Breaking Down Japan's Immigration System From a Former Insider's Perspective

Japan's immigration system has long been facing significant challenges. On one hand, many Kurdish economic migrants are staying on provisional release as undocumented residents or on specific activity visas while applying for refugee status, sparking debates about the system's integrity. On the other, cases like that of the Calderon family reveal the delicate balance between immigration enforcement and children's rights. In the 2001 Calderon case, the parents of a Filipino family overstayed their visas and were ordered to be deported. Their Japanese-born children, however, were granted permission to remain in Japan, raising questions about the fairness and long-term consequences of such decisions.

To gain insight into these issues, JAPAN Forward spoke with Yoichi Kinoshita, a former Immigration Bureau employee. He is also the author of the book, Immigration Black Box (Godo Shuppan, 2023). Now an administrative scrivener, Kinoshita assists foreign residents with navigating Japan's complex immigration procedures. 

Drawing on his extensive experience, he offers valuable perspectives on the discretionary powers held by immigration officials. He also highlights the lack of checks and balances within the current system and the urgent need for reform.

Unchecked Authority

How did your experience working in the Immigration Bureau shape your perspective on the issue of immigration?

I initially worked in a different section at the Ministry of Justice for over ten years before transferring to the Immigration Bureau in 2001. At that time, there were significant issues concerning foreigners, such as fake marriages and fraudulent employment, which were widely reported in the media. There was a prevailing sentiment that we should take strict measures against foreigners.

When I first transferred there, I was surprised by the bureau's significant discretion and power. While I didn't initially question the bureau's authority, I later recognized the risks associated with such unchecked power. Over time, I realized there was no system to control or prevent mistakes in judgment, making the authority problematic. 

As globalization advanced, I questioned whether this outdated system could remain effective. These concerns led me to study discretion in graduate school, and eventually, I decided to leave the Immigration Bureau.

In your book, you compared the regional immigration offices' management to the feudal system of samurai warlords. Could you elaborate on this?

The Immigration Bureau wields significant discretion in granting or denying residence to foreigners, including overstayers. I believe the core issue lies in the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. It delegates final decision-making to the heads of local immigration offices, not the Minister of Justice. 

This decentralization, implemented over 30 years ago, shifted authority from the minister to eight regional office heads. What this did was create inconsistencies in rulings. Similar cases may be approved in one region but rejected in another, akin to a feudal domain system. 

While it's impractical for the Minister of Justice to handle every case, ultimate accountability should rest at the national level. Previously, decisions were made in the minister's name, ensuring uniformity. However, the current system's fragmented approach undermines fairness and transparency in immigration administration. Addressing these disparities is crucial to creating a more equitable system.

Economic Immigrants and Families

You also highlight the case of the Calderon family. What do you believe that case teaches us about the complexities of immigration policy?

The issue of children in immigration cases is deeply complex. While children are universally acknowledged as blameless, their parents' accountability is a separate matter. In the Calderon case, the children were allowed to stay while their parents were ordered to leave. This marked a shift from the prior practice of treating families as a single unit. Although this new approach was groundbreaking, it raised questions about fairness and long-term impact. 

Children need their parents, but should a child's presence automatically grant residence to the parents? Former Minister of Justice Ken Saito's recent decision to allow overstaying parents with no criminal record to remain with their children under 18 born in Japan was unprecedented. In my opinion, it was a significant improvement. 

Yet, gaps persist for children brought to Japan at a young age but born elsewhere. These children are often indistinguishable from those born in Japan but face different outcomes based on their parent's immigration status. 

The challenge lies in balancing children's rights with immigration enforcement. Progress has been made, but finding a comprehensive solution remains elusive.

Should there be measures to prevent individuals from applying for refugee status after entering Japan on a tourist visa?

Japan's refugee recognition system faces many challenges, including a significant rise in applications. A key issue is that the immigration office must accept all asylum applications, leading to a backlog and delays, often lasting years. 

The government attempted to address this by allowing applicants to work after six months. However, this policy inadvertently incentivized applications, as word spread on social media. Many applicants are not genuine refugees but use the process as a legal avenue to work. 

While the government views this as system abuse, applicants see it as a legitimate means of finding employment. This mismatch highlights flaws in the system, which initially lacked safeguards to differentiate between genuine refugees and others. Although recent measures, such as limiting applications after three attempts, aim to curb misuse, they fail to address broader systemic issues. 

Others have raised concerns regarding the potential misuse of the Japanese refugee system by Kurdish applicants. Do you have a perspective on this?

Kurds often don't view themselves as refugees, even within their community. A survey by the Ministry of Justice about 20 years ago found that most Kurds came to Japan for work, not as refugees. However, the survey's findings are complicated, and the interpretation can lead to the dangerous assumption that no refugees exist from that region.

The immigration authorities' assumptions also raise concerns. For example, during my time at the Immigration Bureau, a high number of people from a certain region in China arrived on marriage visas. Many of them entered into marriages that raised suspicions of being fraudulent. Although many cases seemed questionable, authorities began rejecting all applications from that area without proper review, which is problematic. Even if some cases are suspicious, all applications must be reviewed thoroughly.

In the case of Kurds, while many may be economic migrants, it would be wrong to automatically dismiss every one of them as non-refugees based on the region they come from. Making blanket assumptions about a group can lead to misguided decisions. However, viewing them solely as victims of circumstance is equally mistaken. A balanced, careful approach is essential in immigration policy.

Debate over Immigration Policy

How do you view the current debate over immigration policies in Japan?

Immigration debates in Japan are polarized, with extreme views dominating public discourse. Some blame immigration authorities for mistreating foreigners, while others call for stricter regulations to address perceived security risks. 

These emotional arguments prevent balanced discussions. As Japan's foreign population grows — potentially reaching 10% in the near future — constructive dialogue is urgently needed. 

The root problem lies in Japan's immigration system, which grants significant power to authorities but lacks adequate checks and balances. Rather than support, it prioritizes control. Instead of helping foreigners integrate and thrive, the focus remains on managing them, which hinders progress. 

Although immigration reform is necessary, discussions rarely move beyond assigning blame. Clear policies and rational debates are essential to create a system that balances compassion and regulation. Without addressing these fundamental issues, Japan's approach to refugees and immigration will remain ambiguous and ineffective, perpetuating the challenges both authorities and foreigners face.

In your opinion, how can Japan improve the transparency and fairness of its immigration decision-making process?

The immigration system needs significant procedural improvements. First, applicants should be informed of the reasons for visa denials. That would ensure transparency and fairness. This is essential for upholding human rights and should be enforced within current laws. 

Immigration decisions today operate on the outdated assumption that government actions are always correct. This mindset needs to change, as errors in immigration decisions can occur.

A system allowing for third-party review of decisions is crucial so applicants don't immediately need to resort to costly and difficult legal battles. Currently, foreigners must sue to challenge immigration decisions. However, this is a burdensome process, particularly because the applicants are non-Japanese. A proper intermediary process for appeals is necessary to ensure fair and just outcomes.

Additionally, procedural justice demands that immigration authorities respond to applications within a reasonable timeframe. With no legal deadlines or obligation to explain rejections, the current system allows delays and a lack of accountability. Immigration should follow the same standards as other administrative processes, with legally stipulated time limits for reviews and approval. Implementing these changes ー clear explanations for decisions and an appeals system ー is essential for improving the immigration process.

RELATED:

• Immigrants in Japan: Unclear Policy Not Helping Anyone
• Sealed Report on Refugee Claims of Some Kurds Raises Questions
• Surge in Asylum Seekers Drives Public Support to 300 Million Yen
  
  

Author: Daniel Manning