Japan records steepest population decline while number of foreign residents hits new high

A few additional survey numbers that caught my attention:

Foreign residents in Tokyo: 581,112

Tokyo’s total population growth (Japanese & foreign nationals; year-on-year): 46,732

Tokyo’s total population growth (only foreign nationals; year-on-year): 63,231

Foreign resident increase in urban areas (year-on-year): 267,685 people

Foreign resident increase in small towns and villages (year-on-year): 21,813 people

59.03% of Japanese are of working age (15-64 years old)

84.64% of foreign residents are of working age (15-64 years old)

Average # of people per household (Japanese and multinational households): 2.09 people

Average # of people per household (Foreign resident households): 1.69 people

https://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/s-news/01gyosei02_02000289.html

Kishida's Cabinet last month approved a plan to expand the scope of job categories allowed for foreign workers,

Maybe they will be allowed to wave orange batons all weather, change diapers at the kindergartens or nursing homes, shuffle forms and mumble at the yakuba like the best of them.

All while paying regressive taxes with no representation or benefits.

They also say that Japan's conservative government needs to do more to raise salaries, improve working conditions and make society more inclusive for minorities and those with non-Japanese roots to attract foreign workers to move to Japan and stay.

Wouldn't want to make too many inroads against all that unearned privilege and leveraged income would you.

With round 92% of Japan squashed into urban areas, falls in population should be embraced as an opportunity to create a society that offers a better quality of life.

More space, more resources to share, combined with forward thinking employment and tax policies that don't simply prioritise the economy, and instead help build a fairer, less materialistic (more sustainable) society.

Nothing will change

2.4% is the foreign population in Japan? That number has to be off?

a whole 2.4% of gaijins.

not much relevance there.

"They also say that Japan's conservative government needs to do more to raise salaries, improve working conditions and make society more inclusive for minorities and those with non-Japanese roots to attract foreign workers to move to Japan and stay"

Pretty sure I read this somewhere back in 1991

Number of foreign residents hits new high

This flies in the face of all those who constantly claim "Japan doesn't want foreigners".

Tamanegi,

I have been seeing the same proposals to solve this problem since I got here in 1995.

Seen the the same total lack of action from the nabobs in the Diet for the same length of time, too.

"We must make sincere efforts" then off to the hostess club with the guys from Dentsu.

It puts me in mind of pandas. They have plenty of chances to do something about their declining numbers, but they just won't do what's required.

When I arrived 30 years ago the figure was less than 1 million. Now 3 million.

Japan could tackle both issues by changing it's laws to accept Dual Nationality. At least with certain nations on a reciprocal basis.

Back in April NHK reported that the foreign population was expected to reach 11% in 2070.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has set tackling the declining births as one of his top policy goals and pledged to secure annual funding of about 3.5 trillion yen ($25.2 billion) over the next three years.

Experts say the proposed low-birth measures are mostly additional funding for existing ones and don’t address underlying problems.

If the experts are correct, that’s 3.5 trillion yen down the drain each of the next three years.

this is happening in all rich countries (though japan now is poor among the rich). it would be interesting to see statistics of distribution of "average number of births" as a function of "income".

Whenever people see foreigners mentioned in Japan they straight away think they are European Caucasian. The fact is, the vast majority of foreigners in Japan are from other Asian countries including India. Of course the largest number are Chinese. The break down of nationalities should be mentioned in this article. It should also be noted that the vast majority of foreigners living in Japan are low income earners most are doing jobs the Japanese don’t want to do, farming and health care. This is also part of the reason people have stopped having babies. They cannot see a secure future for children. Japans immediate future is very dark.

Meanwhile they refuse to give millions of foreign workers residency visas and will not offer citizenship by naturalization so any benefits they actually could get out of immigration, which there are many, look at the USA...we won't get here in lonely old out of date Japan.

Record number of foreigners from... Where exactly? That's super important. Record number of foreigners working at conbinis, ESL industry or engineering?

Nobody said they don't want foreigners (except Uuyoku), but plenty of people have said they don't want many foreigners. And this has not really changed.

Read his comment more closely. He's talking about people accusing Japanese people of not wanting foreigners, of which there is an abundance on this site.

Japan govt done nothing to make certain arrangement for those foreigners, in order to make more people to come. Even up to this time most of Japanese firms already welcome to foreigners.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/08/20/business/japan-firms-welcome-skilled-foreign-workers-majority-open-open-immigration-system-poll/

While Japan Govt just making things difficult, for example in one of specified skill worker the successful applicants only 11.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230609/p2g/00m/0na/036000c

C'mon guys! Band together and at this rate we'll take over the country by the end of the decade.

3 million who Pay Taxes, Can't Vote, and have NO representation .

forward thinking employment and tax policies that don't simply prioritise the economy, and instead help build a fairer, less materialistic (more sustainable) society.

Satire?

Alan BogglesworthToday  06:18 pm JST

Meanwhile they refuse to give millions of foreign workers residency visas and will not offer citizenship by naturalization 

Not true. Foreigners can obtain Japanese citizenship through naturalization. Residency Visas are available to applicants who qualify under J-immigration laws.

NO Taxation Without Representation.

a whole 2.4% of gaijins.

other sources suggest 3.6%

Asusa tabi - I'm pretty sure that this is a common trend in developed countries - I know that the only reason England is able to keep it's birthrate stable is due to higher birthrates in immigrant families - the name Muhammad was the most popular boy's name in the UK in 2022.

Meanwhile they refuse to give millions of foreign workers residency visas and will not offer citizenship by naturalization

What are you talking about? Japan is one of the easier countries to get visa, PR and citizenship in.

3 million who Pay Taxes, Can't Vote, and have NO representation .

If there is a country where you can vote just by paying taxes, why not move there? If there is such a country, please let me know.

Those of us living in Japan must pay taxes. I have never seen a strange sojourner in America or any European country make such a claim.

3 million who Pay Taxes, Can't Vote, and have NO representation .

Because they're not citizens. That's not only normal, it's entirely reasonable.

Want to vote? Become a citizen - the path is there. Don't want to take citizenship because you don't want to give up your original citizenship? So you have a higher loyalty to your original citizenship, which is exactly why they don't want you voting.

It's a pretty straightforward concept the whiners don't like to acknowledge.

Japan should allow dual citizenship as most other countries in the developed world do. There is no downside.

Japan should allow dual citizenship as most other countries in the developed world do. There is no downside.

Well the downside is that they'd have a lot of people who have a stronger loyalty to another nation than to Japan.

That's a downside.

Well Japan has come a long way since I first came to Japan. (More years than I care to remember). In the old immigration department at Otamachi and Sendagaya , staff were rude, obstructive, some even nasty. It was quite apparent that Japan did not want to share it's new found wealth of that time. Now that Japan is in decline attitudes seem to be in reverse. Strange times.

Alan Harrison,

You have some great memories. would’ve life’s to hate seen 80s and 90s Japan

Would’ve loved to have seen

Mark

July 26 09:12 pm JST

NO Taxation Without Representation

Exactly. Let the children vote. They are citizens too.

NO Taxation Without Representation

Exactly. Let the children vote.

Sure! Let the children pay Taxes and vote.

Japan still doesn't have an immigration policy like Western countries. The vast majority come here through short term work/study permits and marriage to Japanese spouses. Japan will remain ethnically and cultural Japanese - which is what the vast majority of people and government want - unless that changes, which it probably want.

Don't expect any significant change in the country's social tapestry. This ain't the West.

What is this 'loyalty' to a country? I don't even know what that means.

I don't feel loyal to any country.

Then why not take Japanese citizenship so you can vote? If you have no loyalty to any other country, then there is no reason not to take Japanese citizenship, and therefore an easy route to voting. If you choose not to, then you don't have much of a place to whine about not being able to vote, as it's your own choice to not make the move to be able to do so. Personal responsibility and all that.

What is this 'loyalty' to a country? I don't even know what that means.

I don't feel loyal to any country. Can you elaborate? Anyone?

Does it mean you would fight for a country in a war?

Loyalty to a country, the term can easily be manipulated but in essence it's the people around you in your community, it's your way of life, the land you live on. These can be shared but must be respected.

Loyalty to a country, the term can easily be manipulated but in essence it's the people around you in your community, it's your way of life, the land you live on. These can be shared but must be respected.

I agree; that's loyalty on a social level. On a legal level, it's the country in whom their primary interest is vested when voting. For example, if Japan had given non-citizen Russians the right to vote, many of them right now would be voting with their primary allegiance to Russia, which isn't necessarily in Japan's best interests. If said Russian had taken Japanese citizenship, they would be all-in on Japan, and it would make more sense on a personal level to vote in Japan's best interest against Russia, as their future is inextricably tied with Japan.

On a legal level, it's the country in whom their primary interest is vested when voting.

Wouldn't that fall under obligation rather than loyalty. I don't feel I should be loyal to a system.

if Japan had given non-citizen Russians the right to vote

A secession vote would hardly pass in Japan regardless of who initiated it, imagine the Ainu attempting to break away, or Okinawans.

Wouldn't that fall under obligation rather than loyalty. I don't feel I should be loyal to a system.

Do you feel that somehow changes my point?

A secession vote would hardly pass in Japan regardless of who initiated it

So it's ok to have a percentage of your population voting in another country's best interests?

Do you feel that somehow changes my point?

I'm not a big follower of the rule of law, since it has been twisted beyond any average person's comprehension but I understand without it, there would be chaos. So I consider that more an obligation than something I give myself willingly to. Statehood for me is like sheep in a fenced pasture and I don't trust the shepherd, just my personal opinion.

So it's ok to have a percentage of your population voting in another country's best interests?

Looking at the electoral system in Japan doesn't exactly inspire confidence of a free and democratic society so I don't think there is much to worry about there.

How about look at examples elsewhere, many countries allow dual nationals to vote. Wouldn't their loyalties be divided? citizenship gained via investment would not exactly inspire loyalty to the host country either would it?

But these countries seem to run fine.

I'm not a big follower of the rule of law, since it has been twisted beyond any average person's comprehension but I understand without it, there would be chaos. So I consider that more an obligation than something I give myself willingly to. Statehood for me is like sheep in a fenced pasture and I don't trust the shepherd, just my personal opinion.

Again, do you feel that changes my point?

Looking at the electoral system in Japan doesn't exactly inspire confidence of a free and democratic society so I don't think there is much to worry about there.

And does that make you therefore feel it's ok for a nation to have a percentage of its population voting for the best interests of another? And how many?

How about look at examples elsewhere, many countries allow dual nationals to vote.

Different strokes for different folks. If they want to allow dual citizenship, that's their right, and I have no problem with that. But I'll remind you that the questions I'm asking that you are avoiding are about Japan.

Again, do you feel that changes my point?

I guess that comes down to your definition of Loyalty.

And does that make you therefore feel it's ok for a nation to have a percentage of its population voting for the best interests of another? And how many?

That is not a simple yes or no answer because this touches on xenophobia and the fear of what could happen.

You need precedence to better understand this and I don't think Russia does not fit in this scenario. What about all the Americans living in Japan, could they not constitute a threat to Japanese sovereignty?

But I'll remind you that the questions I'm asking that you are avoiding are about Japan.

The way I see it is Japan is an aging soceity, outsiders are never truly accepted, regardless of citizenship. The birthrate decline is no accident and still the old guard wants blind obedience and unwavering loyalty.

Reminds me of the waterboys song, "old england is dieing". so no I can't satisfy you with the answer you want.

excuse my mistakes , trying to multitask.

That is not a simple yes or no answer because this touches on xenophobia and the fear of what could happen.

Do you think it's ok that a certain percentage of the population is voting in the bests interests of another nation? And what percentage?

It actually is a very simple yes or no question. I think we all know my point is strong enough that you don't want to answer it, because there is no response to it.

Any nation has the right to limit its voters to people who are voting in the best interests only of that nation, the same as any nation has the right to allow multiple citizenships. The original point made was that there is no downside to allowing dual citizenship, and I clearly refuted that with an unarguable point; that it's not illogical for a nation to want to ensure ALL it's citizens primary loyalty/obligation/vested interests are towards that country.

There's no refutation of this. This isn't my first rodeo on this topic, and no one has ever been able to refute that point.

Do you think it's ok that a certain percentage of the population is voting in the bests interests of another nation? And what percentage?

That is so abstract a hypothetical question and cannot be answered clearly. There is no precedence for it in Japan.

If hypothetically there was a large population of Russians in Japan, how dd that come about? what is the history?

TLDR; the claim was there are no downsides to allowing dual citizenship. I refuted this by pointing out the downside that you could have Russians voting in Japanese elections with Russian best interests, which is clearly irrefutable.

That is so abstract a hypothetical question and cannot be answered clearly

It’s not abstract whatsoever, it’s a matter of opinion. You either agree with this opinion, in which case you’re in agreement with Japan, are you disagree with his opinion, and you’re in disagreement with Japan. Either way, Japan has a vested interest in not having people voting against its best interests. He’s not refusing that point. Try to call abstract all you want, it’s not.

ok so hypothetically speaking, the large foreign population came about via immigration and gaining citizenship yes?

Then if that large population was somehow able to gain a majority vote in a fair and open election, to cede land to their original country of citizenship, it would be a valid democratic process no?

ok so hypothetically speaking, the large foreign population came about via immigration and gaining citizenship yes?

And they have a path. Japan allows foreigners to gain citizenship.

Then if that large population was somehow able to gain a majority vote in a fair and open election, to cede land to their original country of citizenship, it would be a valid democratic process no?

Ignoring the fact that this is exactly what Japan doesn't want, what does this have to do with democracy? This isn't an issue of democracy, as we aren't speaking of citizens of the land with democratic rights. We're speaking of foreigners who want a say in how Japan is operated, and Japan's policy as to whether they offer a path to being able to do so or not.

And Japan is of the opinion they don't want people who's first obligation/loyalty/citizenship is a foreign nation. There is both a moral justification for that, as well as a legal one, and isn't a question of democracy. The most democratic nations on the planet have immigration policies in place, they only differ on who they let in and why, but all of them are in agreement that they have the right to make their own choices on the matter.

Again, the point made was that there are no downsides to dual-citizenship, and I pointed out a downside that you have not refuted.

Again, the point made was that there are no downsides to dual-citizenship, and I pointed out a downside that you have not refuted.

Show me some precedence with regards to your concerns.I'm sorry but arguing points on a hypothetical problem is pointless. Our original discussion was about the definition of Loyalty.

Show me some precedence with regards to your concerns

They're not my concerns, they're Japan's standing policy. Sorry, did you think you were arguing the status quo? Japan has an opinion on immigration, and has a legal and moral right to implement policies in line with that opinion, which they have done, the same as every nation on the planet. You are arguing that they should be doing something other than the status quo, because 'there are no downsides'. I pointed out a downside. The Japanese government isn't going to change their standing policy when there is a downside to that.

Japan's standing policy is not hypothetical, it's very real. You are arguing a hypothetical situation where Japan should allow dual citizenship.

Our original discussion was about the definition of Loyalty.

Actually, the original discussion was whether or not there were any downsides to dual citizenship, to which loyalty was my answer. I pointed out that the definition is irrelevant, which is why I started using your word of obligation, and included 'vested interests'. The definition does not change the fact that there is indeed a downside to allowing dual citizenship.

Japan's standing policy is not hypothetical, it's very real. You are arguing a hypothetical situation where Japan should allow dual citizenship.

Seriously bud, you are all over the shop on this.

Seriously bud, you are all over the shop on this.

Huh? How am I all over the shop by pointing out Japan doesn't allow dual citizenship, but does offer a path to citizenship for those who want it? This is literally what I've been saying from the start.

We're not pretending your accusation that I'm "all over the shop" is anything other than a cover for you not being able to refute my irrefutable point that there is a downside to dual citizenship, which is why Japan doesn't allow it, are we?

Huh? How am I all over the shop by pointing out Japan doesn't allow dual citizenship, but does offer a path to citizenship for those who want it? This is literally what I've been saying from the start.

Japan offers citizenship to those who qualify and pass the requirements.

Required Documents

   Application form (with 2 photos 5cm x 5cm)

   Reason why you want to become a Japanese citizen (hand-written in Japanese by the applicant)

   Resume

   Written oath

   Description of your relatives

   Description of how you make your living in Japan

   Maps of the vicinity of your residence and workplace

   Description of your business (If you or your family member is a business owner)

       Financial statements

       Business license

       Company registration

   Diploma

   Domestic family documents

   Proof of citizenship (birth certificate)

   Certificate of employment

   Certificate of residence card

   Certificate of tax payments (with hold slip, income tax returned record)

   Certificate of your assets (bank deposit, real-estate, securities)

   Driving record

   Others upon requirement

http://www.immigrationattorney.jp/index.php?Japanese%20Citizenship

Thank you, that’s what I’ve been saying from the start.

Japan needs to accept dual citizenship otherwise there's no reason to move there

I didn't need dual citizenship when I moved here 30 years ago. I'm happy with my status.

A big problem is that Japanese men are more loyal to their companies than to their wives, one of the reasons Japanese women are increasingly attracted to foreign men.

Japan needs to accept dual citizenship otherwise there's no reason to move there

The problem with your theory, is that Japan doesn't accept it, and millions have moved to Japan. So clearly your has a major hole in it, that is the same size as your theory.

I have been seeing the same proposals to solve this problem since I got here in 1995.

Seen the the same total lack of action from the nabobs in the Diet for the same length of time, too.

"We must make sincere efforts" then off to the hostess club with the guys from Dentsu.

It puts me in mind of pandas. They have plenty of chances to do something about their declining numbers, but they just won't do what's required.

Yep, 100%. But it's also important to remember that these guys are democratically voted in every time. The people here choose their conservative inaction on matter like this because it best aligns with what the Japanese want. I've said this before, but I am 100% convinced that Japan will opt for a population of 60 million Japanese over a 120 million multicultural mix. Preserving the 'ethnic purity' of the country is an absolute priority - it's a deeply ingrained mindset.

And you know what? Good luck to them. If that's the way they want their country to be, they have every right to do that. I've got no problem with that whatsoever.

I understand most Japanese people don't want their way of life to change in terms of having immigration at any real level. This is because basically they think if it aint broke don't fix it - and Japanese society works pretty well their way.

But also there is a strong but very misplaced sense of Japanese 'exceptionalism' despite the fact that their technology etc came from the west in the 19th century. And after WW2 the US gave the government access to the latest technology and spurred the Japanese recovery to make a defeated nation had had aligned itself with the Nazis a global economic power.

And many Japanese travel abroad, coming back with images of dysfunctional immigrant communities in Europe. They take the worst examples as examples of what a multi-cultural society is - and that's inaccurate.

Their population problem and the accompanying economic decline that will become more obvious despite the Pollyannas who think a top heavy population pyramid and shrinking revenues are fine.

If all those gaijin who have committed themselves for years to Japan including English teachers who actually like their work and do it well had been given the same PR opportunities as Japanese in Canada, the UK, Australia, the US, New Zealand, etc, they would provide part of the solution. Give PR after 5 years for one solution. But I don't think the ruling classes and the society in general wants to provide any reciprocal arrangements.

You'd be surprised too at how many Japanese who come across as rational people think the solution is to have more Asians who 'blend in' as in look East Asian. They'd accept them as a limited number of immigrants but wouldn't feel the same way about black people or white people. Japan's attitude problem in a nutshell.