[Blog]Experience Matters More Than Facts When Evaluating Immigration Policy

2025-12-31

When immigration and foreign resident policies are discussed, one phrase is often repeated: “Look at the facts.” Statistics, data, and official reports are presented as if they alone should settle the debate. Facts are, of course, important. But they are not enough. When it comes to evaluating public policy, especially policies that directly affect daily life, lived experience matters far more than abstract facts.

Policies are not implemented on spreadsheets. They operate in neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, hospitals, and local communities. If a policy is statistically “sound” but consistently clashes with people’s real-world experiences, it will not be trusted, accepted, or sustained. Evaluation must therefore begin not with numbers, but with what people actually encounter in their own lives.

This perspective is reinforced by a recent article on Bunshun Online, “Are rising housing prices and crime really ‘foreigners’ fault’? What the data and reality actually show”. The article highlights how complex issues are often simplified into easy narratives about “foreigners,” while ignoring what people on the ground are really experiencing. It also shows how data, when detached from lived reality, can be used to shut down legitimate concerns instead of addressing them.

Facts Are Necessary, but They Do Not Move People

Facts provide context and boundaries for discussion, but they rarely change minds on their own. People judge policy through the lens of daily life: whether procedures work, whether rules are understandable, whether systems feel fair, and whether problems are resolved or ignored. If residents experience repeated inconvenience, confusion, or breakdowns, being told that “the numbers show no problem” only deepens frustration.

Conversely, even if data suggests significant challenges, a policy may be functioning relatively well if people feel supported and conflicts are manageable. These nuances are invisible without listening to experience. This is why facts should be treated as supporting tools, not as the primary lens. Experience must come first.

Experience-Based Criticism Is Legitimate and Necessary

Emphasizing experience does not mean endorsing emotional or reckless arguments. On the contrary, experience-based criticism is often more precise and constructive than abstract debate. When people describe where procedures failed, where communication broke down, or where responsibilities were unclear, they are identifying concrete points for reform.

Such criticism is not a rejection of immigration itself. It is a demand for better-designed and better-managed systems. Problems rooted in administrative capacity, labor oversight, housing supply, or language support cannot be solved by dismissing lived experience as “anecdotal.” Experience reveals where policies actually succeed or fail.

Nationality-Based Stereotyping Destroys Meaningful Debate

It is essential to distinguish between valuing experience and making generalizations based on nationality. Statements such as “people from country X behave this way” may sound like personal experience, but in reality they flatten complex situations into stereotypes. Doing so erases individual differences and obscures the real causes of conflict.

Most problems attributed to nationality are in fact the result of conditions: language barriers, unclear rules, exploitative employment, overcrowded housing, lack of guidance, or inadequate enforcement. Once discussion shifts to nationality, solutions disappear. When discussion stays grounded in conditions and systems, practical responses become possible.

Why Experience Must Come First Today

Social media and online commentary amplify emotionally charged narratives at unprecedented speed. These narratives often have little to do with the listener’s own life. The more people rely on secondhand outrage, the further they drift from their own observations and judgment.

That is why evaluation should begin with simple questions: What have I personally seen? Where did problems arise? Which rules worked, and which did not? Only after articulating experience should facts be consulted—to clarify scale, compare cases, and design solutions. Reversing this order allows data to silence experience rather than support it.

Conclusion: Experience First, Facts Second

Facts matter. But in evaluating immigration and foreign resident policies, they are secondary. Lived experience is primary. Criticism grounded in real experience is not only acceptable—it is essential for democratic policymaking. At the same time, judging people’s character or behavior by nationality undermines both experience and reason.

Public policy exists for people, not for statistics. Its evaluation must therefore begin where people live their lives. Facts should serve experience, not override it. Placing experience at the center—while using facts as tools rather than weapons—is the most realistic and responsible way to think about immigration policy today.