Japan moves to tighten rules for foreigners

Japanese people all have a long family history of living inside of the same flavor of society they live in now.

Outsiders might on average have a harder time coping with the expectations of Japanese society, because they don’t share this multigenerational experience in the society. The degree to which they will have a hard time likely depends on how similar the society their own multigenerational experience comes from is to Japanese society, along the most relevant behavioral dimensions.

It’s not that they are bad people, they just have a harder time with the system. We can’t really blame them for that, can we? While at the same time, it is a valid reason to not let them in.

Can you share a source for this?

From the most recent numbers I've found - "foreign nationals" made up 5.5% of all arrests in 2024, while comprising just 3% of the population. But that number includes visitors/tourists as well, and that group accounts for two-thirds of all cases. [0]

Taken together, it seems like foreign residents at worse match the Japanese baseline, but are likely committing crimes less often.

[0] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/12/19/japan/crime-leg...

SSW1 is a max of 5 years, non renewable. Somewhat similar and somewhat different from TITP (training) allows a path to SSW1 readiness and completion of TITP qualifies workers without testing for SSW1, SSW1 is intended to prepare workers for SSW2, which requires documented work and a test.

After 3 years employment as SSW1 (or two years if workers role includes supervisory management and is documented properly) every SSW1 worker is eligible to take a single test for SSW2. The SS2 visa is also a 5 year max but is RENEWABLE indefinitely. This isn't 'permanent residency' but a rolling work visa with it's own eligibility.

Now, if a worker cannot acquire the proficiency to pass the SW2 test before 5 years is over; then perhaps they should return, because they do not seem to be studying the job they are engaged in and not engaging in becoming more proficient in helping their employer's business grow. They may remain at the same job with the SSW2 visa, continue at the same pay, and perform the same work; so there is no motive for their employer to make obtaining the SSW2 visa difficult other than that they may regret having that employee after seeing their work ethic and output.

However the SSW1 and SSW2 visas do not lock you into a single employer. Workers are free to quit and/or find another place to work, are eligible for unemployment if your employer fires or lays you off not-for-cause, and have 90 days to get new employment in either event (quit or fired) with significant systemic assistance (HelloWork among them) for finding a new employer.

The 'specific' company aspect is for the initial application for SSW 'eligibility certificate' but workers are eligible to work for any employer from day one of their visa issuance. Yes, these SSWs are industry specific, as the tests for each type of 'specific skills' is independent and unique, but one can take additional, different industry tests while in country on one kind of SSW1 visa and then apply for 'designated activities' to engage in cross industry work, and this would allow continuation of SSW1 without moving to SSW2 by reapplication for 'eligibility' in the second industry at the end of the 5 year non-renewable SSW1. Some industries have more applicants than allowed visas, some industries never get over about 30% of the needed SSW1/2 workers.

It is not predatory, does not take advantage of workers who are diligent and studious. It certainly is not a route to work-play in a bar and doing casual part time host work. It is for serious workers in specific high need fields who may otherwise lack degrees and professional work experience which would qualify for the higher level visas.

Framing it as abusive or predatory is to not understand the system at all. The principal guardrails are actually on the applying employer, with strong requirements for a third party (Registered Support Organization) to make sure that the work conditions and terms are safe and honest, pay and compensation rates are not lower than standard for natural employees, participation in insurance, tax, retirement, and banking are proper, access to safe clean housing and other necessary social needs are met, such as Japanese language study, social integration and participation ~ neighborhood regular clean up, and local matsuri festival invites.

Sidebar - The clean up might sound like work, but is a time to meet and socialize with your neighbors and be seen as a participant who 'helps out'. There is usually so little actual trash that it's more like an Easter egg hunt than anything else - find a discarded nicotine-gum wrapper or a smashed plastic bottle if you're lucky - my last clean up day we didn't get even half of an office waste-bin worth for the whole block among 20 plus people over 45 minutes. But I do meet new people almost every time and have become 'old acquaintances' to others. In the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster, these are the people you will probably be with, so it's best to build some friendship just in case, if for no other reason.

In general, the citizens and communities all over Japan are some of the most welcoming, appreciative, and encouraging places anywhere. Yes, Ive checked. I have been to, lived in, and have family who live in or have lived in North and South America, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, Scotland (Shetland), England, Western Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia. They all seem to agree with my assessment, Japan is the nicest and most livable place of all, at least for me and my wife.

Yes there are particular difficulties and established 'why cant it be easier' aspects to life here, and even the locals will admit to consternation abut some rigid formalism, but on the whole it is a wonderful place to live and work. The further one gets from the middle of Tokyo and Osaka the gentler life is, period. Get more than half an hour by bus or car away from a Shinkansen station and it's a very different worldview, that 99.5% of foreigners never see. I highly recommend it, even if it requires learning to speak some Japanese to get by. They are so surprised by anyone who would make the effort and travel off the main path to see the place.

郷に入ってば郷に従う Go ni ireba Go ni shitagau "When in Rome, do as the Romans"

No. Japan already has low unemployment and high overtime demands due to worker shortages, and property is already cheap (even in most cities other than Tokyo) due to a combination of falling population, complex construction/demolition codes, changing lifestyles, and a different view of asset classes/investment practices from the US.

It's kinda like how nobody likes inflation (other than certain kinds of debtors) but a deflationary economy isn't a good solution to that problem. This will have a similar effect because the people leaving are likely to be the most culturally assimilated/affiliated with decent language skills etc., but their departure won't alleviate the demand for additional labor in industry and agriculture so there will probably still be a net increase in short-term and illegal foreign residency.

You need to be dull to not see that get trained adults that you never spent a cent in education to generate revenue and taxes and have no access to benefits is not a great deal.

Well, it is easy to be blind when you let a racist speech take your eyes.

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.

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).

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very sad state of affairs. Good on Japan that they see the danger and try to do something about it before it's too late.

Low wage immigrants will not be able to fix the economy (demographics related decline is still decades away, yes it is important long term but not if the fundamentals don't improve). They will increase crime though since that's just what happens when you are poor in a bad economy. There won't be culling of poor locals but restricting inpu where possible, immigration, seems ok given the overall picture.

When you visit someone's country you are not just a guest, you are the model for everyone else who comes from where you do and who looks like you do. The assumption is that how you behave is how others from where you came from will behave. In an age where social media exposes everyone all the time, bad behavior gets seen and shown to others and conclusions drawn based on that behavior.

But rather than admit that this is a thing which exists, others just want to press tired arguments about race and racism. Which even if true, who cares? It's their country. They're allowed to welcome or decline anyone they wish. How arrogant are we really to think that we can dictate who and what others allow in their homes?

Amazing.

My black friends tell me that it is very hard to be taken seriously when your kin thinks that attitude is a matter of noise. One of them told me his relationship ended with his fiance because her father was "racist" and didn't believe he was one of the most well paid engineers in the state.

What more does supporting it entail than being sympathetic to the sentiment? You’re not Japanese, it sounds like, so being xenophobic towards non-Japanese doesn’t work in this context. Only a Japanese person could experience it.

Would it also be xenophobia, or more xenoannoyance? Are the Japanese really terrified of foreigners or just annoyed at misbehavior?

I personally don't have a problem with xenophobia. I see it as the other side of the coin from openness to 'foreign' cultures and peoples. Both always exist in a society (opening up and shutting out) and you need both.

A people that don't have any xenophobia will have their country taken over and their culture erased. While also, a people that don't have any openness to foreign people and foreign cultures will stultify. You need both, in balance (and often that balance is shifting, in one direction or the other).

*While there are some reports of rich people just creating something that meets the bare-minimum requirements of a "business" to get a visa, these people are independently wealthy and not collecting welfare payments.

Their new requirements far exceed what is needed to meet that stated goal

* was a legal immigrant

* had passed a medical inspection

* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same

* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal

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.

I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.

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.

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.

The U.S. was founded as a nation of immigrants, and has a cultural history of being exceptionally immigrant-friendly (compared to other nations), especially with regard to immigrants without much means.

I don't believe other nations have any obligation to follow this example. On the contrary, they should be able to set whatever immigration policies make sense for them. But this model of letting in poor immigrants, letting them do the work that nobody else wants to do, and letting their kids become net contributors, does seem to have benefited the U.S. greatly over the past few centuries.

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.

Who determined "what they want?" Did you want your government to attack Iran? Are you responsible for it? Why not?

The problem is I’ve built my life here and they keep treating foreigners as a lesser life form. People here can unironically be standing next to me bitching about foreigners. Then turn to me and say something like “not you, you are fine.”

In practice, most visas are short term, and none of them will allow you to benefit from social aids for very long. At most I imagine you could extend your working visa to 5 years, get sick the first year and be at charge for the remaining 4 years ? There will be ink spent on these cases, but statistically how often does that even happen to need stricter laws ?

The current political climates needs the gov to look "Japan First" and these kind of rule change are very cheap to do, especially as the people directly impacted don't vote nor can complain. It goes well with the very anti-foreigner sentiment, especially as the current wave of tourists is very unpopular despite the money coming in.

The longer view is Japan getting less workers in total, yet more of the worse immigrants as they're calling for people who either don't need Japan (have enough money to go anywhere and don't need to think long term) or are willing to take more risks (high return grifts etc.), in a time where Japanese salaries and productivity are already lower than surrounding countries.

They're basically making a bad situation worse, just for short term political play, giving in on the worse trends.

For the government, the cost for any worker in the same circumstances would be the same. On the other side, the foreigners cost less to the government overall when they were educated and raised elsewhere.

I’m not saying you are wrong, just that the previous rules are already in place in that very direction, and the changes are being placed instead to please and gain political support.

So while it's very rational to demand strong language skills, and very rational to expect people to go with a certified school given the unique difficulty of the language, potential residents are essentially limited to earning part-time wages (typically much lower than full time) during that period, and virtually barred from proactively engaging in any other kind of economic activity. They could transition to a business manager visa after that, but it will have to be a new business set up from scratch which must include at least one Japanese hire as well as minimum language skills; essentially requiring business activity/know how and business planning which the person was barred from doing during the language acquisition phase.

It's not impossible to meet these criteria by any means, but it actively discourages bootstrapping and efficient use of available time.

Of course it's Japans decision.

probably a better idea is average for the prefecture they live in, but i guess they want to simplify things or discourage ppl from moving to the countryside? idk; most people are in tokyo/osaka to be sure...

47% of what? Of the immigrants coming in the UK are net tax contributors or 47% of the total population including locals?

Am I missing something here?

Which, fair, it's their right to close the door fully, but lack of immigration and a greatly aged population sounds like a recipe for collapse.

It's like saying "anglosaxon" and grouping english, german, swedish, danish, norwegian as one single language.

Beyond naturalization reforms, you also have the issue of minimum salary hikes for work permits (with no transitional rules), resulting in regular, integrated workers getting deported. 18 year old kids (of regular, integrated workers) getting deported, as well as regular, integrated workers being deported because they happened to come in on an asylum visa and then changed to a work permit (under a law that was revoked, again, with no transitional rules).

Every time the lack of predictability and legal certainty for these people was an explicit choice.

Swedes barely understand the cruelty that’s happening, let alone the damage it’s doing to Sweden’s reputation among globally mobile workers.

Foreign labor is what will keep most of these countries afloat for the following 50 years.

Japan is a good example, they lose about 1 million every year.

Wealthier areas wonder why it costs so much for house renovations or for daycare or`for farmer's market produce. Or similarly folks move to less wealthy countries as "expats" and hire help, babysitters, tutors. Sense of prosperity seems tied to those things feeling inexpensive and them feeling cheap requires income inequality. There's I think a large amount of feeling poor (or average) when those things are eating your budget. Even though you have them. For example, you pay for expensive childcare so both parents can work, it takes a big bite out of your budget, and so you don't feel wealthy (but you're paying for childcare and your family has an employee). Similarly, you're paying for expensive private school, it eats your budget, you don't feel wealthy (but your child is going to private school).

For those doing well, the surplus goes to what's left—house, education, healthcare (I recall there being a fourth, but I'm blanking). Those things are expensive because they should be, you're wealthy. You're competing with the other wealthy people. I'm stealing this from somewhere, but they're essentially luxury goods—the more money you have, the more (and better quality) you consume. They don't decrease as percent of income as food does.

  > You don't have a automatic right to live in another country in my opinion. 

wouldn't the same logic apply to people from say east germany moving to the west? or 'annoying liberals' from california moving to north carolina? yes they can add to the local tax base, but if we want to keep things fair we should probably move to restrict everyone to stay in their own places if thats the logic we are following... but maybe i'm not thinking deeply enough...

I learned it here some years ago. I don’t follow Swedish news. Someone or the article title mentioned “grenade attacks in Sweden”. I thought it was parody at first but it’s a thing somehow. Do they think immigration is what contributes? Someone said it was simply the city in question was at the border with other country that’s why grenades are a thing there…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombings_in_Sweden

Yikes, that is quite the dehumanizing framing

Edit: A person commented "why?" before deleting their comment, which I had started responding to. I still want to give my response:

Because an enlightened government is for the people (and an unenlightened government is not worth having). The purpose of a government is to care for the welfare of the people, not to be the securer of private wealth for the wealthy. The above comment frames it as "dealing with" an undesirable population. That population is the people, and it is a perversion to think otherwise.

Middle East runs on poor people from the subcontinent and Africa.

Hong Kong depends on live-in foreign labor who have to camp out in public spaces on their day-off.

America is built on poorer labor of every kind - enslaved African cotton farmers , indentured Chinese railway workers, famine stricken Irish, or more recently Latin American or H1B Indians in tech.

Some countries try to attract the richest percent like New Zealand, however it is not economically meaningful nor is major portion of immigrants globally or within their countries even.

Countries may not like foreign poor immigrants, but they certainly need them to work harder for less pay and rights.

That, of course, is the actual real question in this debate and all the other similar debates. Some people benefit from an influx of very low-pay people, and some people don't.

   With the new generation of Dutch teenagers being significantly non-European, homophobia is on the rise. Also, it's pure luck we didn't have terrorist attacks like Belgium, Germany or France.

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.

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.

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.

You know who have babies? Immigrants.

You know who pays social security for peuple when they get older ? Those grown up babies.

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.

Dumb dumb humans…

You don't. You also dont have to NOT be a homogenous country to be a unique country. Or you dont event have to be unique to be a country.

Bhutan doesn't get as much flack for strict migration policies.

That's the world as it is, not necessarily as it should be. Not being a citizen of the country in question, or part of the culture, and most importantly, not being one of the people that deals with the consequences of whichever choice is made, means your opinion counts for so little as to be barely worth sharing

How about Canada? Did it become better or worse since then?

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.

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.

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.

So is Sicily… and yet it's quite diverse…

People who have lived their entire lives in Japan, but are not 100% ethnically Japanese, will literally never be accepted as Japanese.

I don't think it takes much imagination to connect the dots... it wasn't that long ago in European history where people were systematically eradicated by the millions.

> The survey found that company size influenced hiring outcomes. Seventy-six percent of companies with 1,000 to 4,999 employees reported shortages, followed by 75% of firms with 5,000 employees or more and 74% of those with 250 to 999 employees. Among smaller firms, 69% of organizations with 50 to 249 employees, 66% with 10 to 49 employees and 61% with fewer than 10 employees reported hiring challenges.

I'm not saying that there isn't a shortage of labor in Japan - just that business owners are never satisifed with the amount of labor available at the wages they wish to pay. And it may not be an existential shortage of labor like a lot of commenters are saying. Especially with recent developments in AI and automation.

The declining birthrate in general does seem to be an existential issue if it cannot be stabilized. But it is hard to predict population trends long term (when I was growing up the big concern was overpopulation and China was running its one-child policy - now they are facing population decline).

The weak yen is also definitely an issue right now - but it's impossible to predict where it will be in the future.

So yes, Japan is facing real problems. And stricter immigration requirements likely will come at some cost to economic output. But if they feel it is necessary to protect their social welfare programs and cultural identity, then those tradeoffs are theirs to make. And all of the doom and gloom comments saying things like "it's suicide" feel like a bit of an overreaction to me when you look at the actual proposed changes.

[1] https://www.staffingindustry.com/news/global-daily-news/69-o...

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.

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.

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.

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!

But the southern evangelical side of my family gets pretty upset whenever I point that out...

Feigning to not know, is knowing.

The truth unfortunately just doesn't matter much these days.

Folks read stuff online by people and just take it as fact without bothering to ask the simple questions that you have.

it's an extended family of sorts