Most countries need both VAT and income tax to fund their budget. Importing well off immigrants means they subsidize the VAT part only and likely do not generate income from Japan salaries. This is basically same problem as with digital nomads: they use the infrastructure which they do not fund proportionally compared to regular citizens.

Am I missing something here?

That stat is bogus though when used in this context. The least payed workers contribute the most to every day life of society in my opinion and pay the least tax.

>In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors.

47% of what? Of the immigrants coming in the UK are net tax contributors or 47% of the total population including locals?

I do. It's like needing a credit check to get a job. It's a horrible death spiral: Japanese jobs can decrease wages from more supply, which can out you under the line, which makes it harder for you to contribute to the economy.

Isn’t this just a reflection of wealth inequality though? A “net negative” tax payer is just working a job that makes one of the net positive payers richer thus still bringing in more income for the country.

That's fair, but the stereotypical immigrant isn't near retirement. Positive migration tends to be related to youth, and it's hard to imagine that this will work for most.

Which, fair, it's their right to close the door fully, but lack of immigration and a greatly aged population sounds like a recipe for collapse.

That's reasonable too. People who move to a new country should be able to support themselves there and have a good chance to thrive in their new home. If the average income of the population isn't enough for that to be possible, your country has bigger problems than immigrants

The US requirements are so much lower that calling them similar does a disservice.

The proposed requirements in Japan require earnings to exceed Japan's average and also for them to have an equivalent of 30 years of pension payouts saved up.

The US requirements are not as specific, but for comparison one of the numbers is that that families need to have an income requirement 25% higher than federal poverty guidelines, which very low compared to average US incomes.

> “ive me your tired, your poor, > Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, > The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. > Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, > I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

The U.S. was founded as a nation of immigrants, and has a cultural history of being exceptionally immigrant-friendly (compared to other nations), especially with regard to immigrants without much means.

I don't believe other nations have any obligation to follow this example. On the contrary, they should be able to set whatever immigration policies make sense for them. But this model of letting in poor immigrants, letting them do the work that nobody else wants to do, and letting their kids become net contributors, does seem to have benefited the U.S. greatly over the past few centuries.

Every single person who came through Ellis Island <https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-...>

* 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 "only 2% of immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island" 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.

Just because some people want something that doesn't suddenly make it reasonable or wise. In this case it's a problem for many already successful people living in Japan currently who will be forced to leave. It's also a problem for Japanese companies who have hired those people or who want to attract foreign talent to positions that pay well, but don't typically leave someone fabulously wealthy compared to most of the people living around them. It's also a problem because the policy is coming in at a time of increased xenophobia and overt racism and while this policy is likely to reduce the total number of foreigners living in Japan, it's unlikely to address the problems people have with the foreigners who will remain, and it could actually make those problems worse.

Something must be done, this is something, we must do it!

Just because something can be done doesn't make it good for the society. Japan has a shrinking population and is currently dependent on immigrants for low wage work. Plenty of actions can make the current problem worse and have unintended consequences. Whether they happen or not is a political question, not a moral one.

Who determined "what they want?" Did you want your government to attack Iran? Are you responsible for it? Why not?

> I am not sure in understand the issue, if Japanese want this, what’s the problem?

The problem is I’ve built my life here and they keep treating foreigners as a lesser life form. People here can unironically be standing next to me bitching about foreigners. Then turn to me and say something like “not you, you are fine.”

It would be fine if it was a well documented recurring issue that plagued society. As is it, it feels more like a canary in the coal mine, for dirtier times to come.

In practice, most visas are short term, and none of them will allow you to benefit from social aids for very long. At most I imagine you could extend your working visa to 5 years, get sick the first year and be at charge for the remaining 4 years ? There will be ink spent on these cases, but statistically how often does that even happen to need stricter laws ?

The current political climates needs the gov to look "Japan First" and these kind of rule change are very cheap to do, especially as the people directly impacted don't vote nor can complain. It goes well with the very anti-foreigner sentiment, especially as the current wave of tourists is very unpopular despite the money coming in.

The longer view is Japan getting less workers in total, yet more of the worse immigrants as they're calling for people who either don't need Japan (have enough money to go anywhere and don't need to think long term) or are willing to take more risks (high return grifts etc.), in a time where Japanese salaries and productivity are already lower than surrounding countries.

They're basically making a bad situation worse, just for short term political play, giving in on the worse trends.

We’re not allowed to have opinions?

Because it's super fucking cruel, are you a human?

This is cruel, populist politics designed to blame foreigners for all the problems and corruption the Japanese government has allowed to go on which has ruined their economy.

There has been a hard right swing by some radical minority parties which gained a lot of popularity fast by spreading Xenophobia online and the major parties have now adopted some of that to stay relevent.

It hurts innocent people just so those in power can stay in power.

Also Japan is a country which basically 100% relies on foreign countries to survive, so maybe the government there should be a bit more careful. For example they get most of their Natural gas from Australia for free..

That’s the case for every western country, and none ask for enough money to cover 30y of life. That’s way, way above the goal you mention

Reasonable, but they're going about it in irrational ways. For example, a person on a student visa is allowed to set up a company in Japan, but technically they're not allowed to put in any hours managing it. There's a strict 28-hour/week working limit, and a person is allowed to operate as a sole trader performing very specific tass, but the moment they rent an office or hire an employee they're in violation of their visa.

So while it's very rational to demand strong language skills, and very rational to expect people to go with a certified school given the unique difficulty of the language, potential residents are essentially limited to earning part-time wages (typically much lower than full time) during that period, and virtually barred from proactively engaging in any other kind of economic activity. They could transition to a business manager visa after that, but it will have to be a new business set up from scratch which must include at least one Japanese hire as well as minimum language skills; essentially requiring business activity/know how and business planning which the person was barred from doing during the language acquisition phase.

It's not impossible to meet these criteria by any means, but it actively discourages bootstrapping and efficient use of available time.

To qualify to long term residence means that they worked for years and contributed with taxes during that period, so it’s only fair that they get protection in case they happen to lose their jobs.

For the government, the cost for any worker in the same circumstances would be the same. On the other side, the foreigners cost less to the government overall when they were educated and raised elsewhere.

I’m not saying you are wrong, just that the previous rules are already in place in that very direction, and the changes are being placed instead to please and gain political support.

If they can't find a new job in 30 years then there are larger problems.

That's not how good risk analysis works. You also have to consider the alternative that you exclude someone coming for a job they excel at while becoming a net benefit to society just because they couldn't support themselves in an eventuality that didn't come to pass.

I wonder how big the population of people that know enough Japanese, would be a huge contribution to Japanese society and wouldn't be able to get a better deal somewhere else really is. Can't imagine it's more than a million people. And putting in the effort seems quite futile as you could lose your status at any point in time for political gain.

Of course it's Japans decision.

From the article: In an announcement detailing the changes, Japan’s Immigration Services Agency stressed the need for foreigners to “live independently” and have “a stable life without the risk of becoming a burden”.

Their new requirements far exceed what is needed to meet that stated goal

Maybe it's and taking into consideration unforeseen calls upon their cash. Sounds reasonable to me.

the other issue is, there are lots of people who work and help out in the countryside where cost of living (and hence wages) are very low and forcing them to be above the whole average of the county is a bit onerous i think.

probably a better idea is average for the prefecture they live in, but i guess they want to simplify things or discourage ppl from moving to the countryside? idk; most people are in tokyo/osaka to be sure...

When you kick out people who live peacefully in your country, who contribute and have ties with friends and living their life. Yes, it's causing harm.

If the goal is to preserve their culture I doubt that insisting that everyone who moves there have "fuck you" money is going to help as much as they think it will. At least some percentage of those who meet that bar will be people who are selfish and very accustomed to just doing whatever they want. The more money people have, the greater their ability to reshape the environment and culture around them to suit their individual preferences. Rich people aren't moving to remote villages in bumblefuku nowhere either. Having a bunch of rich foreigners concentrated in the major (and culturally influential) cities will only make it worse.

There is exactly one solution to that problem: raising the birth rate by any means necessary. There is no nation without natalism.

Also, reducing immigration without natalism will result in economic collapse. Old people are extremely expensive. The old tax the young to pay for themselves. If there are no young people to tax, the music will stop quite abruptly.

They also want foreigners to not depend on their welfare system. The horror.

> People comment on every country [sic] immigration policies

That's the world as it is, not necessarily as it should be. Not being a citizen of the country in question, or part of the culture, and most importantly, not being one of the people that deals with the consequences of whichever choice is made, means your opinion counts for so little as to be barely worth sharing

> I have done very well since

How about Canada? Did it become better or worse since then?

> Japan is an island. It has always been and not just from a geographical perspective. Its very culture and history are ones of isolation. The restrictions are not new, the perspective "Japan first" is not new - these have always been there, they are at the very core of the nation.

That's not at accurate from what I know of Japanese history. You seem to be over-indexing on the (relatively) brief Tokugawa-era sakoku policy and ignoring the thousands of years surrounding it where Japan was an active importer of culture.

Kanji, government structure, Buddhism, law, art and more were all imported from China and hugely influential in Japanese history. After the the Meiji Restoration, Japan explicitly set out to Westernize and went abroad to study European and American institutions, invited Westerners in to help build European-style banking systems and government systems, adopted Western clothing, architecture, military organization, legal codes, etc. etc.

If anything the Japanese are masters at importing the things they like of foreign culture and then modifying to make it their own. They have always been importers of culture.

There lies the thesis you pointed out. The point of these articles and coverage seems to be aimed at "Why isn't Japan multicultural yet, so racist!" which makes no sense. Japan has been inhabited by Japanese language, culture and homogeneous people for thousands of years.

There is absolutely no need for Japan to become multicultural or any other country for that matter because not being multicultural isn't a fault or a sin.

I don't know why so many in the West demand this on other countries. There's just something very unnatural and unrealistic and scary to expect a homogeneous country like Japan to suddenly start calling a clearly non-Japanese looking person Japanese. It's going to create huge problems for Japan that won't benefit it or its people by any measure.

> Japan is an island

So is Sicily… and yet it's quite diverse…

Dude ethnically Japanese people that were born in Japan, lived their entire childhoods in Japan, are no longer considered Japanese if they live outside of Japan for 5-10 years.

People who have lived their entire lives in Japan, but are not 100% ethnically Japanese, will literally never be accepted as Japanese.

You're misunderstanding the immigration requirements: who is considered doesn't necessarily mean everyone that fits the requirements will be accepted. It's a requirements list for exclusion, doesn't say fitting the requirements implies inclusion.

I'm not saying I'm surprised it's largely western people (like myself) that are commenting here, what's surprising is how much nationalism they have for Japan without living there or being ethnically Japanese.

Equating anyone with less than 30 years of median pension payouts with 'poor' is an absurd premise, why would you make such a ridiculous argument

I said nothing about that, it’s not news to me. That might be the case today, but there was a time when countries in the western hemisphere like America were importing massive numbers of the poor and destitute, not to mention even enslaved people. Not that I’m arguing for a return to indentured servitude and slavery, but there are clearly times when poor people are wanted or at least tolerated en masse. Such as when you are building a new country and need settlers and frontiersmen, or when your population is struggling to keep the economy up due to an aging native population with hardly anybody to look after them.

> everyone already has their own poor population to deal with

Yikes, that is quite the dehumanizing framing

Edit: A person commented "why?" before deleting their comment, which I had started responding to. I still want to give my response:

Because an enlightened government is for the people (and an unenlightened government is not worth having). The purpose of a government is to care for the welfare of the people, not to be the securer of private wealth for the wealthy. The above comment frames it as "dealing with" an undesirable population. That population is the people, and it is a perversion to think otherwise.

Most immigration seems to me as some form of wealth differential to attract the relatively poor foreigners giving them less rights than local population.

Middle East runs on poor people from the subcontinent and Africa.

Hong Kong depends on live-in foreign labor who have to camp out in public spaces on their day-off.

America is built on poorer labor of every kind - enslaved African cotton farmers , indentured Chinese railway workers, famine stricken Irish, or more recently Latin American or H1B Indians in tech.

Some countries try to attract the richest percent like New Zealand, however it is not economically meaningful nor is major portion of immigrants globally or within their countries even.

Countries may not like foreign poor immigrants, but they certainly need them to work harder for less pay and rights.

Wanted by whom?

That, of course, is the actual real question in this debate and all the other similar debates. Some people benefit from an influx of very low-pay people, and some people don't.

For Dubai specifically, there is a mix of foreigners, a large percentage being labourers from South Asia. The orderliness we see, I think is largely due to strict* and harsh laws.

The number of times I (white, living in Japan) have raised concerns about anti-foreigner sentiment, only to be told “they’re not talking about people like you”, would beg to differ.

Oh please, everyone not in denial can certainly see there is a racial component to this. I also didn't only include "black" and "brown," some kinds of Asians are also being gatekept. Do you deny that Japanese society (like countless others) has a racism/xenophobia problem? Isn't it commonly known information that even people of other races/ethnicities who have successfully immigrated there or are just visiting as tourists are sometimes not allowed in certain venues with explicit messaging? And that this is commonly tolerated there? Isn't Japan the same country that barely 80-odd years ago was on a brutal campaign across several parts of Asia where they targeted non-Japanese with massacres, torture and live human experimentation among other things? Many of those people are still alive (ironically, some are probably among the elderly and isolated who need help right now). Isn't Japan the same country that still regularly denies their well-known and documented atrocities during that period?

This is 1000% a race thing. Chinese and Korean immigrants who look and sound Japanese won't face problems. Westerners will.

And I'm okay with that

Notoriously they have been since about the 90s ...

This is not a joke - they're actually banking on this.

Japan, notoriously a country with an immigration policy that could in good faith be described as "unchecked".

A politician can spin it that way sure, despite foreigners owning 0.12 percent of property and most foreigner jobs (at least the ones my friends have) requiring fluent English. It's not a threat to Japanese people, but with the right populist figure, anything can sound like a threat. What I find so sad about this is the lack of empathy for people that worked hard to build a life here, paid their taxes, and followed the law. They did nothing wrong, but are the targets of a population primed to take their economic woes and anger out on people simply living their life peacefully.

Japan does not have a shortage of homes - they have a surplus. Their economy very much need younger workers as their birth rates have fallen. But instead of simply allowing new workers in, they're choosing to devalue the shit out of their currency, then complaining about the huge influx of tourism that it triggered.

(in theory) 7 new job vacancies and 7 more free homes

No. Japan already has low unemployment and high overtime demands due to worker shortages, and property is already cheap (even in most cities other than Tokyo) due to a combination of falling population, complex construction/demolition codes, changing lifestyles, and a different view of asset classes/investment practices from the US.

It's kinda like how nobody likes inflation (other than certain kinds of debtors) but a deflationary economy isn't a good solution to that problem. This will have a similar effect because the people leaving are likely to be the most culturally assimilated/affiliated with decent language skills etc., but their departure won't alleviate the demand for additional labor in industry and agriculture so there will probably still be a net increase in short-term and illegal foreign residency.

yeah a misguided fixed pie scarcity mindset

This is the actual answer but too many people are invested in their own narratives to see it.

When you visit someone's country you are not just a guest, you are the model for everyone else who comes from where you do and who looks like you do. The assumption is that how you behave is how others from where you came from will behave. In an age where social media exposes everyone all the time, bad behavior gets seen and shown to others and conclusions drawn based on that behavior.

But rather than admit that this is a thing which exists, others just want to press tired arguments about race and racism. Which even if true, who cares? It's their country. They're allowed to welcome or decline anyone they wish. How arrogant are we really to think that we can dictate who and what others allow in their homes?

Amazing.

I’d say having a wealth and language filter is pragmatism.

Pragmatism could just as easily be a decision by the public collectively to have more babies. There’s nothing about immigration that makes it inherently pragmatic. It could be, with the agreement of the electorate, away to compensate for the electorates decisions to have fewer babies. But it’s not up for us outside of Japan to lecture them on whether or not they are being consistent on this.

What's pragmatic depends on your values.

They don't believe so. Maybe they are wrong! There are pros and cons.

It's OK if they choose to seek other avenues for dealing with that problem. The easiest solution is often not the best, and sometimes there is no net-positive path forward.

They can just outsource if they really need tech employees.

> I mean, sure, so long as they're willing to deal with the consequences of an aging population and a shrinking workforce.

They're pretty clearly aware of the dire fear-mongering, and chose their path accordingly. They decided to sidestep the pyramid scheme of perpetual growth.

Here in Canada we've been pitched this same scary argument for decades, leading to outrageous levels of immigration, coupled with a growing entitlement among the class (which leads to a complete refusal to integrate in any meaningful way, often while incanting the laughable pablum about mosaic versus melting pot while dragging regressive, destructive habits and cultural norms to Canada, tragedy of the commons behaviour, etc).

Somehow this mass immigration has made us older, and less competitive, moving in exactly the opposite direction of the magical solution it promised while giving away the country. It has led to massive lines for every job, downward pressure on wages, and oversubscribed services at every level.

---

Every now and then there is a discussion about the difference between an "expat" and an "immigrant", but it really is important that people are honest about the difference, because it is very real, and it is informative to why the myth of immigration as a solution doesn't track with the reality that immigration is often massively destructive.

An expat is usually some Westerner that moved to some random country for adventure, a change, whatever. Occasionally they send a postcard home and share videos from the beach. Whatever.

An immigrant, on the other hand, is someone that moves to a country as a beachhead to drag their entire extended family there, often then expanding out from there. Which is precisely what many Western countries have seen where they bring in the "skilled worker", and then the skilled worker drags over their elderly parents, and also their "auntie" as a purported childcare giver, and then registers a business and sponsors their village through every loophole and circumvention, and then... This has destroyed the acceptance of immigration and completely obliterated the "oh you're getting older, something something labour shortage" nonsense.

We need to move on from the mass immigration is the solution horseshit, because all it has done is led every developed country to lurch perilously to the right, giving an easy open for charlatans to take advantage of a real problem to push a lot of ancillary things as well.

I'm having a hard time following the thinking in many of these threads so I'm not sure if you're questioning it genuinely (or hypothetically or sarcastically), but I think essentially yes sadly.

Wealthier areas wonder why it costs so much for house renovations or for daycare or`for farmer's market produce. Or similarly folks move to less wealthy countries as "expats" and hire help, babysitters, tutors. Sense of prosperity seems tied to those things feeling inexpensive and them feeling cheap requires income inequality. There's I think a large amount of feeling poor (or average) when those things are eating your budget. Even though you have them. For example, you pay for expensive childcare so both parents can work, it takes a big bite out of your budget, and so you don't feel wealthy (but you're paying for childcare and your family has an employee). Similarly, you're paying for expensive private school, it eats your budget, you don't feel wealthy (but your child is going to private school).

For those doing well, the surplus goes to what's left—house, education, healthcare (I recall there being a fourth, but I'm blanking). Those things are expensive because they should be, you're wealthy. You're competing with the other wealthy people. I'm stealing this from somewhere, but they're essentially luxury goods—the more money you have, the more (and better quality) you consume. They don't decrease as percent of income as food does.

Most developed countries are quickly losing population. The ones that have a slight deviation from that trend is due to immigration.

Foreign labor is what will keep most of these countries afloat for the following 50 years.

Japan is a good example, they lose about 1 million every year.

  > You don't have a automatic right to live in another country in my opinion. 

wouldn't the same logic apply to people from say east germany moving to the west? or 'annoying liberals' from california moving to north carolina? yes they can add to the local tax base, but if we want to keep things fair we should probably move to restrict everyone to stay in their own places if thats the logic we are following... but maybe i'm not thinking deeply enough...

What is the gap between the first and second most spoken languages in Sweden?

"Arabic" is hundreds of different languages.

It's like saying "anglosaxon" and grouping english, german, swedish, danish, norwegian as one single language.

I think when you ask “what counties care about”, it’s simplifying a situation. Policy makers have different goals than ordinary people (although than can overlap).

Given that that this policy is targeted against low-income foreigners I was under the impression it was meant to prevent downward wage pressure. Given the current political climate it may be more socially focused than I originally thought.

No, but that's the point. They don't want long-term residents, they want short-term labor. This has been the goal for a long time, and if you move to Japan expecting anything else you'll be disappointed.

"Labour shortage" is just the business's perspective on "plenty of jobs!"

If there truly is a shortage of outstanding jobs, then they can compete and raise salaries and the least significant roles ultimately won't get filled, which is optimal.

It's my understanding that end-of-life care service workers are paid relatively little (at least in the US). It does seem like this policy would exacerbate those labor shortages.

This is very one-sided. There are plenty of low income and working class people who have suddenly found more work than they have had in years due to reductions in immigration.

That makes sense (and seems undesirable). It's my understanding that Japan has a lot of near-ghost-towns with empty houses they badly need people to live in and improve (and presumably spend money in the area).

That's my bad, it's poorly worded. I meant something closer to "why would this practice of excluding low-earning foreigners be bad for the native Japanese".

Presumably they’re asking why this is being done, since it’s obviously not for the benefit of the immigrants.

irony and fascism

I don't think there's a limit to the animosity people feel (rightly or wrongly - what's "correct" has no bearing on people's feelings) and we will end up in a place where previously unthinkable force or actions are now permissible due to nasty politics. The US is getting a small taste of that now.

I don't think it takes much imagination to connect the dots... it wasn't that long ago in European history where people were systematically eradicated by the millions.

The current news in the middle east are showing what happens when unregulated immigration happens without assimilation

Demographic suicide.

"they took our jobs!"

If you need them to support your production, then it's ok for them to be a net cost no? Basically you're paying to have goods and services that you wouldn't otherwise, it's like paying for employees, it's a cost, but it brings value still.

I completely agree with your comment about Japan killing every generation since the bubble popped. It has been wild to witness.

The subtle but profound ways those generations have experienced being essentially abandoned by the government and “Japan Inc” will have a lasting impact on Japan for many decades to come.

There are some leaders who actually grasp the problem and actually have decent ideas for solutions, but the will and capacity to execute those ideas just isn’t there.

That's too low. The National Basic Pension is around 60,000 yen per month and with traditional employer part on top (not everyone has it), it's 140,000 yen/month. I would think a foreigner immigrant would need to bring the equivalent of around $160k in a retirement savings account or similar.

To put that in perspective, US companies report similar rates of worker shortages in surveys [1]:

> The survey found that company size influenced hiring outcomes. Seventy-six percent of companies with 1,000 to 4,999 employees reported shortages, followed by 75% of firms with 5,000 employees or more and 74% of those with 250 to 999 employees. Among smaller firms, 69% of organizations with 50 to 249 employees, 66% with 10 to 49 employees and 61% with fewer than 10 employees reported hiring challenges.

I'm not saying that there isn't a shortage of labor in Japan - just that business owners are never satisifed with the amount of labor available at the wages they wish to pay. And it may not be an existential shortage of labor like a lot of commenters are saying. Especially with recent developments in AI and automation.

The declining birthrate in general does seem to be an existential issue if it cannot be stabilized. But it is hard to predict population trends long term (when I was growing up the big concern was overpopulation and China was running its one-child policy - now they are facing population decline).

The weak yen is also definitely an issue right now - but it's impossible to predict where it will be in the future.

So yes, Japan is facing real problems. And stricter immigration requirements likely will come at some cost to economic output. But if they feel it is necessary to protect their social welfare programs and cultural identity, then those tradeoffs are theirs to make. And all of the doom and gloom comments saying things like "it's suicide" feel like a bit of an overreaction to me when you look at the actual proposed changes.

[1] https://www.staffingindustry.com/news/global-daily-news/69-o...

You know what creates 100 more trouble than immigrants ? Japan’s birth rate.

You know who have babies? Immigrants.

You know who pays social security for peuple when they get older ? Those grown up babies.

Do the math. Japan has much to teach the world but the most important lesson they are now teaching, is that people are stupid, easily manipulated, excessively xenophobic and absolutely happy to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly if it means not admitting they’re wrong. In Japan, in the US, in Europe and elsewhere.

Dumb dumb humans…

> You don't have to be exclusively one race to be a unique country

You don't. You also dont have to NOT be a homogenous country to be a unique country. Or you dont event have to be unique to be a country.

Bhutan doesn't get as much flack for strict migration policies.

Not the parent, but yes, of course I would. But letting anybody do anything that would benefit them is of course not reasonable.

Nope, go become a doctor. How many people do we need writing PHP?

They are unfortunately the most common example of (subjectively) bad immigration policies seen first-hand among tech folks in the West (I.e. people likely to be on HN). The parent was obviously referring to this fact sarcastically. It's a tech trope.

What exactly are south Asians? Serious question

Colonial mentalities carry on for decades.

What happened to the swedes? I'm in sweden right now and there's no zombie apocalypse or anything weird going on…

I'm pretty sure there are many non-Japanese who're attracted to Japanese primarily because of their homogeneity.

or if you just care about your race, which is a normal thing to do

it's an extended family of sorts