I think that many signs are indicating that Japan will re-emerge as a major technology powerhouse in the coming decades. And being confronted early to demographic transformation will end-up being an advantage. On the opposite side I think that immigration is a temporary band-aid that doesn’t solve any of the structural issues.
I'm also curious why they imagine a future-Japan-tech-powerhouse. I think Japan has a lot of potential for growing and improving as a place to live (especially if they embrace growth, instead thinking tiny-steps will convince women in Japan to magically start having babies[0])
Additionally, all signs do, in fact, point to fewer new immigrants to Japan in the coming decade.
Miti is basically a second government with real power, finance and expertise, and they appear to bet on the correct things, it should have happened earlier but from what I have seen they are moving faster than EU on the semiconductor and robotics fronts.
Sure, take that stricter immigration control. But if people assume upfront that immigrants are intrinsically the source of problems and it takes stricter and stricter controls to filter them down to only those that bring value, this strengthening of filtering will never end.
Remember that one does not _either_ bring value or cause problems. I expect a typical human being to bring some value and cause some problems at the same time. And you can never measure which one is bigger.
I never said that all immigrants are intrinsically a source of problems, and saying that any filtering inevitably leads to never-endingly stronger filters is a slippery slope fallacy.
You absolutely can measure the likely degree of problems an immigrant would bring. To an absurd, extreme, example: you have 1 spot open for immigration. Do you offer it to a semiconductor EE with a clean criminal record in his early 30s, or a 68 year old alcoholic high school dropout with multiple violent criminal convictions?
It's relatively easy to design a system that prioritizes skilled, contributory immigration: academic background, professional career, salary, age, ability to speak the host country's language, skills of relevance, health/fitness, etc.
Sure, the EE from my example can snap and commit a crime, or lose his job and get addicted to drugs; but at a population level, it's inarguable that some groups will cost a country and others will benefit a country.
The "skilled" immigrant is largely a myth. Many countries now have more graduates than ever before with rising graduate unemployment while these "skilled" immigrants just usually end up being another mediocre tech worker. The GDP per capita hasn't been growing since the crash in 2008 for many European countries despite the influx of "skilled" immigrants.
It is mostly propaganda. Said immigrants will likely still never truly socially fit in even with great effort.
It's not as if Japan (or any other country, for that matter) doesn't already have immigration restrictions. Japan uses a points-based merit system for permanent residence [1], not unlike the criteria you suggested. Just to give an example, having a PhD and speaking Japanese at an N1 level (~equivalent to B2 CEFR) is barely sufficient to qualify (unless you're older than 30, in which case it won't be).
The more interesting question to ask is: Why has Japan decided to tighten immigration requirements now? But in my opinion the answer is rather obvious, especially when you consider the current Prime Minister's nationalistic beliefs: It's much easier to blame foreigners for insufficient welfare, ailing infrastructure, etc than to actually improve welfare, infrastructure, etc.
Also, the example of "a 68 year old alcoholic high school dropout with multiple violent criminal convictions" is rather ridiculous. You're arguing a strawman. It's already impossible for such a candidate to immigrate almost anywhere barring some other exceptional circumstances.
This is misleading at best, straight up false at worst.
The points-based system is used to allow you to apply for a PR _on an accelerated timeline_; not apply at all.
Having 70/80 points lets you apply for a PR after being a resident for 1/3 years respectively; you can apply without any points after living here for 10 years.
Fair enough, I should have mentioned that the points-based system is for an accelerated application. The fact was on my mind as I was writing but I see that I forgot to mention it. My bad.
But I will point out that ten years is a major commitment. Surely if someone can hold a job for ten years the default assumption should be that they're contributing to society, not leeching off it.
My example is ridiculous, but it was the easiest way to point out the fallacy that "you can never measure which [immigrants bring value or cause problems]. You clearly can.
And no, that 68 year old alcoholic is free to pass into America under Democrat administrations and tens of thousands have. They technically are illegal, but if you selectively enforce immigration laws and offer things like asylum/refugee status without any checks or balances, the net effect is still the same.
Returning to Japan, as the other commenter pointed out, your PhD example is someone that qualifies for expedited permanent residency, a particular subset of migration that Japan has (correctly) decided to encourage.
The problem is that if you make the place feel very unwelcoming to newcomers because you don't want the people who bring problems, the people who bring value don't come either unless you're offering extremely high pay, which Japan does not.
Unwelcoming to immigrants with problems doesn't necessitate unwelcoming to all immigrants.
Japan's culture doesn't take well to immigration, but Canada bars many immigrants or even visitors on the basis of DUIs - I don't have a DUI, and I'd have to jump through many hoops to migrate to Canada regardless, but nobody can earnestly say Canada isn't receiving many, many (too many?) migrants.
Other than that loony High-School "Nostradamus", what signs do you see ?
They have some core technologies in some niches, but they lag behind both the US & China in Tech. This is esp. true in Robotics, and their academics/industrialists have massive egos & racial pride from a bygone era to ever be able to bridge this gap with immigration. They even removed the Phd scholarships for people moving to Japanese Universities (which have been falling in competitiveness for decades)!
I agree immigration is a band-aid, but that doesn't mean it can't be successfully used while planning and managing structural changes long term.
Of course that does make the issue more nuanced and harder to advocate for when we have all seen politicians don't usually push for long term solutions if their band-aid solution will outlast their term of office.
