[Blog]What the H-1B System Can Teach Japan About Managing the Scale of Foreign Worker Admissions

2026-08-30

An August 25, 2026 article in The Japan Times reported that the Trump administration had proposed a new rule requiring employers to pay approximately $103,000 for foreign professionals under the H-1B program. The size of the proposed levy is naturally controversial. From the perspective of Japan’s immigration policy, however, another aspect deserves attention. The H-1B system does not merely examine whether foreign workers satisfy eligibility requirements. It also incorporates a clear form of quantitative management by limiting the number of visas available and determining who should receive them when demand exceeds supply.

What Is the H-1B Program?

The H-1B is one of the principal U.S. visa categories used by employers to hire foreign nationals for occupations requiring specialized knowledge. It is widely used in fields such as information technology, engineering, finance and research. In Japan, its closest broad equivalent is the status of residence known as Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services. The institutional designs, however, differ substantially. The H-1B system generally has an annual regular cap of 65,000, together with an additional 20,000 places for applicants holding advanced degrees from U.S. institutions. Certain universities and research organizations are exempt from the cap, but for ordinary private-sector employers, numerical limits are an important part of the system. Because demand exceeds the number of available places, a mechanism is also required to determine which applicants receive them.

Why Can the United States Impose Numerical Limits?

It would be inappropriate, however, to transplant this system directly to Japan. The H-1B cap operates against the background of the extraordinary attractiveness of the U.S. labor market to international professionals. The United States is home to many of the world’s leading technology companies, financial institutions and research organizations, and offers high salaries and substantial career opportunities. For some workers, employment in the United States can also lead eventually to employment-based permanent residence. In other words, numerical restrictions can function because the number of people who want to work in the United States exceeds the number the system is prepared to admit.

Is Japan in the Same Position?

Japan’s Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services status does not have an annual quota comparable to the H-1B cap. Instead, applications are assessed individually on factors such as educational background, the professional nature of the proposed work, remuneration and the employment relationship with an organization in Japan. Should Japan therefore introduce an annual ceiling and select applicants once that ceiling is exceeded? There are good reasons for caution. Highly skilled professionals do not choose between Japan and their home country alone. They may compare opportunities in the United States, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Europe and elsewhere, taking into account salaries, career prospects, language, family life and pathways to permanent residence. If Japan imposes a numerical ceiling and requires talented professionals to wait for selection, some may simply choose another country. Japan selects foreign workers, but foreign workers also select Japan.

Japan Still Needs to Think About Numbers

This does not mean that the scale of foreign worker admissions should be ignored. As the foreign resident and foreign worker populations grow, the government increasingly needs to explain how many foreign nationals Japan needs and in which sectors. Immigration affects not only the labor market but also housing, education, healthcare, social security and local communities. Examining whether each individual applicant satisfies the requirements of a status of residence is therefore not, by itself, sufficient as a national immigration policy.

The important distinction is between seeking an appropriate scale of admissions and directly controlling that scale through fixed numerical limits.

Quantity Monitoring Rather Than Fixed Quotas

Under the Balanced Coexistence Model, the starting point should not be a predetermined numerical ceiling on foreign admissions. The first task is to understand what is actually happening. In the case of Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services, authorities should continuously monitor not only the total number of residents and new entrants but also their occupations, industries, locations, salary levels, size of employers, job changes, periods of unemployment and duration of residence. Which industries genuinely need foreign professionals? Where are numbers increasing particularly rapidly? What effects are being observed on wages and employment opportunities for domestic workers? Numbers should first be treated not as targets for restriction, but as indicators for understanding reality and adjusting policy.

The Key Is Consistency Between Immigration Status and Reality

Quantity monitoring must be combined with effective immigration examination and reliable information about what happens after permission is granted. For Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services, authorities should not merely confirm that an applicant has a university degree, an employment contract and a job description that appears professional on paper. They should examine whether the person will actually perform professional work, whether the employment of that person is reasonably connected to the proposed duties, whether remuneration is appropriate compared with that of Japanese workers, and whether the actual work performed after approval remains consistent with the activities described in the application.

Conversely, foreign professionals who possess genuine expertise and are genuinely needed by Japanese employers should not be restricted simply because the overall foreign population has increased. Japan should aim for a system in which people who are genuinely needed can enter smoothly, while uses of immigration categories that depart from their intended purpose face effective scrutiny.

When Problems Appear, Adjust the Examination

Even if quantity monitoring reveals a rapid increase in a particular occupation or sector, the immediate response does not have to be a numerical ceiling. The first question should be why the increase is occurring. Is it the result of genuine economic demand, or does it reflect the use of a status of residence in ways that were not originally intended?

Suppose, for example, that monitoring shows that significant numbers of people admitted under Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services are actually performing work with little connection to the professional activities on which their applications were approved. The fundamental problem would not be the number of foreign workers itself. It would be the gap between the purpose of the immigration status and the reality of employment. The appropriate response would therefore be to improve verification of job duties, supporting documentation from employers, and examination at the time of renewal.

There is an important difference between saying, “There are too many foreign workers, so screening must become stricter,” and saying, “Evidence shows a significant gap between declared and actual employment in this category, so verification of these specific elements will be strengthened.” The latter provides a reason for policy adjustment that both employers and foreign workers can understand. This improves predictability and can ultimately strengthen trust in immigration administration.

An Appropriate Scale Should Emerge as an Outcome

Under this approach, the government does not begin by declaring that a particular number of foreign residents is inherently appropriate. Instead, it continuously observes admission levels, labor-market conditions and the actual circumstances of foreign residents; conducts effective immigration examinations; and adjusts the system where concrete problems are identified. Through this continuing cycle, the scale of admissions can gradually align with economic needs and the purposes of the immigration system.

In other words, the primary question should not be simply “How many people should be allowed in?” but “Who is entering, for what purpose, and what are they actually doing after admission?” Effective management of these substantive questions can, in turn, contribute to an appropriate overall scale.

What Japan Should Learn From H-1B

What Japan should learn from the H-1B system is therefore not necessarily its selection mechanisms, numerical cap or large financial burden on employers. The more important lesson is that the scale of foreign worker admissions should be recognized as a policy variable. At the same time, different countries can manage that variable differently. The United States can use numerical restrictions to manage excess demand because of the powerful attraction of its labor market. Japan, which must compete internationally to attract many of the professionals it needs, has little reason to assume that the same method would produce the same results.

The Balanced Coexistence Model and the Scale of Immigration

The Balanced Coexistence Model seeks neither unlimited admission of foreign nationals nor mechanical restriction through predetermined numerical ceilings. Instead, it calls for continuous monitoring of numbers and a clearer understanding of who enters Japan, under which status of residence, where they work, what work they actually perform and how they live in Japanese society. Effective immigration examination should then ensure that the activities contemplated by the immigration system correspond to reality, with policies adjusted where necessary.

An appropriate scale of immigration is not necessarily a single number that can be determined in advance by the government. It should emerge from the continuous observation of economic and social demand, the supply of foreign talent, conditions in the domestic labor market, effects on local communities and the proper operation of the immigration system. Rather than directly controlling numbers, Japan should monitor numbers, understand actual conditions and adjust its institutions accordingly. Achieving an appropriate scale as the result of this process — through the combination of quantitative monitoring and effective immigration administration — may offer a more suitable Japanese approach than simply importing the H-1B model.