The proposal represents official acceptance of unskilled foreign workers in Japan for the first time in the post-war period. Under the revision, type 1 residents will require basic Japanese language and job skills and will be able to stay for up to five years. Type 2 workers will need higher Japanese language and vocational skills but will be able to stay indefinitely and, unlike type 1 residents, bring spouses and children.
The plan to open the door to unskilled foreign workers is taking many in Japan by surprise. Japan has long followed a de facto ‘no immigration principle’ — an institutionalisation of the ‘homogeneous people’ ideology of the Japanese nation that continues to play a key role in structuring national identity. The perception that allowing greater numbers of foreigners into Japan would damage social cohesion and harm public safety has tended to override rational economic argument.
Public concerns over migrants have changed little. What has changed is that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, faced with acute labour shortages that threaten to undermine the steady economic growth seen under Abenomics, has been forced to act.
The difficulty of immigration reform in Japan is reflected in the way the legislation is being introduced — short on detail and with little fanfare. Significantly, it is being introduced in tandem with a controversial bill to amend the constitution that is likely to take the spotlight off immigration reform. Details of the proposed reforms are also being kept deliberately vague. The government is yet to specify which industries will be eligible and how many workers will be accepted. It is speculated that the reforms will cover at least 14 industries (in the case of type 1 residents), including construction, elderly care, agriculture, and the service industry, and will bring in between a quarter to half a million more foreign workers.
The revision is by no means guaranteed to pass. The government is bending over backwards to stress that it is not an immigration policy, and that even type 2 residents will be subject to regular checks and be required to apply for extensions of their period of stay each year. Despite these assurances and studious avoidance of the ‘I’ word (imin in Japanese), opposition is becoming increasingly vocal. Public opinion remains firmly against ‘settlement’, with critics arguing that the revision is an immigration policy in all but name.
Concerns about the revision’s potential impact on public security have been voiced by politicians of various parties. In response, the government is proposing tough conditions for companies wanting to hire workers under the revised policy, as well as stricter regulatory authority to monitor hiring companies and workers. The ad-hoc, constantly changing nature of the revision’s content as discussions proceed in both Japanese media and the Diet (Japan’s parliament) is indicative of the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Another point of criticism is the insufficient support systems for new residents. The government has tentatively suggested increasing the number of Japanese language classrooms, setting up multilingual consultation services and offering help to find housing. Japanese language education is in particular need of reform, with nearly 60 per cent of teachers being volunteers, most of them elderly. There are no national teaching guidelines or unified curriculum, and various qualifications exist for Japanese language teachers. As for housing, a Ministry of Justice survey from 2017 found that almost 40 per cent of foreign residents had been refused housing during the preceding five years on the basis of their nationality.
While the protestors in the ‘anti-migrant day’ marches were made up of mostly ultranationalists, anxiety over what could be seen as Japan’s ‘third opening up’ is beginning to appear among the general populace. The irony is that Japan will have real reason to be anxious if it continues to fudge immigration reform. The country will continue to shrink demographically, economically and in stature if it carries on viewing foreigners as little more than disposable labour for jobs that Japanese citizens don’t want to do, rather than as settlers who can contribute to society.
Chris Burgess is Professor in Japanese studies at Tsuda University, Tokyo. He invites readers to visit his blog on Japanese society.
Thanks for a thorough analysis of this challenging issue which the country, its leaders, and citizens face.
As with the revision of the Constitution Abe is approaching this one in an indirect fashion as his way of trying to tamp down opposition. This is understandable, especially in a country/culture that is as conflict avoidant as Japan is. But this strategy can actually increase opposition because it does not really resolve the anxieties people have about immigration. At the risk of sounding alarmist I believe Japan is facing a demographic time bomb. Such a crisis require strong, concerted leadership with clear and open communication to the citizens of the country.
This is the first analysis I have seen which notes the need for supportive services like language training and search for housing. These need to be bolstered and done more by professionals rather than volunteers. Also, some ongoing social services aimed at educating immigrants and their family members about Japanese culture, customs, etc would be helpful. If immigrants had a mentor to whom they could turn to for support, it might make their transition to living in Japan much more successful.
Israel is a country which has been accepting and assimilating large numbers of immigrants for many years. Eg, it took in more than 1 million Russian Jews in the early 1990’s. Its programs are not perfect. Eg, some of its immigrant populations are not well assimilated in to the society. And some do not stay in the country after a few years. But it offers some constructive ideas about how a country can try to do this kind of thing in a more comprehensive way.
The author states that,
“The country will continue to shrink demographically, economically and in stature if it carries on viewing foreigners as little more than disposable labour for jobs that Japanese citizens don’t want to do, rather than as settlers who can contribute to society.”
The author is fundamentally wrong about this. Mass immigration can only ever be a short term fix for Japan’s demographic crisis, unless everyone is comfortable slowly replacing Japanese people with foreigners. I’m not okay with this, and I suspect neither are Japanese citizens. In short, policies of this sort are not desirable, but in fact, they aren’t even necessary.
First, mass immigration isn’t necessary. Much is made of the fact that Japanese aren’t having enough children. While this is true, the reality is that, in fact, roughly 70% of married Japanese couples want children, but many don’t, either because of time or financial constraints (https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00230/). So what the Japanese need then, are bold policy reforms that enable those who that want to have children to do so more easily. Additionally, scholars and politicians don’t necessarily have to see Japan’s graying and shrinking demographics as a problem. Japan and other nations experiencing this phenomenon, like Taiwan and Korea, can embrace a new vision of their nation’s future; a smaller, more compact society that may have fewer young people, yet still remains productive through robotics, automation, AI, and hyper efficiency. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-immigration/demand-for-foreign-workers-may-soften-japans-immigration-rules-idUSKBN1JB05H). Moreover, the author doesn’t seem to realize that sooner rather than later, immigrants won’t want to do dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs either, especially if they have the language skills and technical experience required by the long-term visas. And finally, thanks to the 4th Industrial Revolution, many of industries that migrants are expected to fill will be phased out over the next 20-50 years anyway (https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/1897696/half-jobs-japan-can-be-conducted-ai-robots-study). So mass immigration is a poor solution to a problem that will largely solve itself in the coming decades.
That leads to my second point, which is that mass immigration is not desirable. The Japanese deserve a homeland, and they deserve to exist as a people and as a culture, unmolested by the fad of diversity and multi-culturalism that has overtaken the West. Moreover, Japan is one of the few developed countries not suffering the extreme social and political tensions caused by globalism, most because Japan has opted not to participate in the concept (http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0004905872).