Translation Sniper

Read about this earlier, but forgot about it until reading Japan without the Sugar earlier today.

So let’s see: Japan’s public debt is careening towards 200% of GDP. The country has gone through 3 prime ministers in less than 3 years, the country remains in the grips of deflation, its population is aging, it has no immigration policy to ensure its national health insurance stays solvent, workers haven’t had any real income growth in close to 10 years…but have no fear! The People’s New Party head, Kamei, knows what the real priorities are: preventing foreigners from voting, and making sure women use their husband’s surname after marraige.

Interesting to note that husbands and wives using different surnames is ruining the Japanese family…..especially because for Japanese marrying non-Japanese (who don’t have registars in Japan), trying to use the same name after marriage is a bit of a hassle. I guess they don’t really count…

I don’t think Kamei is blaming foreigners’ right to vote as the reason behind Japan’s problems – in fact, he 100% can not be – since foreigners in Japan have zero right to vote.

Japan is hardly the only country to not allow foreigners to vote. It’s not allowed in the US at the national or state level (as far as I know), although it is allowed at the local level in some states. The difference for the US, of course, is that foreigners in the US are – by definition – people born outside the country (i.e., they have a home to return to if they really disagree with the politics of the US. Obviously this grossly over-simplifies the situation, but you get the point). The largest group of foreigners in Japan, however, is Koreans – born and raised in Japan – but without Japanese citizenship or voting rights. It’s an extremely thorny issue, and it certainly deserves debate. At least at the local level, if I’m paying taxes and my kids go to the local school, shouldn’t I have a right to representation in how my tax dollars are used? If I’m paying into the national health system, shouldn’t I have a say in how it’s managed? Are there really enough foreigners in Japan to sway national policy (in California – maybe! In Japan – very doubtful). I think giving limited voting rights at the local level would make it easier for foreigners in Japan to be involved in society – and as I’ve said repeatedly before, I think immigration is absolutely necessary to offset the low birth rate / aging population problem it faces.

That said, I can understand the other side as well. Should someone who’s only been here six months have the same say as someone that’s lived here all their lives? Probably not – by and large, in the US local voting rights are given only after a number of years of living in the area. That seems reasonable.

No denying that this is a topic worthy of debate. BUT – the issue I have with Kamei is that – in the face of all of Japan’s problems, he thinks the answer is to run primarily on such a platform. Surely there is a more responsible way to have this debate without resorting to open bigotry. It’s this kind of bait-and-switch approach with the real important issues that conservatives in the US are using – and if Kamei were smart, he’d realize that it hasn’t really worked for them (see Gingrich, Newt etc)