Voices
in
Japan

poll

In 2015, Japan accepted 27 refugees, including three Syrians, after some 7,500 people from 69 countries sought such status in Japan, according to the justice ministry. Do you think Japan should take i

61 Comments

In 2015, Japan accepted 27 refugees, including three Syrians, after some 7,500 people from 69 countries sought such status in Japan, according to the justice ministry. Do you think Japan should take in more refugees?

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments
Login to comment

Right, go ahead, open the floodgates to a host of terrorists masquerading as refugees, or refugees who commit terrorist acts after becoming dissatisfied for one reason or another

3 ( +26 / -23 )

For a country of 127 million, a total of 27 is pretty pathetic.

-3 ( +24 / -27 )

There are countries in the world that might welcome large numbers of refugees if they were funded. The UN should rearrange its spending to pay those countries for hosting.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

Somewhere between floodgates and pitiful mean spiritedness might work.

16 ( +21 / -5 )

Let Europe keep taking them. It is closer and there are so many of them there now, why flood other countries with people that do not like you?

-13 ( +16 / -29 )

MoonrakerJAN. 02, 2017 - 07:54AM JST Somewhere between floodgates and pitiful mean spiritedness might work.

No, you can't have that. Denying there is any space between "floodgates" and "pitiful mean-spiritedness" is the only way the pitiful and mean-spirited have of hiding from their affliction.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

That makes no sense at all.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

For a country of 127 million, a total of 27 is pretty pathetic.

Indeed ! too many are thinking a good refugee is a refugee who is not entering my country, wish them for 2017 year to never be one of those.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

I voted No simply because the places the refugees will be confined will be unwilling to accept, teach, and accommodate them.

Decades ago some Vietnamese refugees were given jobs working with leather (a big no-no for real Buddhists as the Vietnamese are) in the hinterlands beyond a major city. None enjoyed their experience and worked on getting out of Japan. And they were taught English, (which many of them spoke better than their teachers) and Japanese they could use when speaking to the Emperor but not the local izakaya.

They were Asian refugees with the same religion and a very similar culture but the area couldn't accommodate them. I doubt that situation has changed much.

Imagine completely different refugees with completely different cultures, and religions in the country-side of Japan. Better for them to be in a more accepting place until Japan matures.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Ok I know some of these people have left Japan to find a country more to their liking

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Most importantly for Japan, they need to look after their own refugees from Fukushima, and ensure they look after their own people who need help. A "refuge" should be a temporary place of shelter until a war is over. Once the war is over, all refugees should return, to rebuild their own country. Refuges should be set up in neighbouring countries who share common cultural values, and other countries can contribute food and other essentials.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Depends on who they are and how much they want to integrate and contribute to their new country (be Japan or any other country).

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Asking whether Japan should or shouldn't take in more refugees is actually the wrong question. It suggests that Japan has a choice. In reality, Japan is legally obliged to take any refugees who make it into the country and are able to prove that they meet the definition of a refugee under the UN convention. Like it or not, most asylum seekers who need to pass through multiple safe countries before arriving in Japan, or who apply for asylum only after being caught overstaying illegally, are simply unable to discharge this burden of proof.

The better question is whether Japan should water down the definition of 'refugee' or give asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt where evidence of persecution is scant or non-existent. Or perhaps asylum shopping through multiple safe countries before arriving in Japan should be overlooked. Many western countries have gone down this route because they use the asylum system to supplement their regular immigration needs.

As an example, we could ask whether Japan should follow countries like the UK which has expanded its recognition of refugees to include people being persecuted by criminal gangs which the government is unable to stop. This is very different from countries like France and Japan who see this as a local law enforcement problem and generally refuse to recognise persecution from anyone other than government authorities.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

sensei128: "Right, go ahead, open the floodgates to a host of terrorists masquerading as refugees, or refugees who commit terrorist acts after becoming dissatisfied for one reason or another"

Yeah, because the 27 let in in 2015 have committed how many terrorist acts? Come to think of it, who has committed any terrorist acts in Japan besides Japanese nationals? Perhaps you should have left the paranoia at the door before YOU came in. Japan has a serious problem and no one coming in to fill the numbers they need. One solution is to allow in more refugees -- people who need a place to live, and people who are needed here to assist those already here, as well as the nation as a whole.

0 ( +13 / -13 )

"Depends on who they are and how much they want to integrate and contribute to their new country (be Japan or any other country)."

Have we reached the stage when comments like that get thumbed down?

It seems to be common sense to be selective about who you allow into your country. Is this now an unacceptable view?

9 ( +12 / -3 )

For a country that put the mess in Asia in the 20th century this is a damned shame. The most selfish developed country. But there is a hope: if I am not mistaking it was 8 refugees in 2014, i.e. 300% increase in 2015.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

JimizoJAN. 02, 2017 - 10:00PM JST It seems to be common sense to be selective about who you allow into your country. Is this now an unacceptable view?

It seems a bit absurd to me that you and Goldorak think you can quantify how much a person wants to integrate or contribute before they're in a country.

On one hand, you have information that's unknowable. There are participants on the sweet deal that is the JET Programme who Nope On Out as soon as they get here. And that's not to mention the myriad English teachers here who plop themselves down in an English bubble and don't dare step one foot out of it for years. If we can't guarantee a 100% success rate with a bunch of college graduates getting money thrown at them to do very little work, it seems unreasonable to demand the same of a refugee.

On the other hand, even if the information were knowable, how do you propose people who do vetting on refugees get the information? There isn't a "melting pot index" printed on people's passports you know.

Refugees are already vetted pretty as thoroughly as possible to screen out people with known dangerous pasts. There's not much more that can be done than that. Once they're in a country, it will be up to how they're treated in that country to see how well they choose to fit in.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The REAL problem is why these muslims want to leave in the first place. As for going to Canada, as an American, it's harder for me to immigrate to Canada than for a so-called refugee. I checked into retiring to New Zealand or Australia. Forget that idea.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@sf2k

Everyone has a security screening with a preference for families with single men last on the list

Laughable, loud and clear. Then who committed terrorist attcks in France, Belgium and Germany? People who passed all the security screenings you so strongly believe in.

I hope not all Canadians are so naive as you, and Canada will not repeat all the mistakes Europeans did with accepting migrants.

@Open Minded

For a country that put the mess in Asia in the 20th century this is a damned shame.

May be we should concentrate on more modern history? Where the most refugees come from now? From countries, ravaged by foreign invasions - Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Who invaded these countries? US and its NATO allies. So let these countries clean up all their mess and show the world their generosity by taking all the refugees they created. Why they do not do that? I've read several articles how they refused to take even local interpreters who helped US / NATO forces, risking their lives. THAT is damned shame.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Japan is not in any economic no societal shape to take a mass amount of immigrants let alone refugees. Blind bleeding hearts don't think that far.... they just say, "Take them! Take them all!" without paying attention to the consequences.

Where exactly would Japan put them? Do they have enough land mass? Japan's already struggling with its low birth rate and aging population. Just allow a mass influx of immigration to wipe out Japanese culture and indigenous people over the next few decades right?

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Asakaze

of the roughly ~250,000-ish immigrants we accept every year, about 10% of that are refugees, so it's not all refugees. That's perfectly acceptable. Wikipedia lists some 199 countries where we have accepted New Canadians. Sorry my country is doing well. Police do thwart plots here and there but not really different than elsewhere. Considering the numbers (every single year) even if there were incidents everyday all year long it would only 0.1% of that group. There isn't. It's Canada. Even Japanese I might add. Many come here for the quality of life, or school, or due to marriage. Like anywhere.

I'm just glad people come to Canada at all, albeit not as cold as it used to be.

Actually the worst thing that has happened that has emboldened incidents across the country? The USA election of Trump. It has somehow unlocked the idiot achievement gene in a few to think they have license to insult people. We're standing up to it though. And do you know who don't put up with it? New Canadians who have seen it elsewhere and don't want Canada tainted by hatreds. That's amazing.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It seems a bit absurd to me that you and Goldorak think you can quantify how much a person wants to integrate or contribute before they're in a country.

I don't disagree with your point katsu, and am not particularly proud of my post. This was certainly not my pov say 15 years ago but things have changed or at least I have. Too many so called refugees/migrants were/are in fact opportunists who couldn't care less about their adoptive country. Was probably a bit of an idealist and expect(ed) refugees to embrace their new country's culture, be thankful and do their utmost to give as much as possible as quickly as possible in return. Although some did exactly this, too many didn't and were more about receiving and very little about giving back.

So with this in mind, I thought my answer, and jimizo's, although probably absurd as you say, were still in line with what we have seen in the last decade or so. I actually find it more absurd that some refugees/migrants are unwilling to integrate, contribute, give their best shot and have a sense of entitlement pretty much on arrival. When one's given the opportunity of a lifetime (refugees word) I tend to think one should repay their new country tenfold and we should not be talking about migrants crime rate, long term unemployment, refugees/kids of refugees gangs etc.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

goldorakJAN. 03, 2017 - 09:54AM JST Too many so called refugees/migrants were/are in fact opportunists who couldn't care less about their adoptive country.

Why should they? If they went through the UN refugee process they didn't choose their country. They didn't get to pick the culture that was most compatible with their outlook on life, they literally got sent to whoever would take them.

I actually find it more absurd that some refugees/migrants are unwilling to integrate, contribute, give their best shot and have a sense of entitlement pretty much on arrival. When one's given the opportunity of a lifetime (refugees word) I tend to think one should repay their new country tenfold and we should not be talking about migrants crime rate, long term unemployment, refugees/kids of refugees gangs etc.

It's interesting you describe the problem with refugees in terms of "hearing about" or "talking about", but you never quantify the number of refugees who do the things you dislike. That seems like a shoddy way to decide policy. After all, by surrounding yourself with people who dislike immigrants, you can "hear about" problems with refugees far more than those problems actually happen. Maybe they don't actually happen at all. Until you actually get data, you'll never know.

But this argument you make of refugees "repaying" their country "tenfold" is particularly absurd. Why "tenfold"? You try to make the argument that being a refugee at all is the "opportunity of a lifetime" (which you quote an unspecified refugee), so what, does that mean a refugee should labor for 10 lifetimes to pay it back? What moral value is there in giving support to refugees if you're going to immediately demand they pay you back in the first place?

America took in millions of Vietnamese refugees after the Vietnam war. Everyone feared that they would immediately try to subvert the US with communist uprising. It never happened, because we got organized and made an effort to ensure that they could have a life in the US. If governments put in the effort to implement it, the refugee system has already been shown to work. There is no excuse for not doing what we already know is successful.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Presumably the no voters cannot even consent to a mere 28 or 29 acceptances this year, since this would also come under the definition of "more" refugees, no matter what their circumstances, or how compatible they might be with Japan. I personally find this thoroughly depressing. Yet this mean-spiritedness is displayed by many of those who, though not refugees, are themselves not living in their country of birth. It's sufficiently discrepant sentiments to make me see how Trump got in. The world looks like it must be blighted with such repugnant nastiness until it reaches its clear conclusion.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@katsu78

Why should they? If they went through the UN refugee process they didn't choose their country.

We actually agree on this point. Refugees have absolutely no obligation to integrate, contribute or learn the local language. To use this as a criteria for refugee recognition would be a violation of the UN convention. Afterall, refugee status was never intended to be permanent in the majority of cases.

On the broader topic, I think Japan would be willing to take in more refugees if it were legally allowed to limit the number to, say 500 or 1000 per year. But again, limits are illegal under the convention so Japan prefers to keep the floodgates closed. Last year Austria said they will limit the number of refugees they recognise to 37,500 per year but this is clearly a violation and they've been denounced by the UNHCR.

Unfortunately I think most people don't really realise the full extent to what we are signed up to under the UN refugee convention. We are literally agreeing to accept a limitless number of people from every despotic and theocratic regime around the world provided these people can physically make it across our borders. It's about as crazy as being the guarantor on a teenagers first credit card. It's not surprising then that western nations are so quick to intervene in civil wars or help prop up dictators when they have legally agreed to accept every refugee with open arms in the event that things go disastrously wrong. I think sensible reform of the refugee convention should be a top priority.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I would vote yes with caveats

To be part of society requires acceptance of norms of the host country

This requires education and training in language etc. Japan does not presently offer this type of support

Also, the mind set of refugees is of great importance. The Syrians that are being taken in are mostly Islamists. Their attitudes and beliefs are not easily transferable to secular societies nor do they wish to integrate.

Japan does not want to repeat the folly that countries such as Germany have foolishly undertaken.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

It's interesting you describe the problem with refugees in terms of "hearing about" or "talking about",

Do I? Don't think so.

In France, for example, all govts from left to right acknowledge that migrants/2nd generations migrants make the vast majority of the prison population. (read recently that roughly 60% of Fr. carceral population are now Muslims). In oz, we now have gangs of south Sudanese and/or Somali refugees (APEX). Oz only accepted a few thousands Somali/Sudanese in the last 10-15y, and I find it particularly sad that we now have issues with some of them.

I have absolutely no doubt that refugees/migrants can make very good citizens, anywhere (again, I have seen/lived it all my life in France and Oz 2 of the most culturally diverse countries on the planet). Like you, I have seen (actually went to school with) refugees from Indochina, migrants from Algeria, Yugoslavia etc in 1980s Paris and yes, I would say it worked as the vast majority of us were pulling in the same direction (us kids but also their/our parents). But things have changed, for a multitude of reasons.

Same in Oz, actually reckon the country has 'the best' migrants (from Europe, Asia and yes the M.E too) and nowhere have newcomers contributed more than they/we have in oz. Stats actually now show that children of migrants outperform anglo aussies at school and it's pretty much the same at work ( you often see white anglo garbos, factory workers etc and ethnic dentists, doctors etc. 53% of the top, I think, 200 companies CEO's were born overseas). If Oz is the remarkably successful (at least economically) country that it is now it is imo partly (read 'a lot') due to us migrants (and also anglo aussies who let us have a fair crack and outperform them ;). Again, it is now changing (we now have a Middle Eastern crime squad, same with Somali. How come!?).

As for migrants being (perhaps unfairly?) held to a higher standard, I actually think it's 'healthy' and reckon it's something one should do when moving to a new country but again it's just a personal opinion. Nothing wrong with migrants having self-imposed high standards I reckon. By being irreproachable and better than them locals you're shutting up potential naysayers/racists. If you don't, you're basically giving ammo to those guys (that's why I am p@ed off at new migrants who don't pull their weight/ and take the p*, ask what they are entitled to before asking how they can contribute). Attitude problem.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How many did China accept? with bigger space and GDP, closer to Syria, and UN parmanent member status.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look Christens and Moslams will never adapt to Japanese. The Christian have a hand full of places which took 400 years to obtain. But Buddhism can and easy. It like chalk and cheese. In Australia they can adapt and in most cases close Family following also come. This is that they are allow to build school and places of worship just like any other sect. They do cop a bit of Shite but in the end those with the money can and are allow too. Just like any other sect. But in Japan it will never happen. so Family will not follow. I know that they actually think that after a few years has in Australia they be able to build and practice worship. Local council will never pass the building of a mosque. So in the end these refugee will move to a country of Islam is tollarated. I say when there child reach high school they will move on.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

goldorakJAN. 03, 2017 - 02:43PM JST Do I? Don't think so. In France, for example, all govts from left to right acknowledge that migrants/2nd generations migrants-

I'm going to stop you there because your post tries to conflate migrants with refugees in a way that is at best uninformed and at worst is flagrantly dishonest. There's no point in continuing a conversation that confuses the two.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

How can the German case be taken as an example? They are taking almost 1,000,000 refugees vs. 20-ish for Japan....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How can the German case be taken as an example? They are taking almost 1,000,000 refugees vs. 20-ish for Japan....

Did Germany take lots of Koreans during Korean war?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Unfortunately I think most people don't really realise the full extent to what we are signed up to under the UN refugee convention

But M3, I think you and others are thinking about the UN resettlement program when you see the word 'refugees'. Most so called 'refugees' do not go through this process ("Of the 14.4 million refugees of concern to UNHCR around the world, less than one per cent is submitted for resettlement" source UNHCR). I think the media have been using the word 'refugees' ad nauseam and now pretty much everyone is talking apples and oranges.

The vast majority of 'refugees' we see in the news (1 M in Germany or even the 7,500 from 69 countries in this article) won't be resettled as they haven't been through UNCHR camps or procedures. They move to a country (illegally or legally with a tourist or working visa) then apply for asylum. Completely different to the Burmese Karen, for example, who went through the UNHCR resettlement program via Thai camps and were resettled in Oz, Canada, the US etc.

'Refugees' come in all shapes and forms, Chagall or Noureev were refugees, hundreds of thousands of Spaniards, Italians, Yougos, Algerians etc have been given refugee status in France (for some it was automatic), same for some politicians, intellectuals or journos. "refugee' doesn't necessarily imply warn torn country. Plus all nations have different categories/definitions of refugees.

I really think the media, particularly anglo media (Murdoch and co) have been misleading ppl when they talk 'refugees'. We need more info to know who/what they are talking about: political refugees, economic ones, war torn regions or not, processed and transited via UNHCR camps or not, undocumented migrants or not etc. Pretty clear reading this thread that everyone understood the question differently.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Just take a look at Sweden. Japan doesn't need refugees. Japan needs actual skilled, civilized workers to be brought in.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I'd say no, Japan pays a load of development aid to try and improve the situations back home for economic refugees. Political refugees are iffy in peaceful Japan, we don't want some of the world's bleaker political problems here

1 ( +5 / -4 )

No, Japan would be difficult for these people. Non refugee foreigners have a hard enough time with employment opportunities, housing discrimination and language difficulties.

I can imagine how much worse refugees would be treated in those areas, so I dont think they would have any chance in Japan. If you cant get a job, have a place to live or speak the language its probably better to go somewhere else that is more likely to let you be successful.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Why? Fight in your country for your own rights if you do not like them. Do not run away. Fight with your fists and might. Dont want to? Then walk over to the other country who will take you. Why does the Japanese government have to pay for your flight to Japan?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I think Japan should just be honest and nullify the relevant treaty or agreement where it "promised" to give asylum.

The larger problem is that it seems each country will interpret refugee status differently. A more standard definition and interpretation would be better.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Times might be different, but , ask yourselves why we have hordes of Japanese in Hawaii, Brazil, Peru, Hispaniola( mainly Dominican Republic ) S.Africa etc. You guessed it ! most were economic refugees, but let's pretend we don't know it, they like to give us the impression that the nearly 8 billion people in this world are disparadoes desperately stampeding at the gates of a " paradise* Japan. Still , their country - their call.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

ask yourselves why we have hordes of Japanese in Hawaii, Brazil, Peru, Hispaniola

They came legally, they didn't try to overturn the host culture to suit Japanese customs, almost none of them were violent or ended up in prison, and almost none of them lived off generous social welfare benefits in their host countries. In the US, they were even rounded up into concentration camps and relieved of their hard earned homes and businesses. So your point of comparison is what exactly?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@comanteer. It's pretty narrow for one to view the spectrum of refugees in that sense....as terrorists or Arab/ muslims,even so , the majority aren't terrorists and they tend to be the biggest informers of the bad apples among them,I'd say. I don't have to spew a litany of names and places which have benefited immensely by having refugees in their midst , the countries I mentioned earlier would be just some,and they'd have missed it all had they rejected the Japanese right off the bat....for whatever reason.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yes.... 'Right go ahead, open up the floodgates' is a hysterical reaction given that only 27 refugees were let in to begin with-and only three of them were Syrians. It is that kind of knee-jerk hysteria that has fueled the dangerous rise of global anti-globalism. There is a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water-with unnecessarily shrill exhortations of 'Open up the floodgates...' Nobody is suggesting that the country just throws open its doors-but have a little humanity...The world and all its problems are interconnected and as such all countries do have a part in influencing situations that create refugees in the first place.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Why is Japan in any way obliged to take refugees? not sure I entirely understand the argument that all countries that are not themselves warzones or hellholes have an obligation (legal? moral? some other type?) to take regugees or economic migrants.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Why is Japan in any way obliged to take refugees?

Because they signed onto the conventions that obligate them to do so. They decided to take on that obligation.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

It's pretty narrow for one to view the spectrum of refugees in that sense....as terrorists or Arab/ muslims

I didn't say anything about terrorists. Or about Arabs or Muslims, for that matter. What gave you the idea I was talking about them?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Pretty disgusting when you think how many poor Japanese (who, by the way, weren't even refugees or whose lives weren't even in peril) the Americas accepted during the 19th and 20th centuries. All take and no give?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Pretty disgusting when you think how many poor Japanese (who, by the way, weren't even refugees or whose lives weren't even in peril) the Americas accepted during the 19th and 20th centuries

As you mentioned, they were not refugees. If Americas didnot want to accept them, whoelse should it have accepted? or prefered to accept? or should Americas have closed the gate?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Pretty disgusting when you think how many poor Japanese (who, by the way, weren't even refugees or whose lives weren't even in peril) the Americas accepted during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Apples and oranges. America in those days had more land than people. They were like Australia, ready to pay people to immigrate. In the old days, the government would hand immigrants a parcel of land for free and tell them to have a go.

The situation is completely incomparable to today.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Pretty disgusting when you think how many poor Japanese (who, by the way, weren't even refugees or whose lives weren't even in peril) the Americas accepted during the 19th and 20th centuries. All take and no give?

The Japanese work hard and contribute in the host country. That's what Tojo HIdeki said when asked by Japanese Americans what they should be doing during the war. "Fight against Japan for USA, That's Bushido (The way of Samurai)", he said.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Obviosly 27 is far less than japan can handle, but I agree with some of the reasons why people are voting no.

Looking at Europe now, we can see that some countries have taken on too many refugees than can be realistically integrated into their society.

I dont think its right that Japan depends on the rest of the world to buy its products but then says FU when other countries need help.

Having said that, as we've talked about before here, Japan has a real shortcoming in how it deals with things like teaching Japanese to foriegners, workplace safety, mental health... I just don't think we're ready to take on any refugees

3 ( +4 / -1 )

njca: I dont think its right that Japan depends on the rest of the world to buy its products but then says FU when other countries need help.

Well, I guess you should not forget the fact that Japan has actually been making a lot of contributions to countries in need (the list is too long to give it here). Yet, every country should have the right to decide what is best for them in any given situation. It seems that some of the members of the EU were not really happy with the "open door" policy which Mrs. Merkel (indirectly) imposed on them. Leave Japan decide what is best for them.

kurisupisu: would vote yes with caveats To be part of society requires acceptance of norms of the host country

Says the person who is always one of the first to jump against whatever the Japanese (government/companies/universities/ society, etc.) do and very eager to tell them why they are wrong on so many counts!

@M3: We actually agree on this point. Refugees have absolutely no obligation to integrate, contribute or learn the local language.

Obligations aside, I do not see how without learning the local language and integrating they can ever get out of the limbo which the refugee status puts them in. And why should not refugees be expected to contribute to the country which accepts them? If they are not expected todo so, then what gives them the right to expect (and even demand) acceptance and support from their host country?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Japan doesn't need refugees, it needs skilled foreign workers, preferably relatively young people so they can settle down and raise families here, therefore assimilating into the population and contributing to society. You only have to look at Europe to see that allowing thousands of refugees in causes countless social problems. Why would Japan want that?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan needs to learn the hard lesson that Europe is learning..Syrian refuges are threat to your way of living.. They're more interested in spreading Islam than assimilating.. Another problem with refuges is they have no intentions of going back..

4 ( +6 / -2 )

If the US would stop wrecking Middle Eastern countries, there would not be a refuge problem. Why should other countries have to pay the costs for the damage the US is causing?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yeah, because the 27 let in in 2015 have committed how many terrorist acts?

Perhaps you should have left the paranoia at the door before YOU came in.

Yeah, let in thousands then come back and talk to me

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Absolutely not! The Arab nations should take more responsibility on this tragic issue. Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Sudan, Iran should all take a more proactive role in taking in these people. Most of them don't want to leave their countries and go to the West anyway. We should take the other religious minorities that are being systematically exterminated because of their beliefs, these people should be given highest priorities. Most of these Muslim refugees don't care or like the West, don't want to assimilate, A very large portion of them want and believe in the Islamization of the West.

If the US would stop wrecking Middle Eastern countries,

Oh, don't go there, that argument won't fly. What about the colonial powers that once controlled and ruled and divided and carved out the Middle East and African continents? What about the radical Muslims that are living throughout Europe and refuse to assimilate?

there would not be a refuge problem. Why should other countries have to pay the costs for the damage the US is causing?

What a bunch of nonsense!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

smithinjapanJAN. 02, 2017 - 08:41PM JST

"Yeah, because the 27 let in in 2015 have committed how many terrorist acts? Come to think of it, who has committed any terrorist acts in Japan besides Japanese nationals? Perhaps you should have left the paranoia at the door before YOU came in. Japan has a serious problem and no one coming in to fill the numbers they need. One solution is to allow in more refugees -- people who need a place to live, and people who are needed here to assist those already here, as well as the nation as a whole."

It's their country, not yours. If they don't want to let refugees in, that is for them to decide - not you. You are merely a guest in this country being allowed to live here. And complaining how Japan does or does not do things makes you an unwanted guest. I'm tired of foreigners coming to Japan to live and then complaining that Japan doesn't do things the way their country does and expecting them to accomodate. Refugees, marijuana laws, death penalty, etc., etc. If you don't like the way Japan does things, go live in a country you agree with. Quit expecting Japan to be YOUR perfect country.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

An emphatic NO.

One only need look at Europe to see the destructive effects of uncontrolled refugees pouring into a nation.

Look at South Korea. Guess how many Syrian refufees they accepted since 1994? Three. Yup, three.

And yet, Japan is the xenophobic and uncaring nation out of all.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"If the US would stop wrecking Middle Eastern countries,"

"Oh, don't go there, that argument won't fly. What about the colonial powers that once controlled and ruled and divided and carved out the Middle East and African continents? What about the radical Muslims that are living throughout Europe and refuse to assimilate?"

Idiotic intervention in and invasions of countries in this area contribute to the instability of countries in this area are very much part of the problem. Getting out and staying out of this area is an argument which certainly does fly.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Jo David

Japan needs to learn the hard lesson that Europe is learning..Syrian refuges are threat to your way of living.. They're more interested in spreading Islam than assimilating.. Another problem with refuges is they have no intentions of going back..

Japan already have with the Koreans back in the start of the last century and the problem still goes on with ones who are born here but stubbornly refuses to naturalize to become Japanese citizen.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

First, who pays. Second, look to what has happened to many European cities...there is your answer.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites