DEBITO.ORG READERS’ ISSUES OF CONCERN, JANUARY 2026

Posted on by Debito Arudou, Ph.D.

mytest

Books, eBooks, and more from Debito Arudou, Ph.D. (click on icon):
Guidebookcover.jpgjapaneseonlyebookcovertextHandbook for Newcomers, Migrants, and Immigrants to Japan「ジャパニーズ・オンリー　小樽入浴拒否問題と人種差別」（明石書店）sourstrawberriesavatardebitopodcastthumbFodorsJapan2014cover
UPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
DEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
“LIKE” US on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/debitoorg
https://www.facebook.com/embeddedrcsmJapan
http://www.facebook.com/handbookimmigrants
https://www.facebook.com/JapaneseOnlyTheBook
https://www.facebook.com/BookInAppropriate
If you like what you read and discuss on Debito.org, please consider helping us stop hackers and defray maintenance costs with a little donation via my webhoster:
Donate towards my web hosting bill!
All donations go towards website costs only. Thanks for your support!

Hi Blog.  I write Debito.org SNA “Visible Minorities” columns once a month (SNA website here) and send Debito.org Newsletters to subscribers sporadically.  After sending, I archive them here, and below, Debito.org Readers have been adding recent issues and articles that concern them regardless of the content of the post over the past several years.  It’s been a good way to allow Readers to be heard and engaged.

I still put out Debito.org Newsletters, but since I’m only posting on Debito.org approximately once a month, there’s only one article to repost (my SNA column), and I have it here as Debito.org post anyway.  So it’d only be a repeat if I dedicated another post to the Newsletter.

But I don’t want to deprive Readers of a forum, so let me continue this “Issues of Concern” section (still categorized under “Newsletters”) and let it be a free space for articles and comments germane to the mission of Debito.org.

Past “Issues of Concern” pages are getting filled with comments that are running farther afield than the original title, so let’s create a new one now.

Thanks as always for reading and contributing to Debito.org.  Debito Arudou, Ph.D.
======================
Do you like what you read on Debito.org?  Want to help keep the archive active and support Debito.org’s activities?  Please consider donating a little something.  More details here. Or if you prefer something less complicated, just click on an advertisement below.

35 comments on “DEBITO.ORG READERS’ ISSUES OF CONCERN, JANUARY 2026”

    • JK says:

      @Niklas, look what Santa brought JK for Christmas — GPT-5.1!:

      Logical Fallacies in the Mie Governor’s Argument

      1. Hasty Generalization / Overgeneralization

      Facts in the content:

      • Since fiscal 2005, Mie has hired only nine foreign national staff, mainly doctors, nurses, and other specialists.
      • Currently, only one foreign national is employed in a medical position, and their employment will continue.
      • No actual information leak incidents involving foreign staff are cited.

      Policy leap: From this very small, incident-free record, the governor moves to broadly reconsider hiring foreign nationals in general administrative posts due to “concerns” about leaks of highly confidential information.

      Why this is fallacious: A sweeping policy reversal is built on almost no data. Hypothetical concerns are treated as if they were evidence of a recurring, demonstrated problem.

      2. Non Sequitur (Conclusion Does Not Logically Follow)

      Premise used: China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law obligates Chinese companies and individuals to cooperate with national intelligence activities.

      Conclusion drawn: Therefore, foreign nationals in general and across multiple job categories should face stricter nationality requirements or be excluded from certain positions.

      Logical gap:

      • The specific concern pertains to Chinese law and Chinese nationals, yet it is used to justify tightening rules for all foreign nationals.
      • Even regarding Chinese nationals, the content does not show how this law has actually caused or is likely to cause leaks from Japanese local governments.

      Result: The breadth of the policy conclusion (many posts, many nationalities) is not supported by the narrower legal premise.

      3. Guilt by Association / Group-Based Suspicion

      Reasoning pattern:

      • China has an intelligence law that can require cooperation.
      • Chinese nationals could be pressured to leak information.
      • Therefore, foreign nationals (especially Chinese) in certain prefectural posts are a national security problem.

      Why this is fallacious: Suspicion is attached not to specific individuals or evidence of misconduct but to nationality and the actions of a foreign government. Membership in a national group is treated as sufficient grounds for assuming higher security risk.

      4. Slippery Slope and Appeal to Fear

      Stated fears:

      • Residents’ personal data and confidential agricultural research (e.g., seed development) “could” be leaked overseas.
      • Movements of dignitaries visiting Ise Jingu “could” be leaked abroad, posing a “national security” issue.

      Logical issue: The argument runs from access to information → potential leak → national security threat, without:

      • Any examples of leaks or attempted leaks.
      • Evidence that existing confidentiality rules, oversight, or sanctions are inadequate.

      Fallacy: Fear of espionage and worst-case scenarios is used to justify nationality-based restrictions, despite the lack of demonstrated causal links or incidents.

      5. False Dichotomy (Oversimplified Choice)

      Implied framing: Either reinstate nationality requirements for many posts, or accept serious risks of information leaks and security threats.

      Ignored alternatives:

      • Stronger background checks and security vetting for all staff, regardless of nationality.
      • Role-based access controls and compartmentalization of especially sensitive data.
      • Targeted restrictions limited to clearly defined, high-risk roles where conflicts of law are concretely shown.

      Why this is fallacious: It presents nationality-based exclusion as the only effective option, ignoring neutral, risk-focused measures that apply equally to Japanese and foreign staff.

      6. Inconsistency / Self-Contradiction

      Security narrative: Foreign nationals in general administrative posts are portrayed as potential risks to:

      • Protection of residents’ personal data.
      • Confidential agricultural and seed research.
      • Security of visiting dignitaries’ movements.

      Simultaneous messaging:

      • Mie’s manufacturing sector relies heavily on foreign workers.
      • The prefecture is enhancing coexistence policies and Japanese language support for foreign residents.
      • A senior official says, “Without foreign nationals, neither Mie nor Japan can function.”

      Contradiction: Foreign nationals are described as both indispensable partners in the region’s functioning and as inherently risky in a broad set of public-sector roles that do not exercise public authority and have produced no known incidents.

      7. Cherry-Picking and One-Sided Risk Assessment

      What is emphasized:

      • China’s National Intelligence Law and its supposed “conflict” with local public servants’ confidentiality obligations.
      • Hypothetical leaks overseas, especially to China.

      What is downplayed or omitted:

      • Japanese nationals can also leak or abuse confidential information; nationality alone does not guarantee loyalty.
      • The prefecture’s own record: only nine foreign hires since 2005, with no cited leaks or security incidents.
      • The fact that 12 prefectures, including Mie, have abolished nationality requirements for some general administrative recruitment, which could be used to study best practices and actual risk data.

      Fallacy: Evidence is selectively presented to support tightening nationality requirements while inconvenient facts (small numbers, no incidents, alternative controls) are not integrated into the risk assessment.

      8. Weak Causal Inference (Possibility Treated as Proven Risk)

      Claim: Because some foreign nationals, especially those under Chinese law, might be subject to external pressure, hiring them into posts with access to confidential information leads to a meaningful risk that such information will be leaked.

      Missing elements:

      • No analysis of how often such pressure is applied in practice to local officials abroad.
      • No comparative data showing foreign nationals are more likely to leak than Japanese nationals.

      Why this is fallacious: A theoretical possibility is treated as a concrete, policy-justifying probability, without empirical support or comparative analysis.

      9. Appeal to Popularity / Responsibility Shifting via Opinion Survey

      Planned step: Mie will survey 10,000 residents and use the results, along with other factors, to make a final decision on reinstating nationality requirements.

      Logical concern:

      • Public opinion about security and foreign nationals does not establish whether the risk is objectively high, low, or manageable.
      • Public sentiment can be shaped by fear-based political messaging, including the very security narratives advanced by officials.

      Fallacy: Leaning on an opinion survey risks turning a technical security and rights issue into an appeal to popularity (“citizens are worried, so the restriction is justified”), and allows decision makers to shift responsibility onto “public opinion” rather than on their own evidence-based assessment.

      Reply
  • JK says:

    Hey Debito.org readers, look what Santa brought JK for Christmas — GPT-5.1!:

    Logical Fallacies in Japan Electronic System for Travel Authorization (JESTA)

    • Appeal to popularity / bandwagon (“others do it”)
    Text basis: “Similar programs adopted in the United States and Canada charge fees of roughly 1,000 to 6,000 yen.”
    Issue: The fact that other countries charge such fees is treated as implicit justification that Japan should do the same. This appeals to common practice instead of showing that the fee level or the system itself is fair, necessary, or effective for Japan’s specific needs.

    • Hasty generalization / unwarranted suspicion of a broad group
    Text basis: “The JESTA, aimed at preventing terrorism and illegal employment of foreign visitors to Japan, applies to countries and regions whose people are exempt from obtaining short-term stay visas.”
    Issue: All visa-exempt travelers are treated as a potential terrorism or illegal-employment risk, even though most are law-abiding and the passage provides no evidence that this group, as a whole, drives those problems. This overgeneralizes from an unspecified minority of problematic cases to an entire broad population.

    • Non sequitur / goal shifting between security and revenue
    Text basis:
    – “The JESTA, aimed at preventing terrorism and illegal employment…”
    – “There are hopes it will generate a steady source of revenue.”
    – “Japan is considering using the revenue for emergency support for foreign visitors during disasters…”
    Issue: The stated purposes shift among security (terrorism, illegal employment), stable revenue, and disaster support without a clear logical link. Preventing terrorism does not by itself require a paid authorization, and disaster-response funding is a separate policy goal. Using a security rationale to justify what is also a revenue-raising mechanism is a non sequitur and can act as a red herring, diverting attention from the core issue of whether the fee and system are themselves justified.

    • Implied slippery association between visa exemption and security risk
    Text basis: The system “applies to countries and regions whose people are exempt from obtaining short-term stay visas,” and is “aimed at preventing terrorism and illegal employment.”
    Issue: The wording implies that visa-exempt status itself is a significant security gap strongly linked to terrorism and illegal employment, and that a paid online screening is therefore needed. The passage offers no evidence that current visa-exempt entry is meaningfully causing these problems, so the suggested causal connection is speculative and weak, creating an unjustified association between ordinary visa-exempt visitors and serious security threats.

    Reply
  • JK says:

    OK, enough GPT-5.1 for now — it’s time for some good ole fashioned ‘NI’ (Natural Intelligence)!

    The following article recently appeared over at Mainichi Shimbun:

    Editorial: Discriminatory practices need probes as Japan statistics excluded disabled students / 障害生徒の統計除外　差別的対応の検証が必要

    It has emerged that graduates of special needs schools were excluded from the population of 18-year-olds used to calculate the college advancement rate in Japan in the education ministry’s Basic School Survey.

    Hmmm….where have we seen an entire group excluded from official statistics by the J-Gov?

    It has also emerged that students at special needs schools were excluded from data in multiple statistics involving the education ministry, such as the number of violent acts and suicide cases in the survey on problem behavior and school refusal, as well as from the ratio of students applying for the Common Test for University Admissions among those scheduled to graduate from high school or other institutions in March.

    Back in January of 2014, the J-Gov ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Yet in 2025, despite there being a law on the books (i.e., the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (障害者差別解消法), the J-Gov can’t even prevent itself from discriminating against wajin.

    Back in December of 1995, the J-Gov ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Yet in 2025, it still hasn’t managed to enact a comprehensive anti-discrimination statute covering race/ethnicity across employment, housing, services, etc (i.e., 人種的差別解消法).

    Question: What’s the difference between Persons with Disabilities and Visible Minorities?
    Answer: The former suffers from physical and/or cognitive impairments which hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. The latter suffers from skin and/or facial ‘deformities’ and possibly cognitive ‘impairments’ which hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

    My point? There’s not much to choose between the two groups; the J-Gov discriminating against its own in 2025 augers ill for those who don’t look the part in 2026 (and beyond).

    Reply
  • Niklas says:

    I‘m surprised this went viral and that most people are criticizing it.

    https://x.com/mrdecent000/status/2004538310178505180?s=46&t=IzAIE8zz8O3iUXFc2Hpuew

    Twitter: “A restaurant caused public outrage after putting up a sign stating that only Japanese people were allowed to enter. The sign sparked immediate backlash online, with many calling it discriminatory and unfair. Locals and tourists alike expressed disappointment, calling the move shocking and unacceptable in today’s world. Some users on social media demanded an apology and called for action against the business. The incident has reignited conversations around racism and exclusion in public spaces.”

    Reply
    • Baud says:

      Someone needs to call it what it is and felt-tip in those reverse “Buddhist symbols” under cover of darkness.

      Where I used to live the exclusionary sign at the local restaurant (Kawasaki, as usual) regularly got torn down during heavy rain at night- must’ve got blown away or something, as an NJ was passing coincidentally.

      Reply
    • JK says:

      Translation courtesy of GPT-5.1:

      “It’s the first time anyone’s told me, ‘I’ll kill you’”: What a Canadian reporter felt covering an anti-immigration rally

      At the end of October, anti–immigration policy rallies were held across Japan. When I, the author—a Japanese-Chinese “half”—went to observe one in Tokyo, I met Avery Fane (44), a Canadian reporter living in Tokyo. I walked the scene with him and listened to what he had to say.

      (By Asahi Shimbun reporter Takahiro Ogawa)

      Avery Fane

      Born 1981 in Montreal, Canada. Became interested in Japanese culture through kendo and other activities, and first came to Japan alone at 16 as an exchange student. Spent his high school and college years in Japan. After attending the University of Victoria in Canada, enrolled at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Ōita. After graduation, worked for about ten years in Vancouver as a film actor and producer on numerous projects. Lived between Canada and Japan for roughly a decade before switching careers in 2025 to become a reporter for the English-language online outlet JAPAN TODAY, based in Tokyo.

      “From just a glance, they were shouting at me: ‘What do they even know about me?’”

      The rally was held on Sunday, October 26, a little after 2 p.m., in front of the Liberal Democratic Party headquarters in Nagatachō. In a light drizzle, several hundred people lined the sidewalk, chanting slogans such as “We don’t need immigrants!” and “Japan is being destroyed!”

      As Avery tried to walk through along the sidewalk, the crowd’s eyes locked onto him. Some people pointed at him and began shouting things like “Go back to your own country!” and “I’ll kill you!”

      Avery:
      This was my first time going to see one of these anti–immigration policy rallies in Japan. I was walking and filming video. When I went back and checked the footage, I could see the participants glaring, eyes wide in anger, all looking at me with this “There he is!” kind of expression.

      My feeling went past fear and straight to anger. I’ve followed anti-immigrant rallies in Canada and France and elsewhere, but I’ve never heard abuse like this. It’s the first time I’ve ever actually felt angry at a demonstration. These people had never met me before—we had never even spoken. To have them yell at me based on a split-second glance made me think, “What do they even know about me?”

      Foreign media often praise demonstrations in Japan, saying they are orderly, rule-abiding, polite, and safe. But when you listen to the rhetoric at these recent xenophobic rallies, they are absolutely not “safe.” My foreign friends living in Japan and I are all worried that “the atmosphere in Japan is changing.”

      All told, I’ve lived in Japan for about ten years. I’ve been on the receiving end of discriminatory remarks before, but this is the first time anyone has said something so direct as “I’ll kill you” or “Go home.” In the past, I feel like that kind of language appeared mostly on social media or anonymous forums. Lately, though, it feels like the language people use in real life is getting more extreme.

      “I want to believe they aren’t all bad people”

      As I was talking with Avery, a young rally participant came over to us. When we asked, “Why did you decide to join today?” he answered, “Because foreign crime is increasing.”

      But that is not true. According to the Ministry of Justice’s White Paper on Crime, crime rates among foreign residents in Japan have been declining over the long term. When we showed him the data, he fell silent for a moment, then finally said only, “It’s not about the numbers. It’s that I’m scared,” before walking away.

      Avery:
      People are believing misinformation. On the one hand, I feel angry at some of the extreme things that are being said. But at the same time, there’s a part of me that wants to think, “It’s not that everyone who joins these rallies is a bad person.” What they’re saying isn’t okay, but some of them are also being misled by what they see online, on social media, and so on.

      For example, if you’re shouting “No to immigration policy,” how much do you actually know about Japan’s immigration policy? I spoke with around five rally participants this time. I asked them, “Which parts of Japan’s immigration policy do you think are bad?” and none of them gave a clear answer.

      A lot of people also told me it was their first time ever speaking with a foreigner. There were even people who shut me out from the start, saying they didn’t want to talk. It’s hard to accept being told “I hate you” when there’s been almost no communication at all.

      I know Japanese people are going through all kinds of hardships in their lives. But when I was in high school, I also struggled to adapt to life here. After sharing that kind of personal background, I want to ask them: “You’re telling me to get out, to go back to my country—do you really hate me that much?”

      The English-language site JAPAN TODAY, where I work, is trying to support that kind of exchange. We’ve interviewed foreign residents in Japan about their impressions of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, and we’ve gone around regions affected by bear attacks to hear the unvarnished views of local Japanese residents. I hope that as mutual understanding deepens, we can reach a point where we no longer have to hear exclusionary language out on the street.

      What could I possibly say to him?

      “Go back to your country.”
      “I’ll kill you.”

      As a Japanese-Chinese “half,” I was so shocked walking down that sidewalk filled with abuse that I found myself questioning whether this was really happening.

      Avery came to Japan because he loves traditional Japanese culture such as kendo, and he has spent many years living here. I had no idea what words I could offer him.

      Even as he told me he “felt angry,” he kept approaching rally participants and trying to talk with them. He didn’t give up on dialogue. In many of his interview videos, he doesn’t just shove a mic in someone’s face; he stands side by side with them and has a conversation.

      Those of us who are Japanese—the “majority side”—surely have something to learn from his approach. What exactly is it that we feel uncomfortable about right now? Why is it that anger wells up in us? I’m reminded again that hope lies not in trading hatred and anger, but in taking the time to weave our words together and really listen to one another.

      (We also cover issues such as xenophobic trends toward foreigners in our newsletter. You can register for free here: https://asahi-writers.theletter.jp/)

      Reply
    • JK says:

      Indeed!

      I vote for calling the “good gaijin” argument the “Karen Hill Anton logical fallacy”: “In the places I’ve called home in Japan, if you follow the rules for putting out your garbage, and participate in community obligations like cutting roadside weeds, it could be said your outward appearance causes no particular problems.

      Reply
  • Niklas says:

    Japan’s Birth Rate Set to Break Even the Bleakest Forecasts.

    https://slguardian.org/japans-birth-rate-set-to-break-even-the-bleakest-forecasts/

    „According to analysis reported by the Financial Times, preliminary data suggest the total number of Japanese babies born in 2025 is likely to drop below 670,000, a level never previously recorded since national statistics began in 1899. Demographics experts say such an outcome would come 16 years earlier than official forecasts anticipated and far below the assumptions used for fiscal and economic planning.“

    So what happened to good old Abenomics and magically raising women‘s fertility to over 2.0?

    „Economists and opposition politicians are increasingly urging the government to revise its long-term assumptions and plan for a future closer to the most pessimistic demographic scenarios. But acknowledging that shift would be politically costly. Masatoshi Kikuchi, chief equity strategist at Mizuho Securities, said it would amount to admitting that years of policies to raise the birth rate have failed, with unavoidable consequences such as higher taxes and reduced pension benefits.“

    Ah yes, typical LDP logic, don‘t acknowledge the data, because it doesn‘t fit our ideology/shows that we‘re wrong.

    Reply
    • Baud says:

      Immediately saw its Donna Burke, the owner of Dag Music that insists on “not having written contracts because its not the Japanese way”-leading to err, “vast discrepancies” between pay promised and payment actually made! And then gets snarky when NJs challenge it because “This is Japan”.
      Sources (emails) available on request.
      So, an Australian ripping off fellow NJs by claiming to “know Japanese culture” better than the rest of them- classic pulling up the ladder for later (or just, other) NJs.
      ““I am the best-behaved foreign resident right now because I don’t want to irritate anyone,” says Donna Burke”

      The sheer blow-hard arrogance, the self awarded superlative, yep, all par the course. Isn’t great how someone can reinvent themselves in Tokyo post Straya? That’s fine, but when it leads to exploitation of other NJs using “Japanese Culture” as a smokescreen I have zero sympathy and they can lie in the bed they have made for themselves.

      Reply
    • Baud says:

      There’s a subset of Aussies who came here in the 80s and 90s when Japanese was taught in schools there and completely felt they were in a privileged class because they were already better at Japanese than the average FOB NJ or Brit?American who could not get a working holiday visa at the time, and pushed the whole Asian-Pacific “Lucky Country” narrative when it dovetailed with “Genki Surfer J- Narratives and a “No Worries, mate” mentality vs “whingeing Yanks and Poms”, (dismissing USD and GBP as “not real money”). It is hard to label this trend or phenomenon, but it was real.

      Anyway, they are now stranded and as they cannot bring themselves to “whinge” i.e. agitate to affect change or improvements, they will have to stop wearing their red coats and instead massage the shoulders of their J-clients (actually literally- truly bizarre but I have seen the woman quoted in the article actually do this on more than one occasion, giving me bizarre “Paradise Road” (1997) flashbacks, but I digress https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/11/movies/it-takes-a-saint-to-keep-a-prison-camp-humming.html )

      Reply
    • JK says:

      @JDG this is a great find; thanks for sharing.

      I asked Claude Sonnet 4.5 for some brief commentary; here’s its response:

      The Paradox of “Belonging Through Conformity”

      What’s striking about the foreign residents’ commentary is the psychological burden of hypervigilance:

      • Melanie Brock choosing a black coat over red—she’s trying to erase visible difference• The “dog as proof of residency” comment reveals how arbitrary the markers of belonging have become• Greg Story’s anxiety about being “painted with the same brush” as misbehaving tourists shows how individual identity gets erased by group perception

      The Deeper Irony

      The commentary also reveals Japan’s ongoing tension with visible difference. Brock’s reference to the Bondi attack being used as a “reminder of what can happen with multiculturalism” shows how isolated incidents can be weaponized to justify xenophobia, even when long-term foreign residents have been peaceful, contributing members of society for decades.

      A Troubling Trend

      What makes this particularly concerning is that these aren’t newcomers—these are people who’ve lived in Japan for decades, some in prominent professional roles. The fact that they now feel compelled to perform extra conformity suggests a narrowing of acceptable difference in Japanese society, driven by anxieties about overtourism, economic pressures, and cultural change that have little to do with long-term residents themselves.

      Karen Hill Anton,“if you follow the rules for putting out your garbage, and participate in community obligations like cutting roadside weeds, it could be said your outward appearance causes no particular problems.” — I’m afraid this statement hasn’t aged particularly well!!!

      Reply
    • Baud says:

      Doesn’t that violate the Kyoto Protocol? Hardly necessary. And it made no difference; tourists kept coming.

      -” left the area after about 10 minutes”
      They cannot even stand tourists in a field for ten minutes, methinks these Japanese locals are the ones with the problem

      Reply
  • JK says:

    I saw this article about Japan’s GDP falling behind India in 2026 and got to thinking two things:

    1. What country / countries will pass Japan next?

    2. When will this happen?

    So as is usual for me, I posed these questions to GPT-5.1; below is what it came back with:

    Likely future overtakers of Japan’s nominal GDP (USD basis)

    Interpreting your context as:

    • India overtakes Japan in 2026 (per the Oct‑2025 WEO).

    • Japan falls to 5th in 2026.
    The question is: who passes Japan next, and when, in nominal USD terms?

    Given typical IMF and private-sector projections as of late-2025, plus plausible ranges for growth, inflation and FX, the most realistic sequence is:

    • Rank transition vs Japan: Japan → 6th

    – Most likely country to overtake: United Kingdom
    – Indicative timing (calendar year, nominal USD): Around 2029–2031
    – Key drivers / conditions: UK grows ~1½–2% real, moderate inflation; Japan ~½–1% real, low inflation; yen remains relatively weak vs USD while GBP is stable/strong.

    • Rank transition vs Japan: Japan → 7th

    – Most likely country to overtake: France
    – Indicative timing (calendar year, nominal USD): Around 2031–2033
    – Key drivers / conditions: France’s nominal growth (real + inflation) outpaces Japan’s; euro not persistently weaker than yen on a trade-weighted basis.

    • Rank transition vs Japan: Japan → 8th

    – Most likely country to overtake: Brazil (or possibly Indonesia)
    – Indicative timing (calendar year, nominal USD): Mid-2030s (roughly 2034–2038)
    – Key drivers / conditions: Requires continued commodity-supported nominal expansion for Brazil or sustained high real growth and gradual FX appreciation for Indonesia.

    • Rank transition vs Japan: Beyond 8th

    – Most likely country to overtake: Indonesia, Mexico, possibly South Korea
    – Indicative timing (calendar year, nominal USD): Late-2030s onward
    – Key drivers / conditions: Only under optimistic convergence scenarios and/or pronounced yen weakness; wide uncertainty band.

    How confident can we be?

    • High confidence (directionally):

    – India’s overtaking in 2026.
    – The UK and France eventually surpassing Japan in nominal USD terms, absent a structural growth or FX regime shift in Japan.

    • Medium confidence (timing):

    – UK: late-2020s to around 2030.
    – France: early-2030s.

    • Low confidence (candidates and timing after France):

    – Brazil vs Indonesia vs Mexico depends heavily on terms of trade and FX: the ranking in the 2030s is very sensitive to commodity prices and dollar cycles.

    Intuition in brief

    1. Japan’s nominal USD GDP is constrained by:

    • Very low trend real growth and inflation.
    • Downside risk to the yen if rate differentials with the US/EU persist.

    2. The UK and France sit just below Japan already, with:

    • Higher trend nominal growth,
    • Currencies that, while volatile, are less structurally weak than the yen in most baseline scenarios.

    3. Large emerging markets (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico)

    • Have much higher real growth, but whether they leap Japan in USD depends on whether that growth translates into sustained FX appreciation and higher nominal USD aggregates, not just PPP gains.

    I then asked it to reference data from the following articles and determine what meaningful impact (if any) NJ can exert on slowing / reversing the GDP slide:

    FEATURE: Japan nears 10% foreign population years ahead of official forecasts

    Foreign residents make up 9.5% of people in 20s in Japan

    Here’s the response:

    In substance, no: this strengthens Japan’s level of GDP relative to a pure “shrinking Japan” narrative, but it only marginally shifts timing, and it does not change the set of countries likely to pass Japan in nominal USD.

    1. How big is the macro effect of faster foreign inflows?

    Key points from your data:

    • Foreign share of population: 3.0% in 2025, rising much faster than NIPSSR’s baseline.

    • Flow: ~300–350k net per year since 2022 vs. the NIPSSR assumption of 160k/year up to ~2040. → Roughly +150–200k extra net inflow per year vs the baseline.

    • Strong youth bias: foreign 20s +0.68m (to 1.22m) over 10 years; Japanese 20s –1.03m (to 11.64m).

    • Implication: foreign residents are:

    – Disproportionately in prime working ages,
    – Filling labor gaps and contributing to social security,
    – Partly offsetting Japan’s working-age shrinkage.

    Back-of-the-envelope impact on growth

    Very stylized:

    • Suppose Japan’s long‑run real growth absent migration is ~0.3–0.5%.

    • A sustained additional 0.15–0.20m working-age migrants per year could plausibly add on the order of 0.1–0.2 percentage points to annual real GDP growth (depending on participation, skills, and hours).

    • Add a small effect via less downward pressure on potential output and wages, which helps the BoJ maintain positive inflation.

    So instead of, say, 0.5% real + 1.0% inflation = 1.5% nominal in yen, you might think in terms of 0.7% real + 1.1–1.2% inflation ≈ 1.8–2.0% nominal in yen as a feasible “migration-aware” baseline.

    That is meaningful domestically, but in global ranking terms:

    • The UK, France, India and large EMs are on 3–6%+ nominal trajectories (in local currency) in most scenarios.

    • FX swings in JPY/USD, GBP/USD, EUR/USD typically dominate differences of 0.3–0.5pp in nominal growth.

    2. Does faster immigration change who will pass Japan?

    No. The GDP ladder is still driven by:

    1. India (already in the IMF’s 2026 projection).

    2. UK and France as the next major advanced economies just below Japan.

    3. The big EMs (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico) further out.

    Higher foreign-resident contributions:

    • Raise Japan’s absolute GDP vs a no-immigration counterfactual.

    • Do not change the fact that:

    – India’s scale and growth ensure it stays ahead.

    – The UK and France start from only slightly lower nominal GDP, have modestly higher nominal growth, and do not face Japan’s demographic drag to the same degree.

    • For Brazil/Indonesia/Mexico, the binding constraints remain their own growth and FX paths, not marginal changes in Japan’s.

    So the ordering I gave before (India → UK → France → large EMs) is intact.

    3. Does it shift the timing?

    It can, but only by a few years, not decades, and FX will still dominate.

    • UK and France vs Japan
    If migration keeps Japan closer to ~2% nominal (yen) instead of ~1½%, then:

    – In a neutral FX scenario, Japan’s overtaking by the UK might move from, say, “around 2029–31” to “early 2030s”, and France’s from “early 2030s” to “mid-2030s”.
    – Under continued yen weakness, even the extra migration probably does not prevent overtaking in roughly the original windows.
    – Under a significant yen appreciation (e.g., policy normalization, narrowing rate differentials), the combination of:

    ¤ Slightly higher real growth from migration and
    ¤ Stronger JPY
    could push the UK/France crossing points back several years. But here the FX story is doing most of the work; migration makes Japan more resilient but is not the decisive factor.

    • EMs (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico)

    Their catching-up horizon is mid-2030s onward in many optimistic scenarios.

    If Japan’s potential improves via migration:

    – You compress Japan’s decline in ranking speed somewhat,
    – But relative to the uncertainty in those EM growth/FX paths, a +0.1–0.2pp to Japan’s growth is small.
    Net: timing bands (mid- to late-2030s) barely move; the variance around EM outcomes (commodities, policy, dollar cycle) is much larger.

    4. Policy-relevant takeaway

    • The foreign-resident surge is macro-relevant: it supports labor supply, potential output and the social security base.

    • It improves Japan’s GDP level path relative to low-migration baselines and can slightly delay when the UK and France overtake in nominal USD terms, especially if paired with:

    – Productivity-oriented integration (language, credentialing, mobility), and
    – A shift away from structurally ultra-loose monetary/FX conditions.

    • But given:

    – The starting gaps in nominal GDP,
    – Higher trend nominal growth abroad, and
    – The outsized importance of FX in nominal USD rankings,
    the basic conclusion stands:

    Japan is still likely to be overtaken next by the UK and then France; stronger foreign-resident contributions can slow but not reverse that process, barring an accompanying major change in Japan’s macro/FX regime.

    Reply
    • Baud says:

      More to the point perhaps https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15349927

      I know its about Engrish teachers, but some of us are or were, and its just indicative of how mighty Japan has fallen, how hard it is for people to get by, and how that might lead to a lot of embittered folks lashing out at convenient scapegoats.

      It also leads to even more isolationism in Japan, and in a downward spiral of lack of interest in foreign travel or culture-less people speaking English-more misunderstandings

      Reply
  • Niklas says:

    2026 raises question of how to resist spread of xenophobic sentiment in Japan

    https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20260105/p2a/00m/0op/009000c

    And National Museum of Modern Art is planning to implement „foreigner fees“.

    https://x.com/seiryukai/status/2007343052923514925?s=46&t=IzAIE8zz8O3iUXFc2Hpuew

    Yet the official consumer hotline for foreign tourists on their website still claims that all differences in prices are due to „cultural misunderstandings“. Go figure.

    Reply
    • JDG says:

      Walking around carrying an open binder with a photo of a dead guy who is not your relative is just plain weird. Especially as she’s doing that rictus grin thing as well.
      And from the same feed, Kimi Onoda wearing a morning suit to the shrine visit instead of ladies clothes (and a morning suit she’s had tailored to be extra form flattering) is super weird too. And she (still!) has to go in last behind all the men in the cabinet!
      The pair of them look super creepy and weird.
      And the fact that they have any time at all to focus on cosplay when they should be focusing on ‘work, work, work and work’ is just 🙄

      Reply
      • Brooks says:

        The real issue is Onoda is so far right as a half-Japanese person. This was covered by a podcast on YouTube. It is at Japan Media Review and called Japan Far Right Divided.

        Reply
    • JK says:

      @Niklas:

      And National Museum of Modern Art is planning to implement „foreigner fees“.

      https://x.com/seiryukai/status/2007343052923514925?s=46&t=IzAIE8zz8O3iUXFc2Hpuew

      Ramen restaurant bans all Chinese and charges double if you select any language other than Japanese.

      https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/2008336296222032128?s=46&t=IzAIE8zz8O3iUXFc2Hpuew

      Oh lovely, multi-tiered pricing is back in the news!

      HTB Hokkaido News recently delved into these topics. GPT-5.1 is handling translation duties; I offer my two-yen at the end:

      Why do “dual prices” for tourists and locals cause trouble? Experts weigh in on how fees should be set.

      A bowl of ramen for foreign tourists costs twice as much as the one for Japanese customers. A ramen shop in Osaka has introduced this so‑called “dual pricing,” and it’s turned into a flashpoint.

      It turns out there are places in Hokkaido using dual pricing as well. What are they trying to achieve?

      Yusuke Arai, Gadoya Ramen:

      “We’re taking on a risk by using a dual pricing system.”

      At this Osaka ramen shop, the regular price for a bowl is around ¥1,000 (about $6), but for foreign customers it’s roughly ¥2,000 (about $13). In exchange, the version served to foreign visitors has special seasoning and toppings.

      However, on the 4th of this month, a dispute broke out.

      Twitter/X post:

      “Right now, some Chinese customers are causing a disturbance in the shop, and we’ve called the police. I’m thinking of banning Chinese customers from entering from now on.”

      Yusuke Arai, Gadoya Ramen:“They first ordered the special inbound-only ramen. While they were eating, everything seemed normal, but once they finished, they suddenly said, ‘This isn’t the same as what’s on the menu, is it?’”

      The Chinese tourists demanded a refund. When the shop told them it would call the police, their attitude changed completely and they apologized.

      Charging different prices to local residents and tourists is actually being done in Hokkaido too. At the Daiwa House Premist Dome in Toyohira Ward, Sapporo, an event called “DOME Snow Zone” started on the 6th. Visitors can enjoy playing in the snow and winter sports. The event uses a three-tier pricing system: Hokkaido residents junior high school age and up pay ¥1,000 (about $6), other Japanese visitors junior high and up pay ¥2,000 (about $13), and foreign visitors elementary school age and up also pay ¥2,000.

      Akihito Abe, President, Sapporo Dome:“People traveling here can’t come every day; they only stop by while they’re on a trip. So when you factor in how often they can visit and compare it with admission fees at other tourist attractions, we felt it was acceptable to set their price a bit higher.”

      With the recent controversy over dual pricing, what should operators keep in mind when setting such fees?

      Tourism expert Takashi Kiso:“First, instead of framing it as a surcharge, set your base price higher and then offer discounts. Raise the overall price, and then, whether it’s for local residents or for people with Japanese nationality, structure your pricing as ‘you get a discount’ rather than ‘others pay extra.’”

      Re-framing multi-tiered pricing as a “discount” a) is tantamount to gas-lighting and b) still doesn’t address the matter of enforcement — how is staff going to determine if someone is a “local resident” or a “Japanese nationality”? Passport checks? Visual inspection of facial features?

      Reply
    • Niklas says:

      And instead of apologizing, the owner went on to claim that foreigners get a “special” kind of ramen that uses more meat and takes longer to prepare (which is not true to according to a lot of Chinese posters on X, unfortunately I didn’t save the links).

      But even if true, how about giving people a choice that’s not based on which language they select? And also, why is staff actively blocking visible minorities from ordering in Japanese according to the article?

      https://unseen-japan.com/ramen-shop-osaka-two-tier-pricing/?utm_content=buffer7a2cc

      Also funny how they cite the Consumer Affairs Agency, which still claims that there is no dual pricing based on nationality. I especially like this part: “Amid rising disputes, the Consumer Affairs Agency has released guidance on two-tier pricing. The agency publishes rules on price displays, which fall under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.”

      So again, we have “guidances” and “rules”, but no laws. What does surprise me in a positive way though is that it seems like even the average tourist is finally fed up with giving Japan a free pass on this. Good. I hope people continue to speak up and even sue. Especially with an owner like that who has 0 integrity and self-awarness and tries to spin the whole thing as if he’s actually doing a service for NJ.

      Reply
  • Niklas says:

    Another interesting case of Japanese injustice.

    https://www.fccj.or.jp/number-1-shimbun-article/miscarriage-justice

    I would advise to read the whole thing, because it‘s excellently written, but I‘ll just quote the racially motivated parts.

    „ She told investigators that his perfect, unaccented speech convinced her he was Japanese.“

    „ she went from saying her attacker was Japanese to he was a foreigner. Then that he wore the kind of cologne that foreigners wear. I never wear cologne and when they searched my apartment and found none, that changed to him having a ‘foreign smell’. At trial, his Japanese had changed from being perfect to sounding like a foreigner’s.”

    What is a „foreign smell“ btw?

    „ Yamada said he always worked to the best of his abilities without preconceptions. “In this case [Payne’s] as well, I haven’t heard the details … All I know is that there was a foreign male suspect and a female victim, and the sample taken from the victim’s mouth … I didn’t collect it myself. The forensic science laboratory conducted the initial testing. I received the remaining sample from the court, analyzed it, and issued the result. So, I don’t know whether the foreign gentleman is the perpetrator or not.”

    So he‘s not biased according to his own opinion (big surprise), but he has to mention that the suspect is „foreign“ in literally every sentence he speaks? In my experience this is a big red flag. People who usually speak that way are not really big fans of NJ (again, in my experience).

    But this is the crux of the issue right here:

    „Judges don’t try to make proper scientific judgments,” he said. “They just want to rubber stamp the prosecution’s position. There’s no culture of judges thinking independently and calmly. If they rule in line with the prosecution, their careers advance. It’s effectively one side versus two – the judge and prosecutor together. The prosecution gets a free pass, while everything the defense says is dismissed, even when it’s correct. Japan’s system is completely out of step with international standards. And it doesn’t just affect Japanese people. Foreigners in Japan are subjected to the same treatment, just like in this case.”

    Well I would personally argue that foreign suspects are subjected to even worse treatment than Japanese ones (as seen in Embedded Racism), but sure, I agree that the whole system is just torture and no justice.

    This guy has spent 4 years in solidary btw and as of recent, collapsed.

    Ghosn: „Get out of Japan while you still can.“

    Reply
  • JK says:

    I’m going to try something different with this post — I’ve asked GPT-5.1 to synthesize a single, unified news report in English about the recent NJ staff hiring controversy unfolding in Mie prefecture.

    The source material are these Japanese-language news reports from Mainichi Shimbun:

    「外国人採用を廃止しない」　三重県内の市長、相次ぎ表明

    なぜ外国人職員の採用やめる？　三重県の検討に撤回求める声広がる

    三重県、外国人の職員採用取りやめを検討　「国際情勢」理由に

    ＜1分で解説＞三重県の外国人採用取りやめ検討　県内外から反対の声

    「そもそも守秘義務ある」　伊勢市長、外国人採用見直し「考えず」

    For reference, here’s the single English-language article covering this topic (also from Mainichi Shimbun):

    Mayors push back against central Japan prefecture’s plan to end foreign staff hires

    OK, that’s the setup. What follows is the AI-generated news article:

    Mayors Push Back as Mie Prefecture Weighs Ending Hiring of Foreign Civil Servants

    Yokkaichi, Mie — A growing number of municipal leaders, labor unions, and legal experts are urging Mie Prefecture to back away from plans to effectively stop hiring foreign nationals as prefectural civil servants, warning the move sends a discriminatory and backward-looking message in a region that has long touted multicultural coexistence.

    Gov. Katsuyuki Ichimi revealed late last year that the prefecture is considering reintroducing nationality requirements for most prefectural jobs, which would in practice end the hiring of non-Japanese staff. The prefecture says it is acting out of concern for leaks of sensitive data on residents, agriculture, and disaster preparedness amid worsening “international conditions.”

    Since then, mayors across Mie — many of them governing cities with large foreign populations — have lined up to say they will not follow suit.

    Suzuka: “We will not abolish foreign hiring”

    At a New Year’s press conference on January 6, Suzuka Mayor Noriko Suematsu said the city has no intention of revising its hiring rules.

    “To secure a diverse workforce going forward, we are not considering abolishing the hiring of foreign nationals,” she said, adding that she would not comment directly on the prefecture’s proposal.

    Suzuka limited hiring to Japanese citizens through the 2000 intake, citing the exercise of public authority. But in line with a nationwide trend toward opening local government jobs, it began in 2001 to allow permanent residents and special permanent residents to sit for exams in five categories—clerical, technical, nursery teachers, public health nurses, and laborers—excluding firefighters. As of January 6, foreign nationals are in fact on the city payroll.

    Suzuka, with a population of 192,865 at the end of December, is one of Japan’s leading “foreign-concentrated” municipalities: 10,641 residents are foreign nationals from 68 countries and regions.

    “Suzuka is one of the country’s major hubs of foreign residents,” Suematsu said. “We believe it’s important to keep the door open for foreign students who aspire to become public servants.”

    Kuwana: “Whatever the prefecture does, we won’t change course”

    Kuwana Mayor Narutaka Ito took a similar stance at his January 6 regular press briefing, pledging that the city’s approach to multicultural coexistence and its hiring of foreign nationals will “not change in any way.”

    Kuwana employs foreign nationals as concierges to assist non-Japanese visitors at city hall service counters. Ito stressed that he would not publicly criticize the prefecture — “Each organization has its own way of thinking, so it’s not my place to comment on the prefecture’s policy” — but was blunt about Kuwana’s direction.

    “In Kuwana, where manufacturing is thriving, we simply don’t have enough workers, and many foreign nationals are supporting our industries. Nearly 6,000 foreign nationals live here,” he said. “We are trying to build a city open to the world. Whatever the prefecture decides to do, we have no intention of changing our hiring policy.”

    Other mayors warn of “message of exclusion”

    The backlash isn’t limited to industrial hubs.

    Iga Mayor Toshihisa Inamori, in his New Year’s address on January 5, said he felt “a sense of crisis” that the prefecture’s move “could be taken as a message that people of foreign nationality are being excluded.”

    On January 9, Inamori went further, formally asking Governor Ichimi to delete from an upcoming “Mie Prefectural 10,000-Resident Survey” a question on whether municipalities should continue hiring foreign nationals for non-authority-bearing posts such as clerical positions.

    “Just asking the question damages multicultural coexistence,” he argued, warning in writing that it risks (1) rolling back progress toward a multicultural society and (2) fueling hate speech and discrimination. The questionnaire is scheduled to go out from January 26.

    “The very existence of current foreign-national staff is being discounted, and their dignity deeply wounded,” he said, calling the plan “irresponsible” and accusing the prefecture of taking a “cowardly” route by outsourcing the decision to an opinion survey instead of owning it politically.

    In Ise, where Ise Jingu Grand Shrine is located, Mayor Kenichi Suzuki also broke with the prefecture on January 9.

    “We are not considering revising our hiring of foreign nationals,” he said at his New Year’s press conference. The prefecture has cited concerns about leaks involving security arrangements for imperial and prime ministerial visits to Ise Jingu as one reason for tightening nationality rules, but Suzuki pushed back on the logic.

    “The city doesn’t hold the authority to secure routes for VIPs in the first place—that’s up to the prefecture,” he noted, while emphasizing that public employees, regardless of nationality, are already bound by strict confidentiality obligations.

    Matsusaka Mayor Masato Takegami likewise told reporters on January 8 that his city sees “no reason whatsoever” to change its current policy, which sets explicit criteria for hiring foreign nationals and has caused “no problems in practice.”

    More than 5,000 foreign nationals live in Matsusaka, paying taxes and using public services. The city employs 20 foreign-national staff in total, including four regular employees in clerical and medical training posts.

    “It would be impossible to sustain Matsusaka’s society without foreign residents,” Takegami said. “Respecting and coexisting with them is simply common sense.”

    In Tsu, which employs two regular foreign-national staffers and about 30 non-regular (fiscal-year) workers, Mayor Yasuyuki Maeba said on January 7 he has “no intention of changing” the city’s policy and sees “no particular problems” with the current arrangement.

    In Nabari, Mayor Hiroyuki Kitagawa disclosed at a New Year’s press conference that he had conveyed his concerns via the vice governor, arguing the prefecture’s move “runs counter” to a multicultural coexistence declaration previously adopted by the National Governors’ Association.

    Referring to the planned opinion survey, he warned that poorly worded questions could end up “implanting the idea that ‘foreign-national staff are dangerous,’” and promised Nabari would continue to hire as before. “This is an issue that can be handled through internal management,” he added. “I wish they had shown more sensitivity to how their own staff feel.”

    Prefecture cites “international conditions,” security laws abroad

    Mie eliminated most nationality requirements for prefectural employees in the 1999 fiscal year to promote diversity in hiring. Today, 44 of 49 job categories have no nationality conditions; five—veterinarians, navigators, engineers on ships, child welfare officers, and architects—still require Japanese citizenship. As of December 24, one foreign national was employed in a medical post.

    There is no explicit nationality clause in Japan’s Local Public Service Act. Based on a 1953 Cabinet Legislation Bureau view, however, foreign nationals have typically been barred from posts involving the exercise of public authority, such as issuing permits or collecting taxes, and from managerial roles, while being allowed into other positions.

    Mie now says it is considering reinstating nationality requirements for some or many of those open categories after canvassing public opinion through its large-scale survey.

    Officials stress they are responding to “international conditions,” not engaging in foreigner-bashing. They point to China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which obliges organizations and individuals to cooperate with Chinese state intelligence activities, and say they are worried that hiring foreign nationals could increase the risk of leaks of sensitive information, including on agriculture and disaster preparedness. The fact that Ise Jingu regularly hosts imperial family and prime ministerial visits has also “been taken into account,” they say.

    The prefecture acknowledges there has never been a case of a foreign-national prefectural employee leaking information. It instead cites a 2023 incident in which a former Chinese-national employee at a private contractor for the Tokyo Metropolitan Government was arrested for illegally taking personal data on 1,920 passport applicants from a passport center in Ikebukuro.

    Mie is also publicly committed to multicultural policies: as of January 1, 2025, it had 66,933 foreign residents, or 3.84% of its population, the fourth-highest ratio among Japan’s prefectures. The prefectural government has invested in Japanese-language education and other support measures and is considering strengthening such programs in the fiscal 2026 budget.

    “With population decline, securing labor—including foreign workers—is a necessity,” a prefectural official said. “We want to listen to residents’ views and then decide how to proceed.”

    According to the prefecture, 12 prefectural governments, including Mie, currently impose no nationality requirement for hires in the governor’s departments: Iwate, Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Aichi, Shiga, Osaka, Nara, Tottori, Kochi, Oita, and Okinawa. In contrast, the national civil service generally requires Japanese citizenship for recruitment.

    Unions and lawyers: “Plain discrimination” and “not rational”

    Organized labor and legal professionals have reacted sharply.

    On January 6, Central Executive Secretary Isao Ito of Jichiro, the national federation of public-sector labor unions, posted a statement on its website demanding the plan be “immediately withdrawn.”

    Citing the seriousness of discrimination and hate speech based on nationality or origin, he wrote that it is “extremely inappropriate and regrettable” for the head of a local government to cater to such sentiments. The proposal, he argued, contradicts Mie’s own multicultural coexistence promotion plan and risks signaling to foreign residents that they “are not equal members of the community.”

    On January 9, three legal groups—the Tokai Labor Lawyers’ Association, the Mie branch of the Japan Lawyers Association for Freedom, and the Mie branch of the Young Lawyers Association—submitted a joint statement to the prefecture calling for the plan’s immediate scrapping.

    The statement argues that refusing to hire foreign nationals as prefectural employees “solely because they do not have Japanese nationality” is discriminatory and “encourages exclusionary and xenophobic attitudes.” It also says the issue is not one that should be decided by a resident opinion survey.

    “This has become a major national issue,” said attorney Yosuke Onuki, a Tokai Labor Lawyers’ Association secretary, at a press conference in the prefectural government building. “We are extremely concerned this will trigger a broader trend toward restoring nationality requirements, and we cannot simply stand by.”

    Experts have also criticized the move. Toshihiro Menju, a visiting professor at Kansai University of International Studies, said foreign-national hiring is essential to meet the needs of growing foreign resident communities and that Mie’s actions run directly counter to this national and local trend.

    “The central government, too, has drawn a clear line between its position and overt exclusionism,” he noted. “Given that Mie has been seen as a success story in coexistence—its rate of foreign residents going on to high school is high—the current development is both surprising and disappointing.”

    Yuki Enari, a professor of international sociology at Mie University, called on the prefecture to revisit and explain the thinking behind its 1999 decision to ease nationality requirements.

    “That step was groundbreaking in that it opened a path for long-term foreign residents,” he said. “If the prefecture now reverses course, it will drag down Mie’s image. Shutting the door again on the grounds of ‘foreign threats’ and using nationality as a dividing line is not rational. Careful debate and thorough explanation to residents are essential.”

    Residents split, governor noncommittal

    Between December 25, when Governor Ichimi first announced the review, and 5 p.m. on January 7, the prefecture received 72 comments via its website, with opinions roughly split for and against.

    Supporters cited “the obvious need” to prevent leaks of personal and classified information and fears that “Japanese people’s jobs will be taken away.” Opponents countered that imposing hiring restrictions without evidence that foreign nationals are more likely to commit wrongdoing amounts to racial discrimination, and that simply putting the question on a survey risks inflaming prejudice.

    The prefecture’s personnel division has also fielded about 50 phone calls during the same period, again divided about evenly.

    At his January 8 New Year’s press conference, Governor Ichimi acknowledged the mounting criticism but offered no clear timeline or direction.

    “I am aware that many organizations have submitted opinions,” he said. “I intend to listen to those voices and make a decision at some point in the future.”

    For now, while the prefecture weighs its options, many of Mie’s cities are drawing their own line: whatever happens at the prefectural level, they say, foreign-national residents will continue to be welcomed as colleagues inside city hall.

    Reply
  • Tim says:

    The grim forecast of Japans future has been retold so many times in the media, blogs etc. Anybody thats been here 5+ years could tell you that, its a hopeless cause. The attached xenophobia is predictable also, and the reasons for it (more control). The only drastic change I have seen is an exponential increase in tourism. I still dont know why that occurred. As you know, there are minders and gate keepers in Japan; nothing happens without cause. some point to the exchange rate, but thats not enough to explain the numbers. Im all for it, but I know oyaji grumblings influence gate keepers decisions. Not only people but also pets, products, etc. Help me get it figured out.

    — The increase in tourism was a government program. Yokoso Japan and Cool Japan and all that.

    Reply
    • JDG says:

      Basically, the rabbit’s out of the hat (or whatever the metaphor is). Sanseito and Takaichi have moved the Overton Window so far to the right in Japan, that just like Trump, you have to give him no-excuses, free-reign to act out his vilest impulses so that the voters can see him FAFO in real time with no one else to blame for giving him constraints or guardrails.
      Like Farage in the UK, denied unfettered power, they will always avoid absolute responsibility for their epic failures.
      Japan is now at the point where racists and ethnonationalists are poisoning any attempt at ‘sensible’ political discourse by claiming that any imperfections in the status quo are because their popularist ambitions haven’t been 100% embraced. Whilst this continues, they will forever offer voters *free unicorns*. Only when they hold total and unconstricted power will there be no more scapegoats and voters will have to face the truth.
      People won’t heed the warnings, they have to be dragged to the bottom of the barrel themselves before they believe it.
      The next decade or so is going to be a nightmare of racism, discrimination, marginalization in Japan as NJ are feared and resented by the majority AND encouraged to do so by politicians and the media.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>