Quote:
Originally Posted by GoNative
For the UK maybe you have a point but Australia is quite different in that it is a realtively new country and has only come into being through waves of immigration over the years. It too would have a declining population if not for immigration. There was certainly a period in Australia where it was very xenophobic (mostly due to the British population here) but after WWII that changed considerably and certainly after the Vietnam War it ended, at least officially, entirely. I don't even know if you could really define what it is to be Australian it is so multicultural these days.
|
Actually... legally, Australia and the UK have a similar definition as to what is an Australian (or a british person) as do other Western countries.
It would be equally as difficult to define what it is to be British as it is to be Australian. The only difference is that the dominant ethnie has had a longer history of dominance in one example than it does in the other.
My point is that it is
not xenophobic for Australia and England to do this. The only reason you think that Japan is xenophobic for doing it is because you assume their motive to be xenophobic which I assume stems from the fact that Japanese law is really tight on this (which MIGHT be true to SOME extent). But the fact that they are doing it is not grounds for that.