\n\t\t\t\tAs the government implements stricter policies toward foreign residents of Japan and some politicians voice negative views on their presence, what are the impacts on society and their place in it? A specialist in migration studies considers the state of affairs in Japan today.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Rapid Change in Societal Discourse on Foreign Residents<\/p>\n
The July 2025 House of Councillors election<\/a> campaign marked a sudden deterioration in social and political attitudes toward foreign residents in Japan. Election coverage focused on \u201cproblems\u201d caused by foreign nationals in the country, and many candidates who made unsubstantiated claims about the foreign population were rewarded with victory. For example, Kamiya S\u014dhei, leader of the relatively new Sanseit\u014d political party, argued that \u201cForeigners who can\u2019t find jobs end up on the outside, form groups together, and start shoplifting, which eventually leads to more serious criminal offenses.\u201d The result was a significant increase in the number of Sanseit\u014d seats in the upper house.<\/p>\n Influenced by changing societal discourse and Sanseit\u014d\u2019s success, other political parties quickly responded by strengthening their rhetoric and policy proposals surrounding immigration, including the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. The government announced tightened requirements for permanent residency and naturalization, including tougher conditions for granting the Business Manager status of residence. In January 2026, immediately prior to the House of Representatives snap election<\/a>, the government announced a new policy framework for managing immigration in Japan (Comprehensive Measures for the Acceptance of Foreign Nationals and Orderly Coexistence). Based on this new framework, the government plans to more aggressively crack down on illegal residents and foreign nationals who do not comply with the rules, to target fraudulent activities, and to initiate deliberations on restricting certain types of land acquisition by foreign nationals.<\/p>\n Whatever the merit of these claims and policy adaptations, existing research shows, however, that political discourse and government policies can indirectly fuel xenophobia among the public.<\/p>\n Political Discourse Can Fuel Xenophobia<\/p>\n Why is xenophobia now beginning to rise in Japan? Key concepts for understanding xenophobic tendencies are \u201cgroup position\u201d and \u201ccollective threat.\u201d These describe processes through which xenophobia can arise out of a collective process, where members of an in-group\u2014in this case, Japanese people\u2014begin to worry that their hold on valuable resources is being threatened by foreigners or other groups. This can lead to negative feelings taking hold more broadly toward these out-groups.<\/p>\n Claims such as \u201cforeigners are overusing social welfare\u201d or \u201ccrime is increasing due to the rise in the number of foreigners\u201d are liable to arouse this kind of collectively shared sense of fear. Such perceptions often do not reflect reality, however. For example, research<\/a> has shown that there is no robust correlation between rising crime rates and an increase in the foreign population in a country. There is, however, a noteworthy connection between the perception of collective threat posed by foreigners and xenophobic sentiments. This connection has also been observed in Japan.<\/p>\n Public statements made by politicians are a significant influence on whether this sense of collective threat is stimulated. Past research indicated<\/a>, for example, that after US President Donald Trump singled out Mexicans as criminals, American attitudes toward immigrants temporarily deteriorated in response. A similar trend has been observed in Europe. One study found<\/a> that when politicians from major parties expressed negative views toward Muslim migrants and their culture, the general public also adopted more negative attitudes toward the individuals and culture of this group.<\/p>\n These studies demonstrate that negative political discourse and statements by politicians about foreigners themselves promote xenophobic attitudes in society and are not simply reflecting back pre-existing sentiments. Restraints on politicians from engaging in such rhetoric are weak and in fact, making such statements can trigger<\/a> substantial media coverage. Research suggests<\/a> that publics are also less likely to reject explicit racial or xenophobic sentiments compared to the past, and may even adopt these attitudes. In essence, politicians can opportunistically stir up xenophobia.<\/p>\n This appeared to happen during the 2025 upper house election, as candidates and even party leaders repeated baseless statements regarding problems caused by foreigners in Japan. Even current Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae, during the contest for the presidency of the LDP, criticized the manners of foreign tourists, alleging that they were assaulting deer in Nara. The issue is that even if politicians themselves does not harbor negative feelings toward foreigners and are using it for political effect, it is entirely plausible that such remarks could stimulate greater xenophobic sentiments among the audience.<\/p>\n Discrimination Concealed in Policy<\/p>\n To be sure, many politicians have attempted to qualify their messaging by asserting that policy change should not be pursued through exclusionary means. In her policy speech to the Diet in February 2026, Prime Minister Takaichi stated: \u201cWe must also be mindful that unlawful acts and rule violations by a fraction of foreign nationals have created situations in which members of the public feel anxiety and a sense of unfairness. We will ensure that Japan does not fall into xenophobia, responding firmly to problematic conduct, which will also benefit the vast majority of foreign residents who abide by the rules and properly pay taxes and social insurance premiums.\u201d Furthermore, Minister for Economic Security Onoda Kimi remarked at a LDP meeting on immigration policy, \u201cThe government must respond to various issues while drawing a clear line between our policies and xenophobia\u201d.<\/p>\n It is ultimately hard to know what the true intentions are of people making these qualifications. Politicians may simply be reacting to norms that deem it undesirable to express strong prejudice against foreigners. The claim behind these statements, however, is that xenophobic sentiments are not an underlying driver of stricter policies toward foreign residents.<\/p>\n While that may be so, the absence of background xenophobic sentiments or motivations does not mean that the policies themselves are nondiscriminatory or are unlikely to precipitate discrimination or xenophobia in society. Discrimination and xenophobia can arise through many different avenues. One is \u201cpreference-based discrimination,\u201d which involves treating foreigners (or other targeted groups) unfairly due to the negative, often emotional prejudices people harbor toward them. This is the general understanding of discrimination shared by many, and statements like \u201cwe must draw a clear line between our policies and xenophobia\u201d reflects societal recognition that preference-based discrimination should be avoided.<\/p>\n There are, however, other forms of discrimination, such as \u201cstatistical discrimination.\u201d This does not involve emotion-based xenophobic attitudes toward a group per se; it rather involves predicting individuals\u2019 future behavior based on the average tendencies of the group they belong to. For example, when making hiring decisions, a company may avoid hiring female applicants due to the perceived likelihood that they will take maternity leave in the future or will have childcare responsibilities. Whether or not that individual intends to or actually takes such leave is irrelevant; since the decision is based on the tendencies ascribed to the group of which she is a member, it constitutes discrimination.<\/p>\n So-called \u201caverage tendencies\u201d may sometimes be objectively accurate. They may also be subjective or fail to reflect actual trends or be relevant to the problem in the first place. For example, the government\u2019s October 2025 decision to raise the level of investment required for the Business Manager visa from \u00a55 million to \u00a530 million was justified based on the perception of abuse and fraudulent information provided by some foreign nationals. However, imposing such a restriction on all foreign nationals uniformly for that purpose constitutes statistical discrimination.<\/p>\n If the problem is that a minority within a group is engaging in fraud, implementing measures to address the fraudulent behavior itself is the appropriate approach. Implementing policies based on blanket judgments and perceived demographic trends constitutes discrimination. It essentially sends the message that foreign nationals as a group are engaged in fraud. Even if xenophobic sentiments are not the underlying motive for policy change, and the government wishes to avoid fostering a xenophobic social atmosphere, the outcomes of those policies can still be discriminatory and send xenophobic messages. We should be more careful with how policies are discussed, justified, and implemented given the potential social consequences.<\/p>\n The Consequences of Tougher Policies Toward Foreigners<\/p>\n What are the consequences for a society that imposes various restrictions on foreign residents? Studies<\/a> detailing the negative economic effects of ethnic exclusion in the workplace are not new; but there are also studies detailing the societal consequences of xenophobic sentiments and discrimination.<\/p>\n In 2004, France introduced a ban in public schools essentially prohibiting Muslim women from wearing the hijab to cover their hair (more precisely, from \u201costentatious\u201d display of religious symbols or religious attire indicating religious affiliation in public institutions). A 2020 study<\/a> found that, following the implementation of this policy, the academic performance of Muslim female students decreased compared to that of non-Muslim female students. High school graduation rates also declined, and those that did graduate were more likely to be unemployed and living with their parents. It is likely that this policy increased vulnerability to discrimination and precipitated these adverse outcomes. It is also possible that, by banning the hijab, people attached negative images to Muslim women, making them \u201cacceptable targets\u201d for discrimination.<\/p>\n Some might believe that discrimination being fanned by populist politicians is a problem for overseas jurisdictions. However, when Tokyo Governor Koike Yuriko declined to send condolence messages to a 2017 memorial ceremony for Koreans massacred during the Great Kant\u014d Earthquake of 1923, the number of users posting hate speech and the number of retweets of hate speech on social media increased significantly, as noted in research<\/a> by Kim Taehee and Ogawa Yuki. Even without expressing xenophobic sentiments, politicians and the policies can convey messages regarding the appropriate treatment of their targets. This is not a secondary consideration but has real consequences in enabling a xenophobic turn in public opinion. Politicians should be more aware of this point.<\/p>\n We should also not assume that tougher government policies will necessarily soothe xenophobic sentiments. Rather, it is likely that xenophobia will deepen as critical, factually inaccurate remarks and unjust policies targeting foreigners are opportunistically adopted. As demonstrated by Sanseit\u014d\u2019s significant gains in the 2025 House of Councillors election, we cannot assume that policy proposals and statements explicitly targeting minorities and promising to get tough on foreign residents will necessarily spark significant public backlash.<\/p>\n That is precisely why we must continue to reject discrimination and xenophobia in policy and discourse, whatever the intent may be of those who voice or amplify these sentiments.<\/p>\n (Originally written in Japanese. Banner image \u00a9\u00a0Pixta.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"As the government implements stricter policies toward foreign residents of Japan and some politicians voice negative views on…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":18062,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[14330,1578,8,14329,31,13420],"class_list":{"0":"post-18264","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-japan","8":"tag-foreign-residents","9":"tag-immigration","10":"tag-japan","11":"tag-nationalism","12":"tag-nippon","13":"tag-population"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18264","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18264"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18264\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18062"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}