for these irreconcilable cultural-religious differences, India, Pakistan, and also Bangladesh would all be one country)

Some of these reasons may be really hard to understand unless you are more deeply familiar with the histories in these parts of the world.

 

so are you saying America needs more poverty and a surplus of labor to bring jobs back?

 

No. There's probably some sort of equilibrium that exists. If things ever got bad enough, the immigration would slow down and stop.

For that to happen, obviously the destination country would have to become not very much better than the parts of the world where all the immigrants were coming from.

That equilibrium probably exists with trade deficits as well. Once disposable consumer spending drops and domestic wage levels fall, it will stop making as much economic sense to import things.

 

oh, I 100% agree, if there were no jobs, the immigrants would stop coming, this is why I have also said, go after those hiring illegals if you really want to stop it

make it a 10 year mandatory prison sentence and it would stop almost over night as a few rich people went to prison

that is the only way to force people to come the legal way

 

That's unlikely to ever happen. The privileged financial class are not going to be punished. They'll pen most of the blame for what's happening on other groups involved.