Hacker News Reader

Comment by bena | Hacker News Reader

I mean, seems fair.

If I'm applying for a work visa where the work I'm doing would require me to know Japanese, I should know Japanese.

The key thing is that the ESI category includes a lot of work which you don't need to know Japanese. For example, software engineering jobs in Japan are often at either larger multinational companies or companies with enough presence outside of Japan that they have teams which are in English.

Japan has been on a recent anti-immigration kick via making visas harder and more expensive to get while also blaming them for all of their problems which, isn't really gonna work out for multiple reasons.

> software engineering jobs in Japan are often at either larger multinational companies or companies with enough presence outside of Japan that they have teams which are in English.

Just because you work in a multinational company where they have English speaking teams does not mean that you should not know the language. It is weird to assume that just because your first job is with an English speaking team you will always work with those teams or in that company at all.

What about daily life? Communication is a fundamental part of your activity as a civilian imo. Not understanding what is going on in a country without using some device to translate for you is not acceptable. Whether in a train or during an earthquake you must always be able to communicate.

> Not understanding what is going on in a country without using some device to translate for you is not acceptable

I knew an American guy who worked for Yahoo Japan in Tokyo for 10 years, and still had zero desire to learn the language.

But the law doesn't apply to all ESI jobs, just a subset which (ostensibly) do need to know Japanese.

This is true that it primarily applies to jobs which say they need to know Japanese as an attempt to prevent fraud, but realistically it doesn't actually accomplish anything beyond punishing honest businesses. Companies will just lie about the language requirements, and visa holders will have no incentive to properly report the fraud because they run the risk of their visa being revoked and kicked out of the country.

There are smarter ways to implement a language requirement, and really this is part of a trend of Japan tightening up restrictions on foreigners to try and solve a perceived problem by a fraction of a fraction of individuals.

See, I would have figured the "Specialist in Humanities" part of it would not include software development.

I just looked up the definition/qualifications for it and I misunderstood the bit.

I thought it was sub categories. Engineers, who are Specialists in Humanities, who are doing International Services.

But it's more like three different categories. Engineers OR Specialists in Humanities OR International Services.

It seems like they could just move International Services to its own category. (Based on the information in this link: https://portal.jp-mirai.org/en/work/s/highly-skilled-hr/giji...)

Teaching English is humanities though, not IS, so that doesn't work. (To clarify, teaching at any sort of private company. A K12 school has a dedicated Instructor class that can't be used for anything else.) And translating (which requires proficiency) is IS in some cases I think?

I also initially read it as "this is an example of the type of category that would have the requirement". Which doesn't preclude other categories also needing the requirement.

Why do you need that requirement be validated by people and at a level not connection to the place of work?

Presumably 1. the "places of work" are not doing sufficient validation, and therefore 2. regulation is needed when the non-regulated path is failing.

Unless the places of work are vetted, setting up a company to offer a job, and collect fees for offering said "jobs", would seem to be a simple way of committing fraud in that case.

So either you vet the companies offering those jobs, or you vet the visa applicants.

Because the government is responsible for border control and immigration?

The alternative is that the company must provide evidence, but I don't see how this is better.

The first doesn't explain anything - the government was responsible before this new policy, so having no such policy doesn't go agasint that fact. Also other alternatives exist

To prevent fraud. It's the same reason governments have driving tests and tax or grant audits. If the government deferred to applicants for everything, there'd be no point in the application process.

Sure, there's a libertarian argument against limiting visas, imposing taxes, and issuing grants, but if you are going to, it requires some amount of enforcement to prevent rampant fraud.

This assumes the government itself isn't the one doing the fraud.

Countries are not just places you work, first of all.

ironically the first people who would disagree with you are the people who passed this piece of legislation

slightly more seriously though work is one place where language acquisition happens organically, work is where culture emerges and despite the grievances I have with Anglosphere one great aspect of it is that they are never so frail to think that language can or must be imposed by a commissioner.

Are you kidding?

One of the first things the Anglosphere did was enforce language customs. I think you should review a bit of the history here. Why do you think the standard language for flight is English? To the extent that language acquisition happens at the office, it comes at the expense of actually getting work done.

>If I'm applying for a work visa where the work I'm doing would require me to know Japanese, I should know Japanese.

the naturalization act of 1906 and the immigration act of 1917 , in the US, were some of the hardest fought-for and controversial laws ever put in place.

The immigration act got vetod by 3 different sitting presidents in different forms , and the naturalization act included a 'free white persons & natives' clause that screwed over a lot of people.

It was pretty widely seen as a method to minimize poor working people. Both laws were used a ton during the commie red scare against citizens, and the 1917 law is essentially held responsible for the separation of families / 'port of entry tragedies' that separated families based on things like language.

now : i'm not saying that Japan is walking in the same foot-steps, just pointing out that language/culture exclusivity within legal spheres usually ends poorly for the people.

Ok, but neither of those are about work visas.

If I'm applying for a work visa, it's because I expect to be in that country to work, not as a permanent resident.

Without knowing the numbers, I'd wager that the majority of work Visas worldwide are "dual-intent", to use the USCIS parlance. Restrictions might be higher or lower in different countries, but there's generaly a path dor moving from a work visa to permanent residency.

> I expect to be in that country to work, not as a permanent resident.

Aren't work visas basically the only realistic path to permanent residency for most people?

I think we need to acknowledge that all but the most transitory fruit pickers may want to settle permanently after working in a country for many years, and should not unreasonably be prevented from doing so.

If i were working in a country for many years, I would make some effort to learn to communicate with the other people who live in that country, before becoming a permanent resident. I understand this is very difficult; I've been studying Spanish every day for almost 2 years and I am nowhere near fluent. However, I suspect I would be further along if I lived somewhere where people commonly spoke Spanish.

There is nothing unreasonable about if you want to live in a country you should learn the language. I said in another comment that I’m learning Spanish now because I plan to move to a Spanish speaking country for retirement.

What is unreasonable prevention?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com