| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nightsintodreams
Joined: 18 May 2010
Posts: 558
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vince
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 559
Location: U.S.
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The elderly lady should receive full benefits. She was born and raised in Japan and is probably indistinguishable from the average Japanese person. As for calls for her to go to China if she doesn't like it, she probably doesn't have anywhere in China to go. Japan is as much her home as it is a born-and-bred Japanese person's.
Some of the comments ask why she didn't get citizenship. Considering Japan's handling of the status of zainichi after the war, I'd think some leeway is in order. Why would she have renounced her Chinese citizenship when she saw Koreans lose their Japanese citizenship and be left without citizenship of any nation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inflames
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 486
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vince wrote: |
Some of the comments ask why she didn't get citizenship. Considering Japan's handling of the status of zainichi after the war, I'd think some leeway is in order. Why would she have renounced her Chinese citizenship when she saw Koreans lose their Japanese citizenship and be left without citizenship of any nation? |
The woman was originally Japanese, and indeed lost her citizenship along with all the other Koreans and Taiwanese (after World War 2 - the entire Japanese nationality issue came about because they were originally subjects of the emperor, and Japan had officially renounced that). The entire thing about Koreans being stateless is because they didn't want to choose between North and South (I think that choice is pretty obvious to anyone now). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rxk22
Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 1629
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pretty bad. Esp since she paid into the system her entire life. It isn't like she just rolled in a year or two ago, and applied for welfare.
Really a bad ruling. Which makes me hate how the pension system here is obligatory. Can they deny that to us as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pitarou
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: Narita, Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rxk22 wrote: |
| Really a bad ruling. Which makes me hate how the pension system here is obligatory. Can they deny that to us as well? |
This ruling doesn't affect your pension or unemployment insurance. It's about an entirely different kind of welfare benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pitarou
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: Narita, Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| For anyone who is surprised by this ruling: treat it as a wake up call. This is what Japan's national institutions really think of you. Those noisy black vans aren't just for decoration... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rxk22
Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 1629
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pitarou wrote: |
| rxk22 wrote: |
| Really a bad ruling. Which makes me hate how the pension system here is obligatory. Can they deny that to us as well? |
This ruling doesn't affect your pension or unemployment insurance. It's about an entirely different kind of welfare benefits. |
Of course but this is setting a prevent. I don't want to pay into a pension that I may be denied access to |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inflames
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 486
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pitarou wrote: |
| For anyone who is surprised by this ruling: treat it as a wake up call. This is what Japan's national institutions really think of you. Those noisy black vans aren't just for decoration... |
Not that anyone really knows, but the Osaka high court ruled against Zaitokukai and their black vans two weeks ago (they lost in Kyoto, appealed, and then lost in Osaka).
Pension benefits are actually guaranteed by international treaties (provided you are a citizen of one of the countries).
On one level, I agree that this woman's case is bad - of any foreigners allowed to apply for welfare, special permanent residents should be the ones. At the same time, I'm from the US, where welfare basically doesn't exist now (I wouldn't be able to claim it). If a foreigner on an employment visa loses his or her job in the US, they pretty much have to leave the country ASAP (don't even think about getting unemployment, because one of the requirements is that you have to be able to work, which doesn't apply when they're canceling your visa). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vince
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 559
Location: U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Inflames wrote: |
The woman was originally Japanese, and indeed lost her citizenship along with all the other Koreans and Taiwanese. |
Neither of the articles I read included that inconvenient fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nightsintodreams
Joined: 18 May 2010
Posts: 558
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Pitarou wrote:
For anyone who is surprised by this ruling: treat it as a wake up call. This is what Japan's national institutions really think of you. Those noisy black vans aren't just for decoration...
Not that anyone really knows, but the Osaka high court ruled against Zaitokukai and their black vans two weeks ago (they lost in Kyoto, appealed, and then lost in Osaka).
Pension benefits are actually guaranteed by international treaties (provided you are a citizen of one of the countries).
On one level, I agree that this woman's case is bad - of any foreigners allowed to apply for welfare, special permanent residents should be the ones. At the same time, I'm from the US, where welfare basically doesn't exist now (I wouldn't be able to claim it). If a foreigner on an employment visa loses his or her job in the US, they pretty much have to leave the country ASAP (don't even think about getting unemployment, because one of the requirements is that you have to be able to work, which doesn't apply when they're canceling your visa). |
I find it strange that this ruling was made because of a woman who'd lived her whole life in Japan, paid taxes and is now over 80 years old, it doesn't make sense to me. If it had happened because of a young 20 something fresh off the boat claiming welfare and trying to abuse the system then I could kind of see where they were coming from.
The lady in the case didn't have an employment VISA, she had permanent residency. Are you saying foreigners with permanent residency in the US are sent home as soon as they lose their job? Also,if she'd been born in the US instead of Japan then it wouldn't even be an issue, she would be a US citizen and entitled to the same rights as anyone else born in the country.
On a separate note, I'm currently paying shakaihokken which includes unemployment insurance. Is presume this is a different system to welfare? If I lose my job, do I really have to leave Japan straight away? I don't think that's the case, is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pitarou
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: Narita, Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Inflames wrote: |
| Not that anyone really knows, but the Osaka high court ruled against Zaitokukai and their black vans two weeks ago (they lost in Kyoto, appealed, and then lost in Osaka). |
Are the zaitokukai and the uyoku the same thing?
Anyway, to be clear, this ruling only applied to the most egregious activities. It's business as usual for the uyoku and their black vans. In the case the court ruled on, a group descended on a school for ethnic Koreans, screamed vile abuse at them through megaphones, vandalised the property, and so on. In my view, the fact that a court even had to rule that this was illegal shows how far Japan still has to go.
Last edited by Pitarou on Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pitarou
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: Narita, Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| On a separate note, I'm currently paying shakaihokken which includes unemployment insurance. Is presume this is a different system to welfare? If I lose my job, do I really have to leave Japan straight away? I don't think that's the case, is it? |
No worries. Your work visa gives you a reasonable period to look for another job, and this ruling doesn't affect your unemployment insurance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pitarou
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: Narita, Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Inflames wrote: |
| At the same time, I'm from the US, where welfare basically doesn't exist now (I wouldn't be able to claim it). |
Laid off people currently got 100 weeks of federal aid, don't they? Or has that program ended?
In any case, you can't make a claim because you live and work overseas. The correct place for you to make a claim is Japan. You have been making those unemployment insurance payments, haven't you?
| Quote: |
| If a foreigner on an employment visa loses his or her job in the US, they pretty much have to leave the country ASAP (don't even think about getting unemployment, because one of the requirements is that you have to be able to work, which doesn't apply when they're canceling your visa). |
That bears no comparison with this case. The lady in question is not on a work visa, was not laid off, and wasn't attempting to claim unemployment benefits. She has lived in Japan her whole life, so it would make no sense to ask her to return to her country of origin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vince
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 559
Location: U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We should keep in mind that this is a court ruling (an interpretation of the law), not legislation. Hopefully this ruling will lead to the law being updated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pitarou
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: Narita, Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vince wrote: |
| We should keep in mind that this is a court ruling (an interpretation of the law), not legislation. Hopefully this ruling will lead to the law being updated. |
I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
