[Blog]What Large Increases in Immigration-Related Fees Can Cause — Lessons from Overseas Cases

2025-12-05

The Jiji Press article published on November 27, 2025 reports that the Japanese government plans a major hike in immigration-related application fees. According to the report, essential procedures such as extensions, changes of status, and permanent residency applications may rise sharply—from several thousand yen to tens of thousands or more. As Japan’s reliance on foreign workers grows due to its aging population, such substantial increases raise an important question: will higher fees strengthen the system, or push vulnerable migrants out of it? This article reviews overseas cases where similar increases caused significant problems and considers what Japan should learn from them.

A Turning Point in the Cost of Legal Stay

Fee increases themselves can be justified by rising administrative costs, digitalization, and staff shortages. Within a cost-recovery framework, some degree of burden sharing is understandable. However, as the Jiji article suggests, when increases are “large,” the issue goes beyond budget balancing. Such hikes can influence whether foreign residents can reasonably maintain their legal stay. For many migrants and their families—especially those in lower-wage sectors—these fees are essential life-line costs. As they rise, so does the risk that people abandon necessary procedures due to financial constraints.

What Happened Overseas When Fees Increased Dramatically

Internationally, significant hikes in immigration fees have produced multiple unintended and harmful consequences. In the United States, USCIS raised fees dramatically for work visas, family-based applications, and permanent residency. As costs accumulated—often through multiple filings—low-income migrants found it increasingly difficult to maintain lawful status. Critics warned that the system effectively favored those with financial means, pushing many vulnerable immigrants toward irregular status. In the United Kingdom, the Home Office continually raised visa and settlement fees, at times far above the actual administrative cost. Because fees are generally non-refundable even if an application is refused, many families face tens of thousands of yen in financial risk each time they apply. Reports document parents giving up on family reunification or delaying settlement for years because the financial burden was simply too heavy.

Three Major Risks Triggered by High Fees

These cases reveal at least three major risks. First, high fees increase the likelihood that migrants stop using legal channels altogether. Some may forgo extensions or changes of status, drifting into overstaying or unauthorized employment. Second, steep costs destabilize long-term integration. When migrants postpone permanent residency, family sponsorship, or even routine extensions, their lives remain uncertain, affecting children’s education, job mobility, and community integration. Third, high fees indirectly burden employers and local governments. For companies already facing labor shortages, rising procedural costs reduce incentives to retain foreign workers, undermining long-term workforce planning.

A Clear Mismatch: Promoting Foreign Talent While Raising Barriers

Japan is actively seeking more foreign talent through schemes such as Specified Skilled Worker and Highly Skilled Professional visas. Yet dramatically increasing immigration fees sends the opposite signal: “You are welcome to come—so long as you can pay.” For workers in caregiving, construction, food service, logistics, and other sectors with modest wages, even a few tens of thousands of yen is a substantial burden. Overseas experience shows that high fees do not effectively reduce immigration but tend instead to deepen irregular work, exploitation, and administrative avoidance.

What Japan Should Consider Before Implementing Major Fee Hikes

Japan still has time to design the policy carefully. Several considerations are essential. First, fee adjustments should incorporate the principle of “maintainability,” ensuring that foreign residents who follow the rules can realistically afford required procedures. Targeted reductions or installment plans for low-income families, students, or trainees could mitigate adverse effects. Second, fee increases must be accompanied by clear improvements—faster processing, clearer guidance, and fully functional online systems—to maintain user trust. Third, employers and local governments need accessible support structures so they are not left alone to navigate the rising administrative burden.

Conclusion: Ensure That Fee Hikes Do Not Become a Tool of Exclusion

Large increases in immigration-related fees may look like a technical administrative reform, but in reality they directly shape who can remain in Japan and under what conditions. Overseas cases show that steep fees often push lawful migrants toward irregular status, weaken family unity, and undermine social integration. To avoid repeating these mistakes, Japan must ensure that fee increases are not used—intentionally or unintentionally—to exclude those with fewer financial resources. With thoughtful design, burden-sharing measures, and improved administrative efficiency, Japan can build a system in which those who live, work, and contribute here are able to maintain their legal status without disproportionate financial strain. The Jiji Press article is not merely a report about fees—it raises a fundamental question about what kind of society Japan aims to build as it becomes increasingly reliant on foreign residents.