To the chagrin of globalist mandarins, it seems Japan is resolved to remain Japanese. Specifically, the Japanese Supreme Court declined to spelunk that country’s murky penumbras, and instead ruled that foreign residents were not due social welfare benefits from Japanese taxpayers. I find that to be a remarkable decision. Remarkable in that I can barely imagine a US Supreme Court ruling in a manner favorable to the nation that impaneled it. In fact, given our court’s occasional flourishes toward original intent, it’s obvious they understand the designs our forefathers as those meant to most facilely disembowel their own posterity.
Though apparently that peculiar western judicial doctrine has yet to metastasize courts in the Far East. The article describing the decision came from something called The Diplomat. And you may hear me now, but believe me next week: the foreign service is not pleased.
Japan’s Supreme Court made a controversial and potentially damaging ruling concerning the country’s long-term foreign population last Friday. The Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that foreigners in Japan with permanent residency status are not guaranteed to receive social welfare benefits under existing law. This would be the first time Japan’s highest court has ruled against foreigners receiving welfare under the current legislation.
…this ruling sets a very serious precedent for Japan’s long-term and permanent foreign residents. Without the ability to access this social safety net, an already vulnerable portion of the population could become further marginalized, possibly posing a risk to social stability that Japan is ultimately seeking to avoid.
The Supreme Court ruled that only “citizens” have the right to public assistance, and that foreign residents do not meet the legal definition of that term. The court further said that, “Foreigners do not possess the right to receive assistance based on the law and are only limited to being subjects for public assistance in a practical sense based on administrative decisions.”
The ruling poses a problem for the government. It is in the awkward and unwelcome position of levying a specific tax on a portion of the population that cannot claim legal recourse to funds raised by the tax. Not only will this be viewed unfavorably by Japan’s foreign population, it is highly likely to met with skepticism by the international community as to the real intent behind the ruling. While Japan’s foreign population is relatively small (estimated at just 2.5 million in a country of 127.6 million in 2012) and the international outcry will in all likelihood not be great enough to cause Japan to reconsider the ruling, there will be larger problems created by the verdict.
This case is reflective of the state of Japan’s social welfare system. As its population ages and eventually declines, the pressure on the government to provide its promised assistance will be stretched to its limit, and without significant reforms this generous regime of social safety nets could fall apart.
With immigration reform in general viewed as the only realistic way to prevent significant population (and thus economic) decline for Japan, the effect this ruling will have on both the existing and future foreign population seems not to have been taken into account. Long-term foreigners will be less inclined to continue their residence if the generous social welfare system, which they pay into just like Japanese nationals, is withheld from them in order to maintain a safety net past its ability to sustain itself.
Were you able to digest all that gristle? I would imagine quite easily given stomachs inured to the same rhetorical gruel we are fed in the west. But just for seconds, we are advised that if Japan limits its welfare regime to only Japanese, they may count on the emergence of adjectives even more terrifying than any great lizard in Tokyo Bay.
controversial and potentially damaging
posing a risk to social stability
problem for the government
awkward and unwelcome
highly likely to met with skepticism by the international community
larger problems created by the verdict
without significant reforms this generous regime of social safety nets could fall apart
immigration reform viewed as the only realistic way to prevent significant decline
My god that was ladled on thick. Though this is all boilerplate seasoning language that should be immediately recognizable as junior league cant by readers here. Sadly it often proceeds without filtration into the subconscious of most mainstream readers. We need to import as many hostile aliens as possible so that they will care for us in our dotage. The idea doesn’t endure long under conscious scrutiny. So I think “significant decline” might be your preferred option, my sake-guzzling friends.
Though by following my counsel in lieu of The Diplomat’s you do face “a risk to social stability.” And by social stability I mean a seething petri-dish of jews, muslims, blacks, asians, islanders, and amerinds amidst a receding ballast of glittery-eyed liberals and flag-waving conservatives–both eschewing reality for the comfort of make believe. That’s American for “social stability.”
Beyond that, this monstrously adaptive Japanese court decision warrants a brief discussion of the immigration doctrine that once held sway in saner times domestically. That being the Public Charge doctrine. Simply: no alien may enter who will become a burden upon the community. Did that elicit a rueful snort? It should. For it was overt policy in America, even before America was.
Public charge doctrine has been part of American immigration law since colonial days. A key “long-standing concern from the time of provincial and state regulation of immigration was with the coming of persons who might become a burden to the community; both colonies and states sought to protect themselves by exclusion of potential public charges.
The English colony of Massachusetts enacted the earliest American public charge laws in 1645. The arrival in the colonies of undesirables spurred other colonies to enact similar laws. “By the end of the seventeenth century American colonists were especially reluctant to extend a welcome to impoverished foreigners and the ‘Rogues and vagabonds’ that England had so graciously decided she could spare.” Many colonies protected themselves against public charges through such measures as mandatory reporting of ship passengers, immigrant screening and exclusion upon arrival of designated “undesirables,” and requiring bonds for potential public charges.
For example, a law enacted in colonial Massachusetts in 1700 kept out the infirm who had no security against becoming public charges. The law required ship captains to post bonds for “lame, impotent, or infirm” passengers who were “incapable of maintaining themselves.” The bond requirement sought to prevent the new arrival from becoming reliant on public relief. Without a bond from the captain, the vessel had to return the person to his home country.
New York adopted a law in 1691 that required an immigrant to have “a visible Estate” or “a manual occupation” or “give sufficient surety, that he shall not be a burden or charge to the respective places, he shall come to Inhabit.” Delaware in 1740 sought to exclude potential public charges, including “any such infant, lunatic, aged, maimed, impotent or vagrant person;” the colony thus enacted a law whose title was to “Prevent Poor and Impotent Persons [from] being Imported.” Following American independence, states either automatically continued to enforce colonial-era public charge laws or reaffirmed those laws…in 1827, New York passed a law that imposed a fine on anyone who brought into the state a “poor or indigent person, not having legal settlement therein.”
Congress enacted broad federal immigration legislation, the Immigration Act of 1882, which included the first federal public charge provision. The 1882 Act excluded any immigrant “‘unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge’ ” from entering the United States. This measure essentially adopted at the federal level the same exclusion policy that had operated in the states. Excluded foreigners were returned to their home country at the ship owner’s expense. The 1882 Act also imposed, much as states had done, a head tax. This tax would “meet the expenses of regulating immigration and caring for needy immigrants on arrival.”
In addition to federal policy excluding public charges, Congress made deportation of public charges part of federal law. The Immigration Act of 1891 provided for removing public charges and members of other excludable classes to one’s country of origin. This law called for the deportation of “‘any alien who becomes a public charge within one year after his arrival in the United States from causes existing prior to his landing therein . . . .’ The time in which public charges faced deportation was successively extended. The time limit culminated in the 1917 Immigration Act, which provided for a five-year period after arrival in which someone becoming a public charge would be deported. The 1917 Act also placed the burden of proof on the immigrant to show that the causes of his becoming a public charge arose after arriving in the United States.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, the basic U.S. immigration statute that was enacted in 1952 and fundamentally amended in 1965, provides for both exclusion and deportation of public charges. “Any alien likely at any time to become a public charge” is not to be admitted into the country. Immigrants who become public charges within five years of entry are subject to being deported, unless they prove the causes of their reliance on public assistance developed after they entered the United States.
Weren’t these antique americans aware of how implicitly racist such statutes were? Though one almost succumbs to reverie in reading those passages. To imagine that there was once a country, in this exact footprint, featuring government that sought to protect its people rather than enslave and replace them…Mmmmm a little lower honey.
Ahh, but every pleasant repose must end in wakefulness…or death. So what does the undead public charge doctrine mean today? As one might imagine… risibly little.
Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration
USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a noncitizen inadmissible as a public charge if all other criteria are met.
However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds.
See if the government gives you green cash money, you just may be a prohibited public charge. However this is a highly rebuttable presumption, and the “mere receipt” of taxpayer largesse in no way establishes the certainty that an alien is accepting a thing. Have we achieved clarity? More is to come. What follows are those items which in absolutely no manner or fashion indicate an immigrant’s reliance on state charity or burden upon the community…
Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration
Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:
*Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
* Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
* Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
* Housing benefits
* Child care services
* Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
* Emergency disaster relief
* Foster care and adoption assistance
* Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
* Job training programs
* In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
* Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
* Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
* Unemployment compensation
This is a government that laughs while defecating. An alien may gambol across our borders and obtain…
free occupational training
and free unemployment benefits
All to be had without the burden of a feather upon the host. A public charge free of it. Our injury is never so sweet without insult as icing.
Perhaps in comparison to our terminal myopia, the Japanese are capable of seeing events plainly before their eyes and declining the descent. Though I must caution, refusing to finance your own children’s dispossession can be controversial and potentially damaging.
And who could ever live with that?