I think Japan thinks they can still attract enough foreigners to perform necessary service and manual labor jobs without the promise of permanent residency. That along with increasing automation - serving robots are a common sight at many restaurants these days, for example.<p>Permanent residency is reserved for people who can be a net benefit to social welfare programs - by contributing more than the average Japanese citizen (about USD $36,000 - $42,000 according to google). There are also new language requirements to promote assimilation.<p>I don’t think it’s anything too radical by global standards, and I have read there are similarities to what Singapore and South Korea already do [1] (but I don’t know too much about their programs though).<p>It’s important to note that the exact details haven’t been finalized yet. So exactly income requirements could change from current proposals/rumors.<p>These changes come on the heels of drastically increasing requirements for the business manager visa (which, to be fair, was heavily abused as a kind of “golden visa” in the past). They’ve also significantly increased visa application costs - I think I paid like ¥5,000 for my PR application, and it is now ¥200,000.<p>It does feel cruel to apply retroactively to people who have already submitted applications. And the stories of people whose lives are being completely upended by the changes are heartbreaking.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2026/09/21/japan/japan-raises-residency-bar/" rel="nofollow">https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2026/09/21/japan/jap...</a>
Requiring proficiency in the language is reasonable, but requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane. That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
> requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population<p>In the UK, only 47% are net tax contributors. I can't find what the same statistic is for Japan. I don't believe it's wrong for there to be an expectation that they be a net contributor.
The US has something like this, but the income threshold is lower.[1] US immigrants in most categories have to show that they will not become a "public charge", that is, need US welfare benefits.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-on-making-public-charge-inadmissibility-determination" rel="nofollow">https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-...</a>
The US requirements are so much lower that calling them similar does a disservice.<p>The proposed requirements in Japan require earnings to exceed Japan's average and also for them to have an equivalent of 30 years of pension payouts saved up.<p>The US requirements are not as specific, but for comparison one of the numbers is that that families need to have an income requirement 25% higher than federal poverty guidelines, which very low compared to average US incomes.
That's reasonable too. People who move to a new country should be able to support themselves there and have a good chance to thrive in their new home. If the average income of the population isn't enough for that to be possible, your country has bigger problems than immigrants
Manu tings are reasonable but not done. For example, it seems unreasonable that one country can print any amount of money due to being called the reserve currency and use it to influence countries around the world.<p>If you want fairness, start from the top and don’t punch down. I’m not against any definitions of immigration but generally most definitions aren’t reasonable. They are just downstream and issues of an upstream systems problem.
The average japanese person has structural benefits (family in the country, familiarity with the society) that immigrants don’t. It makes sense to require a bigger buffer.
Every single person who came through Ellis Island <<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-precautions-tak/20781025/" rel="nofollow">https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-...</a>><p>* was a legal immigrant<p>* had passed a medical inspection<p>* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same<p>* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal<p>Shipping liner companies were charged to return ineligible passengers to their origin (the same is true with airlines today), so they had every incentive to verify ahead of time that they could enter the destination country. The "only 2% of immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island" statistic often bandied-about by the pro-open borders side elides the restrictions that caused the rate to be so low in the first place.<p>I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
> was a legal immigrant<p>Technically true, extremely misleading. The law placed vastly fewer restrictions on who was a legal immigrant for much of that period. Of course, it is true starting in 1921, and 1924, legislation was put in place to limit immigration by "undesirables" such as Asians, Italians and Slavs.<p>Curious...which one of those regimes do you want to bring back?
Also don’t forget:<p>1) Only 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island in 60 years.<p>2) 30-40% returned home<p>3) The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.<p>4) Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York. And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York and Chicago today.
Why? The US doesn’t have a problem of too many people „draining“ the country resources.
> That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.<p>That’s not the standard. The standard is making sure someone is really a huge contribution to the society such that it offsets the burden of immigration.
> That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.<p>I am not sure in understand the issue, if Japanese want this, what’s the problem?
Just because some people want something that doesn't suddenly make it reasonable or wise. In this case it's a problem for many already successful people living in Japan currently who will be forced to leave. It's also a problem for Japanese companies who have hired those people or who want to attract foreign talent to positions that pay well, but don't typically leave someone fabulously wealthy compared to most of the people living around them. It's also a problem because the policy is coming in at a time of increased xenophobia and overt racism and while this policy is likely to reduce the total number of foreigners living in Japan, it's unlikely to address the problems people have with the foreigners who will remain, and it could actually make those problems worse.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do it!<p>Just because something can be done doesn't make it good for the society. Japan has a shrinking population and is currently dependent on immigrants for low wage work. Plenty of actions can make the current problem worse and have unintended consequences. Whether they happen or not is a political question, not a moral one.<p>Who determined "what they want?" Did you want your government to attack Iran? Are you responsible for it? Why not?
That's their problem to solve however they want, if they want. The population shrinking by some large percentage doesn't seem to be inherently bad to me, and probably is good.<p>It's so laughable to me when people say "BUT THE SHAREHOLDER VALUE!" when we talk about things like the important life trends of millions of people.
We’re not allowed to have opinions?
Because it's super fucking cruel, are you a human?<p>This is cruel, populist politics designed to blame foreigners for all the problems and corruption the Japanese government has allowed to go on which has ruined their economy.<p>There has been a hard right swing by some radical minority parties which gained a lot of popularity fast by spreading Xenophobia online and the major parties have now adopted some of that to stay relevent.<p>It hurts innocent people just so those in power can stay in power.<p>Also Japan is a country which basically 100% relies on foreign countries to survive, so maybe the government there should be a bit more careful. For example they get most of their Natural gas from Australia for free..
I agree, but unfortunately, looking at the news from Japan, far-right support rates are higher than one might expect.<p>So it's true that those in power are harming innocent people in order to maintain their power, but it's also true that Japanese people believe they are being harmed by foreign immigrants.<p>And some of it is actually true. Of course, conversely, there's also the problem of many Japanese companies hiring Southeast Asian workers at low wages and mistreating them.<p>But whether it's me as a Korean or Japan, both tend to have a certain authoritarian mindset instilled based on "ethnic" identity. So one aspect of this policy is "we only welcome rich foreigners who spend money and leave," and the media responds accordingly.<p>Strictly speaking, if you look at these policies strengthening restrictions on foreigners from a third-country perspective, you can see them from the angle of far-rightization. That is, sanctions against outsiders for the sake of internal cohesion[1]. But considering the severe aging population in Japanese industry right now, it's effectively cutting off one's own nose to spite one's face.<p>However, East Asians receive a somewhat different education from you, so that's how it is.<p>The real cause is the failure of Abenomics and the resulting weak yen, which benefits financial companies and exports but sacrifices the Japanese people—the incompetence of the regime is the problem. But because it's hard to grasp all of that complex background, people want to attack something else that's near them.<p>And also, because the morality of some underdeveloped countries (I know it's an example...) differs from that of developed countries, friction often occurs. Just as the sense of time differs between agricultural regions and cities, for instance.<p>[1]<a href="https://csrda.iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp/socialresearch/pr/26PressRelease_2.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://csrda.iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp/socialresearch/pr/26PressRel...</a>
The more welfare you have, the better of an idea this is. An aging country especially cannot afford to risk more wards of the state.<p>> and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years<p>It's a confusing guideline but this isn't accurate. You need to show an expected future pension (could be savings) equivalent to a salaried worker who paid into an employee's pension for 30 years. That's strict, but there will probably be a bunch of ways to show that.
It's not about being reasonable, it's about having a good reason to kick basically everyone out who isn't 100% Japanese, or who has enough money to prop up their aging population and get almost nothing in return.
The 30 years thing is insane for sure. Making more money than the average might be insane, it depends on <i>how</i> much more (which I didn't spot in the article, maybe I missed it).
They don't want to risk someone coming for a job, getting fired and becoming a drain on the social safety net. Able to care for themselves not just now, but for a while. It's a reasonable position.
That’s the case for every western country, and none ask for enough money to cover 30y of life. That’s way, way above the goal you mention
If they can't find a new job in 30 years then there are larger problems.
I think the argument is that the requirements <i>should</i> be stricter than "able to care for themselves".
From the article: In an announcement detailing the changes, Japan’s Immigration Services Agency stressed the need for foreigners to “live independently” and have “a stable life without the risk of becoming a burden”.<p>Their new requirements far exceed what is needed to meet that stated goal
Maybe it's <i>and taking into consideration unforeseen calls upon their cash</i>. Sounds reasonable to me.
Seems like they want to keep their culture and their country for their people. Yes… villains, apparently.
If the goal is to preserve their culture I doubt that insisting that everyone who moves there have "fuck you" money is going to help as much as they think it will. At least some percentage of those who meet that bar will be people who are selfish and very accustomed to just doing whatever they want.
The more money people have, the greater their ability to reshape the environment and culture around them to suit their individual preferences. Rich people aren't moving to remote villages in bumblefuku nowhere either. Having a bunch of rich foreigners concentrated in the major (and culturally influential) cities will only make it worse.
50th percentile + 30 years subsistence is not "fuck you" money, but regardless, income has multiple effects, not only cultural. They don't want to be financially supporting foreigners, of course.
It’s pretty much the definition of fuck you money
30 years of living expenses banked is <i>absolutely</i> "fuck you" money. 50th percentile income is not.
30 years of money banked is quite a bit no matter which way you slice it.
They have a rapidly aging society and a high national debt load (which also means a more shallow economic growth curve into the future), it’s reasonable to exclude anyone who might even have a chance of being a burden. High value immigrants always have value, either in wealth or economic potential, anyone else is charity if they cannot provide surplus economic value once their own needs have been met or support themselves off of wealth or income they bring with them.<p>It’s unfortunate when we don’t get picked for the dodgeball team. Life is inherently unfair and mostly a lottery.<p>(not against foreign aid charity by any means, but delivering it distinct from immigration policy is potentially more efficient and optimal in many ways)
I'm not certain. In an aging society, the thing they'd need are young laborers. People with 30 years of savings are unlikely to be either young, nor laborers.<p>Maybe those wealthy immigrants are very talented people who are very good at, say, managing an insurance company or researching pharmaceuticals, but Japan has a glut of 55-year-olds who can do that stuff very well. They're running short of young people who can be nurses, junior machinists, and construction workers.<p>In a macroeconomic sense, wealthy people might be able to pay for the services they need from their own pockets, but functionally it's not that different than being unemployed (unless they <i>choose</i> to work). They would be almost purely adding demand to the economy. The wealth they are bringing represents supply that they added into the economy <i>in the past and abroad</i>, and now they have a wallet full of paper with which they can buy services <i>for the next 30 years in Japan</i> without having to do any further productive work.
The percentage of the global population with fuck you money is so vanishingly small that a nation of 100 million such as Japan, could import them all with almost zero impact on their culture.<p>Furthermore, it’s deeply disingenuous to suggest that inconsiderate people only exist on the upper end of the income distribution. Assholes who want to take over and control others are found at every income level. If you want to keep your country from descending into Marxist dystopia then making fuck you money a requirement for immigration is not a terrible idea.
They also want foreigners to not depend on their welfare system. The horror.
Your dog whistle is supposed to be subtle
That seems completely sane and I am happy for the people of Japan that they get to enjoy such a law.
Hot take: I think immigration and multiculturalism is going to be the the biggest and the defining issue of this century. The history books will have "AI" and climate change in the margins as 'exacerbating factors'. We've started to see it in the US, and we're beginning to see the start to it in the EU. Japan--rightly or wrongly--might be averting a future disaster here. Japan is lucky in that they are still a very homogeneous society, and also unlucky in that they are ahead of the curve in population decline. I think the western world is in for a bad time over the next 50 years.
What disaster is Japan averting?
There are Ceuta like events of a smaller scale every day at every border of western europe. Dont need to wait 50 years. Not a single european voted for this. French people also voted no to a european economy but those who seized power didnt care
I moved from the USA to Sweden about 6 years ago. Sweden has also been tightening its immigration laws, in ways I believe have been and will be detrimental to its future.<p>Countries have a right to change their laws, but I believe it’s in everyone’s interest for those laws to be changed while respecting principles of predictability and legal certainty.<p>People planned and rearranged their entire lives around immigration law in force at one point, perhaps 5 years ago, and now a new law is going into force that slams the door shut to having a basic sense of stability, with only a 6 month transition period. It’s cruel. And it sends a bad sign to anyone looking to move.<p>The USA can afford to be cruel because people will deal with it for high wages. Japan can maybe afford to be cruel because their cultural exports keep the top of their “talent attraction” funnel large. It’s economic suicide for any other small-to-medium sized nation dependent on foreign labor.
> It’s economic suicide for any other small-to-medium sized nation dependent on foreign labor.<p>This such a baffling statement, honestly: that the flourishing economy crucially depends on foreign labour. What happened with the role of the technological know-how, and vast material (and financial) capital? The institutions? All of that is still not enough for prosperity unless you can hire a paperless José for $7.40 per hour, with an implied threat of handing him off to ICE if he raises any stink?
>I moved from the USA to Sweden about 6 years ago. Sweden has also been tightening its immigration laws<p>Context for others: Until 2026 Sweden had no language, income, employment, or skills requirement for citizenship. It <i>now</i> has some basic requirements in these areas.<p>* 2025 citizenship requirements: <<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250315034218/https://www.migrationsverket.se/en/you-want-to-apply/swedish-citizenship/citizenship-for-adults/citizenship-for-adults.html" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250315034218/https://www.migra...</a>><p>* 2026: <<a href="https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/Becoming-a-Swedish-citizen/Apply-for-citizenship/Citizenship-for-adults.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/...</a>><p>>in ways I believe have been and will be detrimental to its future.<p>In completely unrelated news, Arabic is now the second most spoken language in Sweden after Swedish. <<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20210511231225/https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=7047637a-c5f5-4297-9afa-a273dd443a9a" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20210511231225/https://digitaledi...</a>>.<p>Also completely unrelated: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...</a>
What is the gap between the first and second most spoken languages in Sweden?
You are really dog whistling here. The changes which almost all agree on, like reducing migrant intake, have been leveraged by the far-right Sweden Democrats party to institute a purge against long term residents of Sweden, including totally law abiding, very Swedish proficient Swedish speakers. In general Swedes don't understand that high skilled migrants, like biomedical and professional people, are being expelled.<p>This has included an absurdly inflexible agency which blames immigrants for mistakes outside of their control, and the full gamut of Kafkaesque rules. As a result, indigenous high tech industry is increasingly leaving Sweden in favour of EU neighbours.
This is certainly going to conflict with their moves to make it easier to attract aged care workers to the country. Perhaps all the elderly people are expected to patriotically look after themselves?<p><a href="https://unseen-japan.com/foreign-elderly-care-workers-japan/" rel="nofollow">https://unseen-japan.com/foreign-elderly-care-workers-japan/</a>
They're banking on robots with advanced AI brains to take care of them.
Perhaps they have simply realized that no political decisions are without downsides, including unchecked immigration, and that on balance, they’ve decided it’s not for them?<p>It’s silly to claim that immigration is the only way to care for old people. We have been caring for old people for the entire history of the human race. We can start doing it again anytime.<p>It’s true, that it’s inconsistent to demand no immigration and simultaneously defendthe right to produce no children. But it is Japanese people who need to square that circle, not people who want to immigrate to Japan, nor people outside Japan, who feel Japan should allow immigration.
I just find it odd so many non-Japanese media and commentators weigh in on this.<p>Japan is not a multicultural country. You can't become Japanese through paperwork. It is very much through blood heritage, your language and cultural proficiency.<p>The bar to be Japanese is much higher than say Canadian or French. So why shouldn't they create laws that is aimed at benefiting themselves and their country without depending on foreigners?<p>Also if you have a business and you don't have $125,000 you are not going to make it in Canada or America either.
> Also if you have a business and you don't have $125,000 you are not going to make it in Canada or America either.<p>I had less than $10k to my name when I moved to Canada. I have done very well since.
> I just find it odd so many non-Japanese media and commentators weigh in on this<p>What is odd about it? People comment on every country immigration policies. Why would Japan get a special exemption
Through blood heritage ?<p>Explain why the blood is needed. Is it perhaps because Japan uses a different type of oxygen that needs different hemoglobin?
It feels normal in a globalized world for commentators around the globe to observe and weigh in on the decisions of any country, especially one of such economic importance and cultural significance as Japan.<p>That being said, I wholeheartedly agree on your points regarding Japan not being a multi-cultural country. And this, indeed, is rarely (if ever) mentioned in articles such as the one posted here.<p>Japan is an island. It has always been and not just from a geographical perspective. Its very culture and history are ones of isolation. The restrictions are not new, the perspective "Japan first" is not new - these have always been there, they are at the very core of the nation.
> Japan is an island. It has always been and not just from a geographical perspective. Its very culture and history are ones of isolation. The restrictions are not new, the perspective "Japan first" is not new - these have always been there, they are at the very core of the nation.<p>That's not at accurate from what I know of Japanese history. You seem to be over-indexing on the (relatively) brief Tokugawa-era sakoku policy and ignoring the thousands of years surrounding it where Japan was an active importer of culture.<p>Kanji, government structure, Buddhism, law, art and more were all imported from China and hugely influential in Japanese history. After the the Meiji Restoration, Japan explicitly set out to Westernize and went abroad to study European and American institutions, invited Westerners in to help build European-style banking systems and government systems, adopted Western clothing, architecture, military organization, legal codes, etc. etc.<p>If anything the Japanese are masters at importing the things they like of foreign culture and then modifying to make it their own. They have always been importers of culture.
[dead]
> applicants for permanent residency will need to show that their annual household income exceeds the Japanese average<p>Can someone explain why they think this is a detrimental practice for native Japanese?
If there were a significant amount of such people coming in it would push up the cost of living for the average-(or below-average)-income Japanese citizen.<p>Look at any of the Western cities that became attractive for retirement or "investment properties" for wealthy international folks... it makes everything more expensive for everyone already there.<p>If the concern was <i>just</i> about preventing things from changing for existing citizens, restrictions across the income band would seem to make much more sense.
Think of the US - the reduction of low wage immigrants has been a large factor in our economy lately. Food prices have gone up, and in the long term there's fewer young families getting added to the social security system.<p>While it's cute to think that suddenly these jobs are going to Americans, but these are mostly undesirable jobs that pay <i>less</i> than typical jobs. To the extent that they even get filled by native workers, it drives real wages <i>down</i> and not up.<p>Meanwhile, only allowing immigrants from the top of the income bracket crowds out the top side of the job market.<p>It's a lowering tide that lowers all boats.
From the article
“Japan needs foreign workers because of labour shortages. But if the conditions for long-term settlement become substantially more difficult, this could potentially reduce Japan’s attractiveness to foreign workers who are considering Japan as a place to build their long-term lives,”<p>Specifically, Japan needs workers in human services to physically care for the very large elderly population. They need them so badly that they are in the process of implementing easier work visas for them. But do you think those jobs pay more than the national average?
No, but that's the point. They don't want long-term residents, they want short-term labor. This has been the goal for a long time, and if you move to Japan expecting anything else you'll be disappointed.
"Labour shortage" is just the business's perspective on "plenty of jobs!"<p>If there truly is a shortage of outstanding jobs, then they can compete and raise salaries and the least significant roles ultimately won't get filled, which is optimal.
> Can someone explain why they think this is a detrimental practice for native Japanese?<p>You're quoting a practice applied to foreigners, but you say "for native Japanese". Maybe there was a typo, or I could be misreading?
It restricts immigration to cities where the high wages are, ie. Tokyo which is itself already too crowded, and forces foreigners living in less populated parts of the country to leave, further depopulating it.<p>It also heavily disadvantages singles.
gentrification pushing locals out. super simple
Its a great way to favor highly skilled immigrants and bar others from becoming a burden
Anti-immigration laws: <i>angry face</i><p>Anti-immigration laws, Japan: <i>happy face</i><p>As usual, the meme is ever alive around these parts. Anything Japan does is heralded as a good move™ and no impartial discussion can be had without the weeaboos coming out of the woodwork to put a positive spin on it.<p>But sure, we’ll see if limiting these odious gaijin coming in will solve their stagnant economy, fertility crisis and obsolete business practices. Good luck with their isolationism, it’s not the first time they’ve gone down that path, all to appease the right-leaning imbeciles that blame the immigrant for their politicians’ ineptitude at dealing with systemic problems. It’s the same all over the world.
I see roughly the same ratio of agreement and disagreement as usual. And even if it is different, it's probably more due to the specifics of the case, rather than an internet meme. Based on your writing, it sounds more like you have a grudge against Japan, rather than everybody else having some kind of opposite bias.
I’m not Japanese, but have family ties to Japan. I frequently compare USA (where I am at now), Japan, and my home country (lets say X).<p>I think one of the reason why Japan is considering doing these is because a lot of people with specific cultural religious, and ethnic backgrounds are really causing a lot of trouble. They cause a lot of trouble even in my home country where they are the majority (I am an ethnic minority).<p>I’ve heard anecdotes from my Japanese friends and families and really, its bad. And these people refuse to assimilate, but want to conquer instead.<p>However, targeting specific racial/religious/ethnic minorities are generally frowned in the modern world, so Japan just create a more “acceptable” filter here to filter out people from these backgrounds, that is, wealth.<p>We can’t all go along and sing kumbaya to one another, although I personally want to. But the other cultures/ethnicities/religious backgrounds don’t want to.<p>Yes, I witnessed persecution and death before, managed to escape it when I was really small. this definitely color my perception regarding specific cultural/ethnic/religious backgrounds regardless whether I have a lot of good friends from said backgrounds.<p>This world is so cruel, and there are a lot of hurt in this world. We don’t need to make it harder. As an ethnic minority myself, I really really want everyone to just get along, but it really is impossible.<p>As a non Japanese foreigner myself. I welcome this change, even if that means I will never be able to be accepted there.<p>Only Japanese can take care of Japan. Period.
Okay so which specific cultural religious and ethnic backgrounds are causing trouble and what empirical evidence do you have of this happening on a large scale?
It can take many generations for immigrant family to assimilate into the host country's culture, how do you know they are there to conquer and not just taking time to assimilate?
Why do you think only Japanese people can take care of Japan, do you hold this belief for other countries?
If I were to guess, I'd guess it's Islam. I come from a region where we have a sizeable Muslim minority, and hardly a day goes by without some outrage or the other which hurts their sensibilities (ban calls for prayers? ban praying in the middle of the street during rush hour? serve bacon/ham in school lunches? etc. etc.); regardless of the fact that people have lived this way for millennia, and Muslims just showed up in the last few decades, but insist on bending the rest of the society to their norms.
If you broadly link the flavors of Christianity practiced in Russia and the evangelical side of the US I guess you could make a claim about white Christians causing a lot of trouble worldwide with military attacks on other countries...<p>Go back to countries in the same religious/ethnic tree meddling in the Middle East in the early and mid-20th-century and you can link back a whole host more problems to white Christians!<p>But the southern evangelical side of my family gets pretty upset whenever I point that out...
> Okay so which specific cultural religious and ethnic backgrounds are causing trouble and what empirical evidence do you have of this happening on a large scale?<p>Feigning to not know, is knowing.
> even if that means I will never be able to be accepted there<p>You need Japanese blood (visibly), culture (language, manner, custom), and nationality to be "fully" accepted. This isn't new and has more to do with Japanese people themselves than with any legal restriction.
The ones in the news lately are the Kurds which the police can’t touch because of some asylum law running various scrapyards, and the Vietnamese car theft gangs.
This sounds like social media driven hysteria. No evidence. No statistics. Just vibes pushed by those with a political axe to grind.
Can you name which backgrounds you/Japanese people are talking about?<p>What confuses me is that Japan is not a very immigrant-heavy country. There's no chance of someone who doesn't represent the interests of native Japanese people being elected any time soon, or ever. So why can't they pass laws codifying the behaviors they want to encourage and ones they will treat as non-assimilation? Why aren't they doing something to address misbehavior directly, making newcomers to the country prove their long-term commitment to their new social and cultural environment, or punishing infractions more harshly so bad actors can't stay in the country? Why are the only two options available to them 'do nothing' or 'blanket punish all foreigners because all foreigners are trouble'?
It is part of Japan being Japan. Japanese being Japanese.<p>Japan is a shame based culture. A lot of social norms are encoded as part of being Japanese and not strictly enforced. Japan has less lawyers per capita compared to US for example.<p>Take a look at a lot of the influencers that are causing trouble in Japan. In the US we probably bludgeon (or shoot) those people on the spot and lawyers talk later, but Japan doesn’t do that, not even their police. Majority of Japanese just sit there silently but deep inside filled with disgust.<p>Besides, once these laws are implemented, soon it will be obvious which groups are “targeted” and it doesn’t look good in the eyes of the international world.
I know that Japan is a lot more implicit in enforcing its culture. But it is not a country that runs on honor alone. It has police, it has prisons, it has courts. The lawyer comparison doesn't tell me much because the US is a very litigious country in ways that go far beyond individual criminal law.<p>Besides, the implication you made is that a lot of the actions people don't like are already illegal, just not tightly enforced. Especially if you say Americans would shoot the perpetrators on the spot.<p>Even if they wanted to protect their status quo, they could only apply stricter requirements on residents who haven't received their citizenship yet. Law-abiding immigrants in many countries are used to having to clear higher bars than locals. But at least in this case this would be equitable, only punishing the people who actually do something wrong instead of everyone.
Lawyers per capita results from a structural legal system difference not a "shame" difference. It has adversarial influences but is much less a lawyer-theatrics-dominated adversarial civil-jury-trials-for-all-sorts-of-things free for all.<p>The US could avoid a lot of inefficiences if they adopted the same.
So, you’re okay being a xenophobe who support the existence of an ethno nationalist country
> public sentiment towards immigrants sours<p>I'm not up to date with Japanese news, does anyone know the reason for that?
Racism, xenophobia, amplified by social media and far right political parties. It’s not too different from the dynamics we’ve seen in the rest of the western world
The immigrants create a lot or trouble.
You know what creates 100 more trouble than immigrants ? Japan’s birth rate.<p>You know who have babies? Immigrants.<p>You know who pays social security for peuple when they get older ? Those grown up babies.<p>Do the math. Japan has much to teach the world but the most important lesson they are now teaching, is that people are stupid, easily manipulated, excessively xenophobic and absolutely happy to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly if it means not admitting they’re wrong. In Japan, in the US, in Europe and elsewhere.<p>Dumb dumb humans…
In a time of declining globalism and growing[1] nationalism[2] and anti-immigration sentiment around the world, I think it is unsurprising that a historically[3] xenophobic culture would move in this direction.<p>[1]: <a href="https://thesociopedia.blogspot.com/2026/07/why-nationalism-is-returning-worldwide.html" rel="nofollow">https://thesociopedia.blogspot.com/2026/07/why-nationalism-i...</a><p>[2]: often used as a tool by oligarchy to shift blame away from themselves, instead towards vulnerable groups, as the cause of rising inequality and various institutional crisis<p>[3]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Japan" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Japan</a>
Let's be honest, the Japanese gov't has killed off every generation since the asian bubble popped in the 90's. Those kids in the 90's that still can't get a job should be in their peak earning years and have strong talent skills, (and having kids) which was all sacrificed. They don't have the skills or tax base they should and they are unwilling to actually fix it because the stock market needs to crash big time and the rich need to pay for it.
I completely agree with your comment about Japan killing every generation since the bubble popped. It has been wild to witness.<p>The subtle but profound ways those generations have experienced being essentially abandoned by the government and “Japan Inc” will have a lasting impact on Japan for many decades to come.<p>There are some leaders who actually grasp the problem and actually have decent ideas for solutions, but the will and capacity to execute those ideas just isn’t there.
It seems like a difficult problem to me, since there's no right answer.
> Applicants will also be required to have a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts.<p>Does this take into account the amount of pension a person would still accumulate under Japanese employment, or will this immediately disqualify anyone under 45?
there goes my dream of being a gaijin :(
[dead]
>Foreigner<p>>From South Asia<p>>Works in tech<p>Go figure.<p>Edit: Trying to upset people less.
You make it sound like something nefarious and criminal.
> Tech became the greatest trojan horse for south asian immigration.<p>Weird take, are you against upward mobility? Would you not take the same opportunity in their position?
Not the parent, but yes, of course I would. But letting anybody do anything that would benefit them is of course not reasonable.
Nope, go become a doctor. How many people do we need writing PHP?
Do you dislike south asians?<p>Edit: no-one is upset by what you said lmao cmon. Just clarify what you are really trying to say.
They are unfortunately the most common example of (subjectively) bad immigration policies seen first-hand among tech folks in the West (I.e. people likely to be on HN). The parent was obviously referring to this fact sarcastically. It's a tech trope.
What exactly are south Asians? Serious question
I acknowledge and sympathize with the pain this will cause, but in regards to Japan itself: Good for them. <i>Not</i> because it is a rightward shift, but because it is a shift toward pragmatism in the face of the inherent tension between respect for all people and respect for one's own people and culture.<p>In my humble opinion, an ideal world is a liberal one with cherry-picked, tightly controlled, practical conservative elements that boldly take on the intimidating job of maintaining the balance between love and reason.
This is a shift <i>away</i> from pragmatism; pragmatism would be acknowledging Japan's economic need for immigration.<p>Whether Europe or North America have a problem with too much immigration and not enough integration is debatable, maybe - and I suspect that's where your perspective comes from - but Japan decidedly <i>does not</i> (maybe too much tourism, and I feel at least some of the antagonism towards foreigners comes from that, but no matter). Immigrants still make up a very small percentage of the population, mostly in Tokyo; given the existing challenges with immigration, they tend to be extremely diligent, respectful, appreciative of Japanese culture, and hard-working.<p>This is just a populist conservative government pandering to the some of the worst aspects in society to distract from their failures.
I’d say having a wealth and language filter is pragmatism.
Pragmatism could just as easily be a decision by the public collectively to have more babies. There’s nothing about immigration that makes it inherently pragmatic. It could be, with the agreement of the electorate, away to compensate for the electorates decisions to have fewer babies. But it’s not up for us outside of Japan to lecture them on whether or not they are being consistent on this.
What's pragmatic depends on your values.
This is going to cause more pain to the Japanese people.
I mean, sure, so long as they're willing to deal with the consequences of an aging population and a shrinking workforce.
It's OK if they choose to seek other avenues for dealing with that problem. The easiest solution is often not the best, and sometimes there is no net-positive path forward.
They can just outsource if they really need tech employees.
> I mean, sure, so long as they're willing to deal with the consequences of an aging population and a shrinking workforce.<p>They're pretty clearly aware of the dire fear-mongering, and chose their path accordingly. They decided to sidestep the pyramid scheme of perpetual growth.<p>Here in Canada we've been pitched this same scary argument for decades, leading to <i>outrageous</i> levels of immigration, coupled with a growing entitlement among the class (which leads to a complete refusal to integrate in any meaningful way, often while incanting the laughable pablum about mosaic versus melting pot while dragging regressive, destructive habits and cultural norms to Canada, tragedy of the commons behaviour, etc).<p>Somehow this mass immigration has made us <i>older</i>, and <i>less</i> competitive, moving in exactly the opposite direction of the magical solution it promised while giving away the country. It has led to massive lines for every job, downward pressure on wages, and oversubscribed services at every level.<p>---<p>Every now and then there is a discussion about the difference between an "expat" and an "immigrant", but it really is important that people are honest about the difference, because it is very real, and it is informative to why the myth of immigration as a solution doesn't track with the reality that immigration is often massively destructive.<p>An expat is usually some Westerner that moved to some random country for adventure, a change, whatever. Occasionally they send a postcard home and share videos from the beach. Whatever.<p>An immigrant, on the other hand, is someone that moves to a country as a beachhead to drag their entire extended family there, often then expanding out from there. Which is precisely what many Western countries have seen where they bring in the "skilled worker", and then the skilled worker drags over their elderly parents, and also their "auntie" as a purported childcare giver, and then registers a business and sponsors their village through every loophole and circumvention, and then... This has destroyed the acceptance of immigration and completely obliterated the "oh you're getting older, something something labour shortage" nonsense.<p>We need to move on from the mass immigration is the solution horseshit, because all it has done is led every developed country to lurch perilously to the right, giving an easy open for charlatans to take advantage of a real problem to push a lot of ancillary things as well.
> the skilled worker drags over their elderly parents, and also their "auntie" as a purported childcare giver, and then registers a business and sponsors their village through every loophole and circumvention<p>It's a balancing at the regional/global level. People desire to move from worse situation to better, which leads to an averaging tendency of the source and destination. You don't like it because average means there's a little less per person where you are, since it's a destination. People at the source like the emigration because there's a little more per person (which hopefully isn't mostly absorbed by some "protective" group, like mafia, bad govt, etc). Let the balance happen; it leads to a better world overall.
>Somehow this mass immigration has made us older, and less competitive, moving in exactly the opposite direction of the magical solution it promised while giving away the country. It has led to massive lines for every job, downward pressure on wages, and oversubscribed services at every level.<p>Context for others: Already much wealthier on a real GDP per-capita basis, the US increased its lead over Canada from 2000 to 2025 <<a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1YbGu" rel="nofollow">https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1YbGu</a>>. The US began the period 28.2% higher, and finished 49.5% higher. Note the lack of growth in the Canadian line that began c. 2015.<p>Put another way, 100% of Canadian GDP growth since 2015 has been from population growth. Now that the latter has been significantly (not completely) cut back, the country is in a recession (which the <i>bien-pensant</i> media never fails to adding the word "technical" before saying so).<p>>Here in Canada we've been pitched this same scary argument for decades, leading to outrageous levels of immigration, coupled with a growing entitlement among the class (which leads to a complete refusal to integrate in any meaningful way, often while incanting the laughable pablum about mosaic versus melting pot while dragging regressive, destructive habits and cultural norms to Canada, tragedy of the commons behaviour, etc).<p>If Trump announced that after annexation the US would deport every TFW/"student" that has arrived since 2015, public opinion would massively swing toward joining the US ASAP.
There is nothing pragmatic about kicking out the workforce you imported because of a shortage of native labour. The pragmatist stance would be to accept those differences, and focus on addressing/alleviating them. Cutting your nose to spite your face is more idealism than pragmatism.
Doesn't seem they're <i>really</i> aware that they're something of an endangered "species". Although technically they'd still be endangered even if they open up seriously, as then there's heightened possibility of bloodline dilution. I wonder sometimes if that'd be a good or bad thing in the long run: loss of that which makes them pretty unique vs blending more with the world.
> heightened possibility of bloodline dilution<p>In my experience, born/raised in Japan, domestic Japanese people have a very different reaction to local "Hafu" people where one of their parents is a Caucasian person from the US, UK, AU, NZ (or similar), vs "other" countries.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C4%81fu" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C4%81fu</a>
It seems they are very well aware. They've probably seen what happens to other "endangered species" (eg. the English or Swedes) when the floodgates are opened by treasonous bureaucrats chasing votes, economic metrics, or appeasing their destructive oikophobia.
“Bloodline dilution” is only a thing if you believe your race is superior.
I'm pretty sure there are many non-Japanese who're attracted to Japanese primarily because of their homogeneity.
or if you just care about your race, which is a normal thing to do<p>it's an extended family of sorts