Well it's a fine line isn't it? Japan can't consider genetically different people to be fully and completely Japanese, otherwise that would lead to their replacement. It seems kind of harsh but that is the reality.
Sounds pretty fine to me. Not impossible, but delicate. If the immigrant considers themselves as interchangeable in all cases with the natives, then the next question is, "why should I be a racial minority?"
Why would that be a legitimate question if they are properly integrated?
Normally, "integration" was almost directly understood as: intermarriage. After 3 generations of intermarrying into the majority group, you wouldn't even identify as the minority group.
If, on the other hand, they are still within their group (which suggests you weren't going slowly and you have created a colony), and they are integrated into the society, there is no reason to fear being a minority.
If the minority is merely recognized as a present minority in the country with no real concern about them one way or another; then there is no issue. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the number of Finns in their country, regardless of country. Nobody seems to really care. This is because either integrate with their neighbors or don't form colonies. But if a minority were to emerge and properly integrate; it would be recognized as simply a local curiosity. "Over here, you will see a small finish community. They have good fish!"
Now, we are left with the possibility of minorities in the country that won't integrate. This could be a problem, but only if they do not adopt a "model minority" tradition. Very few people complain about the presence of Amish beyond their buggies being slow. They are separatist to a significant degree, but they do not seek war, nor conflict, and often deal fairly with others. The overseas Germans, Japanese, and Chinese were also regarded in similar manners.
The danger of the model minority is that they might be too successful. You don't need a domestic population getting resentful of a successful minority otherwise you could create serious ethnic tension. Such as what has occasionally happened with the Chinese, Japanese, the Boer, and Jews. The Amish, physically can't outpace the domestic population by virtue of their religion, protecting them from popular reprisals; but the others could be a problem. This is why you want to keep immigration low. Low enough to the point that those populations do not colonize in the first place, and integrate with the society at large.
The only exception to this is in Civic Nationalism, where you basically forcibly integrate them into your civic value structure. This, in and of itself, is a big way of pushing back on most migration if you maintain it. The immigrants have to voluntarily arrive, and then voluntarily abandon their old ways to assimilate. Refusal is depuration. Nothing else can be tolerated.
Multi-culturalism doesn't work because it is staunch segregation. It can't work. You are either all in, or you are all out.
Normally, "integration" was almost directly understood as: intermarriage. After 3 generations of intermarrying into the majority group, you wouldn't even identify as the minority group.
OK I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here.
If, on the other hand, they are still within their group (which suggests you weren't going slowly and you have created a colony), and they are integrated into the society, there is no reason to fear being a minority.
If the minority is merely recognized as a present minority in the country with no real concern about them one way or another; then there is no issue. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the number of Finns in their country, regardless of country. Nobody seems to really care.
I would agree in theory. But in practice, the ethnic narcissism of certain groups, fanned by Jewish interests, insists on the privilege to import more and more of them - and who are the genetic natives to disagree because that would mean that a native is somehow more of a citizen than racial minorities?
Also there is the justification that the genetic natives are not really legitimate because they themselves displaced a native people, which can easily be applied to Japan via the Ainu. In practice, the immigration debate is a slippery slope toward this argument.
Well it's a fine line isn't it? Japan can't consider genetically different people to be fully and completely Japanese, otherwise that would lead to their replacement. It seems kind of harsh but that is the reality.
That's not a fine line, you just need to accept that immigrants may need 3 generations to fully integrate, and must be kept as the minority.
That does start with the immigrant trying to recognize themselves as that thing (even if they are not).
Sounds pretty fine to me. Not impossible, but delicate. If the immigrant considers themselves as interchangeable in all cases with the natives, then the next question is, "why should I be a racial minority?"
Why would that be a legitimate question if they are properly integrated?
Normally, "integration" was almost directly understood as: intermarriage. After 3 generations of intermarrying into the majority group, you wouldn't even identify as the minority group.
If, on the other hand, they are still within their group (which suggests you weren't going slowly and you have created a colony), and they are integrated into the society, there is no reason to fear being a minority.
If the minority is merely recognized as a present minority in the country with no real concern about them one way or another; then there is no issue. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the number of Finns in their country, regardless of country. Nobody seems to really care. This is because either integrate with their neighbors or don't form colonies. But if a minority were to emerge and properly integrate; it would be recognized as simply a local curiosity. "Over here, you will see a small finish community. They have good fish!"
Now, we are left with the possibility of minorities in the country that won't integrate. This could be a problem, but only if they do not adopt a "model minority" tradition. Very few people complain about the presence of Amish beyond their buggies being slow. They are separatist to a significant degree, but they do not seek war, nor conflict, and often deal fairly with others. The overseas Germans, Japanese, and Chinese were also regarded in similar manners.
The danger of the model minority is that they might be too successful. You don't need a domestic population getting resentful of a successful minority otherwise you could create serious ethnic tension. Such as what has occasionally happened with the Chinese, Japanese, the Boer, and Jews. The Amish, physically can't outpace the domestic population by virtue of their religion, protecting them from popular reprisals; but the others could be a problem. This is why you want to keep immigration low. Low enough to the point that those populations do not colonize in the first place, and integrate with the society at large.
The only exception to this is in Civic Nationalism, where you basically forcibly integrate them into your civic value structure. This, in and of itself, is a big way of pushing back on most migration if you maintain it. The immigrants have to voluntarily arrive, and then voluntarily abandon their old ways to assimilate. Refusal is depuration. Nothing else can be tolerated.
Multi-culturalism doesn't work because it is staunch segregation. It can't work. You are either all in, or you are all out.
OK I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here.
I would agree in theory. But in practice, the ethnic narcissism of certain groups, fanned by Jewish interests, insists on the privilege to import more and more of them - and who are the genetic natives to disagree because that would mean that a native is somehow more of a citizen than racial minorities?
Also there is the justification that the genetic natives are not really legitimate because they themselves displaced a native people, which can easily be applied to Japan via the Ainu. In practice, the immigration debate is a slippery slope toward this argument.