[Blog]Why Does Immigration Policy Become Populist? — From Public Opinion to Implementable Policy —

2026-09-29

1. How Do Cognitive Biases Become Public Policy?

Throughout Part 10, we have examined the cognitive biases that arise when people seek to understand others. Chapter 54 explored social categorization and outgroup homogeneity; Chapter 55 examined ingroup bias and collective self-enhancement; Chapter 56 addressed asymmetrical attribution and confirmation bias; Chapter 57 considered threat perception and scapegoating; Chapter 58 investigated the cognitive structures that have contributed to historical exclusion; and Chapter 59 emphasized the importance of questioning our own perceptions and revising our judgments.

However, cognitive biases affect more than individual judgments and relationships between groups. The ways in which people understand social problems shape public opinion, generate political demands, and ultimately influence policy choices and institutional practices.

Immigration policy provides an important context for examining this process. The admission and settlement of foreign nationals involve numerous issues, including labor markets, economic growth, local communities, education, housing, social security, public safety, human rights, and national sovereignty. These issues are complex, and the effects of policies may take considerable time to emerge.

Political debate, however, often gives greater attention to short and easily understood messages than to detailed explanations of complex institutions. Whether immigration should increase or decrease, or whether regulations should be tightened or relaxed, can be presented as a simple conflict. Yet such a conflict cannot adequately explain who will be affected, who will bear responsibility, or how a particular policy will be implemented.

This chapter examines the structures through which immigration policy becomes associated with populist political discourse. It then considers the conditions necessary to translate social concerns expressed through public opinion into policies that are both implementable and subject to evaluation.

2. What Is Populism?

Populism has several definitions. In political science, it is sometimes described as an ideology that divides society into two opposing groups, the pure people and the corrupt elite, and maintains that politics should directly express the general will of the people. Other approaches emphasize political discourse that reduces complex policy questions to simple conflicts or political strategies that mobilize distrust of established institutions.

However, criticizing existing political institutions, reflecting public dissatisfaction in policy, or advocating restrictions on immigration does not, by itself, constitute populism. In a democracy, criticizing government policy and expressing social grievances through political participation are legitimate activities.

This chapter focuses on the process through which multiple social problems are consolidated into a single, easily understood conflict and circulated as political claims without sufficient examination of institutional realities or the conditions required for implementation.

In immigration policy, for example, housing shortages, low wages, tensions within local communities, and concerns about social security may have different causes and require different responses. Nevertheless, they can be reduced to a single question: whether foreigners should be admitted.

Conversely, similar oversimplification can occur when policymakers assume that expanding immigration will resolve social problems simply because additional workers are needed or economic growth is expected.

Rather than automatically labeling any particular political position as populist, the Balanced Coexistence Model emphasizes examining the definition of the problem, causal relationships, policy instruments, and implementation requirements behind every proposal.

3. Why Is Immigration Policy Easily Reduced to Simple Conflicts?

One characteristic of immigration policy is that those who are the direct subjects of a policy are not necessarily the same people as those who experience its broader consequences.

Businesses may expect the admission of foreign workers to alleviate labor shortages, while local governments may face challenges involving schools, housing, and public services. Foreign nationals seek stable employment and living conditions, but their circumstances may be affected by employers' business decisions or changes in immigration regulations.

Furthermore, the benefits and costs of a policy may emerge for different stakeholders and at different times. The benefits that employers obtain by recruiting foreign workers may be relatively clear, while the costs of Japanese-language education, community support, family education, and administrative procedures may be borne by other institutions.

If policies are implemented without adequately explaining these arrangements, perceptions of unfairness may arise between those who receive the benefits and those who bear the costs.

When such perceptions are directed toward foreigners as a group, problems concerning institutional design and the allocation of costs can become conflicts over the presence of foreign nationals themselves.

Immigration policy must therefore address not only admission numbers and eligibility requirements but also where benefits and costs arise and who is responsible for them.

4. Anxiety Becomes a Political Demand

Chapter 57 examined how anxiety may intensify when people feel unable to control changes in their lives or society, sometimes leading them to attribute the causes of their difficulties to readily identifiable groups.

It is natural for people facing rising housing costs, increasing living expenses, unstable employment, or changes in their communities to demand government action. Dissatisfaction and anxiety about public policy can also provide important information for identifying social problems.

However, the perceived object of anxiety and the actual cause of that anxiety are not necessarily the same.

Even when an increase in foreign residents is identified as a possible cause of housing shortages, the underlying causes cannot be established without examining housing supply, land use, population movements, income levels, construction costs, and other relevant factors. Similarly, an examination of low wages must consider industrial structures, labor productivity, employment practices, minimum wages, and the enforcement of labor legislation, rather than focusing exclusively on the presence of foreign workers.

Recognizing anxiety as a legitimate political concern is different from unconditionally accepting a proposed explanation for its causes.

The Balanced Coexistence Model neither dismisses social anxiety nor assigns responsibility to foreigners as a whole without sufficient examination of the causes. Breaking anxiety down into specific policy problems is the first step in transforming public opinion into policy.

5. There Is No Single Voice of the People

Political debate sometimes employs statements such as "The public opposes immigration" or "The public needs foreign workers."

Yet public opinion is not uniform. The same individual may support the admission of foreign workers while expressing concern about its effects on local education or housing. Someone may demand effective immigration enforcement while also emphasizing the protection of the rights of foreign nationals residing legally in the country.

Attitudes toward immigration may also vary according to residence status, employment sector, admission numbers, local circumstances, family reunification, and the availability of integration measures.

Understanding public opinion therefore requires more than a binary distinction between support and opposition. It requires examining what people are being asked about, under what conditions, who holds particular concerns or expectations, and how strongly those views are held.

Attention must also be paid to the possibility that survey responses vary according to question wording and available response options. A single figure should not be presented as the collective will of society without considering the survey population, fieldwork dates, response rate, and questionnaire.

Public opinion is an important source of information for policymaking. However, understanding public opinion is different from reducing the diverse preferences of society to a single political slogan.

6. Accountability Lies Between Public Opinion and Policy

In a democracy, it is important for governments to listen to public opinion. However, when social demands conflict, it is impossible to satisfy all of them simultaneously.

Expanding immigration to address labor shortages while developing adequate local infrastructure involves questions of time and cost. Tightening immigration regulations likewise requires consideration of administrative resources, effects on businesses, and consequences for foreign nationals who are residing legally.

Policymaking necessarily involves choices among competing interests and values.

Accountability in this process means more than declaring that the government has followed public opinion. It requires explaining which problems a policy is intended to address, which alternatives were considered, and why a particular course of action was selected.

The OECD's 2024 Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, based on research conducted in 30 countries in 2023, reported that an average of 41 percent of respondents believed their national government used the best available evidence when making decisions, while 39 percent believed that the government adequately explained policy reforms. Although these findings do not specifically measure contemporary Japanese public opinion on immigration, they illustrate the broader importance of evidence and explanation in institutional trust.

Reflecting public opinion in policy and explaining the evidence behind policy decisions are not opposing objectives. Connecting the two makes it possible to translate political demands into concrete institutional arrangements.

7. Clear Political Goals Are Not the Same as Implementable Policies

Immigration debates often emphasize objectives that can be expressed through numbers or regulatory changes, such as admission quotas, residence-status requirements, enforcement figures, and application processing times.

Quantitative targets can help communicate policy direction and monitor implementation. However, setting a numerical target is not equivalent to achieving the underlying policy objective.

For example, if the purpose of a policy is to reduce illegal employment, measuring success exclusively through the number of enforcement actions makes it difficult to distinguish an actual reduction in violations from an increase in enforcement activity.

Similarly, increasing the number of foreign workers does not automatically establish whether they are employed under appropriate conditions, receive necessary support, or can live securely in their local communities.

Conversely, restricting admission numbers does not necessarily resolve labor shortages, unlawful employment, or tensions within local communities.

An implementable policy requires clearly defined objectives, target populations, instruments, implementing bodies, financial resources, and evaluation methods. It must also anticipate possible unintended consequences and establish procedures for responding when actual outcomes differ from initial expectations.

The Balanced Coexistence Model considers not only how clearly a policy can be communicated but also the conditions under which it can function in practice.

8. Explaining Policy Benefits and Costs Symmetrically

Discussions of immigration frequently emphasize benefits and costs in different contexts.

Arguments focusing on economic benefits may highlight the alleviation of labor shortages, participation in taxation and social insurance, and contributions to regional economies. Arguments focusing on challenges may emphasize housing, education, administrative services, and differences in everyday practices.

Each of these may be relevant to policy evaluation. However, presenting only benefits or only costs does not provide a complete account of a policy.

Moreover, simply converting benefits and costs into monetary values may fail to capture human dignity, family life, community stability, and effects on future generations.

Policy analysis must identify who benefits, who bears the costs, when those benefits and costs arise, and which rights and responsibilities are involved.

For example, if businesses benefit from recruiting foreign workers while the costs of Japanese-language education and community support are concentrated in local governments, there may be grounds to reconsider how the benefits of recruitment and the costs of integration are distributed.

This does not mean treating foreign nationals as a burden. It means clarifying institutional responsibilities so that all stakeholders, including foreign nationals themselves, can maintain stable lives and sustainable economic activities.

9. Enforcement and Rights Protection Are Not Necessarily Opposing Goals

When immigration policy is oversimplified, strict immigration enforcement and the protection of foreign nationals' rights may be presented as mutually incompatible objectives.

However, immigration control based on law and rights protection through due process are distinct institutional objectives whose compatibility should be carefully considered.

When illegal employment occurs, it is necessary to examine not only the individual's residence status and employment circumstances but also employers engaged in unlawful practices, intermediaries, working conditions, and relevant institutional problems.

At the same time, the legal status and rights of foreign nationals residing lawfully must be respected, and individual violations must not be generalized to foreigners as a whole.

Measures intended to improve enforcement effectiveness must also clarify the legal basis of administrative powers, the conduct being regulated, decision-making criteria, the handling of personal information, and available remedies for individuals adversely affected by administrative action.

Rather than treating stronger enforcement and rights protection as a binary choice, the Balanced Coexistence Model examines the effectiveness of immigration control and the appropriate supervision of administrative authority together.

The relevant questions concern what a policy is intended to achieve and how it affects different people, rather than whether it creates an impression of strictness or leniency.

10. Connecting National Policy with Local Implementation

Immigration policy is designed through national legislation and government strategies, but many of its effects emerge in workplaces, schools, municipalities, healthcare institutions, and local communities.

Even when a national government establishes a framework for admitting foreign nationals, its objectives may not be fully realized unless local arrangements for Japanese-language education, everyday assistance, housing, education, and healthcare access are adequately developed.

Moreover, regions differ in their industrial structures, populations, foreign-resident communities, and administrative resources. A uniform national framework may therefore be insufficient to address every local challenge.

Implementable policy requires mechanisms connecting national institutions with the concrete responsibilities of local governments and businesses.

During the policy design stage, it is necessary to clarify who will carry out each task, how financial and human resources will be secured, and how relevant institutions will share information.

Mechanisms are also needed to incorporate information provided by foreign nationals who use these systems and by residents of the communities affected by them.

The effectiveness of immigration policy depends not only on national policy objectives but also on how those objectives are translated into administrative procedures and everyday living conditions.

11. Translating Political Promises into Administrative Capacity

Political debate requires clear statements of policy direction and objectives. Administrative implementation, however, requires concrete conditions, including legislation, budgets, personnel, information systems, operational procedures, and cooperation among relevant institutions.

Between political commitments and administrative action lies the practical work of implementation.

For example, a commitment to accelerate immigration processing requires an understanding of application volumes and examination procedures, an assessment of staffing and information systems, and safeguards to maintain the integrity of administrative decisions.

Similarly, promoting the social integration of foreign nationals requires clearly identifying target populations, necessary support, implementing institutions, financial responsibilities, and methods of evaluating outcomes.

Even when policy objectives are clear, insufficient implementation capacity may shift excessive burdens onto service users and frontline administrative staff.

The implementation gap examined in Chapter 17 of the Balanced Coexistence Model is directly relevant to this problem. Unless the conditions necessary for practical operation are incorporated into institutional design, policy principles and actual experiences may diverge.

Translating political commitments into administrative operations and examining whether those operations are feasible must therefore be treated as essential parts of policymaking.

12. Five Stages for Translating Public Opinion into Policy

The Balanced Coexistence Model proposes five stages for transforming social demands concerning immigration into implementable policies.

The first stage is problem identification. Concerns and expectations expressed through public opinion must be translated into clearly defined problems. Housing, employment, education, public safety, and immigration control should not be treated as a single undifferentiated issue.

The second stage is the examination of facts and causal relationships. Appropriate statistics and information from relevant institutions should be used to investigate the scale of a problem, the areas in which it occurs, the people affected, and its possible causes. Individual experiences must be distinguished from broader social trends, and policy target groups should not be defined more broadly than necessary.

The third stage is comparison of policy alternatives. Multiple instruments should be considered, including regulation, support services, information provision, administrative reform, and institutional cooperation. Their expected effects, costs, implications for rights, and practical limitations should be made explicit.

The fourth stage is implementation design. Legal authority, responsible institutions, budgets, personnel, information systems, operational procedures, and mechanisms for consultation and remedies must be established. It is also necessary to examine whether the benefits and costs of a policy are disproportionately concentrated on particular stakeholders.

The fifth stage is evaluation and revision. After implementation, policymakers must examine whether the original objectives are being achieved and whether unexpected problems have emerged. Institutions should be revised where necessary, and the reasons for those revisions should be explained to society.

These stages are not intended to diminish the importance of public opinion. Their purpose is to connect the concerns expressed by society with concrete administrative responses.

13. Can Data and RegTech Connect Politics and Administration?

Implementing immigration policy requires accurate information and institutional arrangements that allow relevant organizations to use that information appropriately.

When information concerning residence status, employment, social insurance, education, and housing is fragmented across separate systems, it may be difficult to understand how policies are operating or where problems are emerging.

RegTech and API integration, examined in Parts 4 and 7, provide possible means of connecting these institutional systems.

For example, digital immigration procedures may help applicants and businesses obtain necessary information while enabling administrative institutions to monitor processing progress and identify operational problems. Appropriately designed statistics and administrative data may also provide evidence for evaluating policy outcomes.

However, collecting data does not automatically establish that a policy is justified. Decisions must still be made about what to measure, how to classify information, and the purposes for which data will be used.

Personal information protection, access controls, data accuracy, correction procedures, and system security must also be ensured.

RegTech should not be understood as technology that automates political choices. Its role is to support the lawful implementation of policies adopted through democratic processes and to make their outcomes subject to examination.

14. Establishing Evaluation Criteria Before Implementation

If policy evaluation depends solely on political impressions after implementation, it becomes difficult to determine whether the original objectives have been achieved.

Evaluation criteria should therefore be established during the policy design stage.

For measures addressing illegal employment, policymakers may consider indicators beyond enforcement figures, including responses to unlawful employment practices, transitions to lawful employment, and the prevention of repeated violations.

For foreign-worker admission systems, it may be appropriate to examine not only admission numbers but also employment continuity, working conditions, access to necessary support, and actual use of institutional services.

For social integration, evaluation may need to consider multiple dimensions, including understanding of available information, responses to everyday difficulties, and participation in local communities, rather than relying exclusively on the number of people using support services.

However, evaluating policy outcomes must not compromise the personal information or rights of the people concerned. It is also important not to define policy objectives solely according to what can easily be measured.

Evaluation indicators should be tools for identifying a policy's effects and limitations and making necessary corrections, rather than numbers used merely to justify decisions already made.

15. Turning Disagreement into a Shared Question of Implementability

Differences of opinion concerning immigration policy are not inherently problematic in a democracy. People hold different values and different views about the future of society.

What matters is whether people with opposing views can discuss policy objectives and implementation requirements without automatically attributing questionable motives to one another.

Those advocating expanded immigration need to explain not only anticipated labor-market or economic benefits but also the necessary reception infrastructure, allocation of costs, and protection of rights.

Those advocating restrictions need to identify the problems that restrictions are intended to address and examine their potential effects on labor markets, businesses, local communities, and foreign nationals themselves.

Proposals for stricter immigration enforcement require consideration of the violations being targeted, enforcement effectiveness, administrative resources, and due process. Proposals to strengthen rights protection likewise require concrete institutional arrangements, implementing bodies, and accessible remedies.

By translating different policy positions into shared questions about practical implementation, political debate can move beyond abstract support or opposition toward institutional design.

16. From Public Opinion to Institutions, and from Institutions to Trust

Part 10 has examined how human cognition influences judgments about foreign nationals and receiving societies. This chapter has extended that examination to the processes through which those judgments shape public opinion, political demands, and policy decisions.

Social concerns and expectations provide important information for identifying policy problems. However, transforming them into concrete policies requires distinguishing facts from interpretations, examining causal relationships, reconciling competing values and interests, and establishing the conditions necessary for implementation.

The Balanced Coexistence Model does not prescribe a predetermined conclusion about immigration for society as a whole. It offers a framework for clarifying policy objectives and instruments and for reconciling benefits and costs, rights and responsibilities, and immigration control and integration through institutions whose operation can be examined and evaluated.

Achieving this requires connecting political debate with administrative implementation and continuously explaining the evidence behind policy decisions, implementation processes, outcomes, and emerging problems.

After a policy has been implemented, people experience the institutions it creates. They compare official explanations with actual administrative practices and seek corrections when problems arise. As these experiences accumulate, political commitments may develop into institutions upon which people can reasonably rely.

From understanding to predictability, from predictability to reliability, and from reliability to trust. The cognitive challenges examined throughout Part 10 can become opportunities for collective learning when they are addressed through institutional design and practice.

Part 11 brings together the questions of institutions, technology, experience, cognition, and policy implementation examined throughout this book. It begins by asking how trust becomes embedded in society. Trust cannot be established merely through political declarations. It develops when members of society repeatedly experience consistency between institutional explanations and actual practices, and when they can reasonably expect problems to be addressed through appropriate procedures.