[Blog]The Purpose of Permanent Residence: Is Settlement a Reward for Contribution or a Guarantee of Legal Stability?

2026-11-06

On November 3, 2026, The Guardian published an opinion article by Owen Jones criticizing the British government's tightening of immigration and asylum policies under Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. According to the article, the government plans to double the standard qualifying period for permanent settlement from five to ten years for migrant workers, while extending it to twenty years for certain refugees seeking asylum outside designated resettlement routes. The article argues that these measures could undermine the stability of long-term residents and their trust in the state. However, what interests me most is not simply whether these restrictions are justified. A more fundamental question arises: What is the actual purpose of permanent residence in the United Kingdom? And has Japan adequately defined the purpose of its own permanent residence system?

The British Government Has Articulated Its Policy Objectives

In the United Kingdom, permanent residence is generally known as Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), a legal status allowing individuals to live in the country without a time limit on their permission to stay. In its 2025 immigration white paper and subsequent settlement reform documents, the British government presented settlement not merely as an automatic consequence of prolonged residence but as a status to be earned through economic contribution, good conduct, and integration into British society. This approach was maintained in the government's Earned Settlement reform process, updated on November 2, 2026. Under the proposed framework, the standard qualifying period would be ten years, with shorter routes available to certain individuals who demonstrate substantial contributions and longer periods for those who fail to meet specified requirements. The government has stated that it considered more than 200,000 consultation responses and revised aspects of the proposals concerning families, vulnerable groups, and transitional arrangements. Nevertheless, the announcement of a policy framework must be distinguished from the full implementation of immigration rules, whose detailed provisions and operation may still require further development.

Clear Policy Objectives Do Not Necessarily Mean Sound Policy

The British government's approach reveals a relatively explicit understanding of permanent settlement as a legal status associated with sustained contribution and social integration. This provides a useful starting point for evaluating the institution. However, an important distinction must be made between explaining policy objectives in government documents and establishing those objectives systematically in legislation. The British settlement system operates under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration Rules, but not every objective concerning integration or economic contribution is expressly codified as a unified statutory purpose. Furthermore, clarity of purpose does not guarantee the appropriateness of the measures adopted. If the objective is to promote integration, does extending the period of insecure immigration status actually encourage integration? Or might prolonged uncertainty discourage social participation, investment, and long-term planning? Defining an objective is necessary for accountability, but the relationship between that objective and the means chosen must also be examined.

What Is Missing from Japan's Permanent Residence System?

In October 2026, I published an article entitled "Why Not Abolish the Permanent Residence System Altogether?" The article was not an argument against foreigners obtaining permanent residence. Rather, it questioned why Japan maintains a special legal status distinct from ordinary residence statuses without clearly defining its institutional purpose in legislation. Article 22 of Japan's Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act establishes requirements for permanent residence, including good conduct, sufficient financial independence, and compatibility with Japan's national interests. These are criteria for determining eligibility, not an affirmative explanation of why permanent residence exists. Revisions to Japan's permanent residence guidelines in October 2026 placed greater emphasis on economic circumstances, Japanese-language ability, and integration-related considerations. Meanwhile, the legal framework for revoking permanent residence has also been expanded. In other words, Japan has increasingly specified the conditions for entering and potentially losing permanent residence status without adequately answering the question at the center of the system: What is permanent residence intended to achieve?

Permanent Residence and Naturalization Serve Different Roles in the Two Countries

Another significant difference concerns the relationship between permanent residence and citizenship. In the United Kingdom, settlement is generally an important prerequisite for naturalization. Although exceptions exist, applicants for British citizenship are ordinarily required to have obtained ILR or an equivalent form of settled status. Permanent residence therefore forms part of the legal pathway toward citizenship. Japan operates differently. Permanent residence and naturalization are separate legal procedures. A foreign national may remain permanently in Japan without becoming Japanese, and naturalization does not require prior acquisition of permanent residence. This distinction makes it especially important for Japan to explain why it grants an indefinite residence status independently of nationality. Is permanent residence intended to protect the stability of people who have established their lives in Japan? Is it a special recognition of past and anticipated contributions to Japanese society? Or does it serve both purposes? The answer should influence the eligibility requirements, the legal protections attached to the status, and the circumstances under which it may be revoked.

Is Permanent Residence a Reward for Contribution?

The British concept of Earned Settlement offers a useful reference point because it explicitly links settlement to contributions to the host country. Yet this approach raises another question: How should contribution be measured? Individuals with high incomes may qualify for accelerated settlement, while people working in caregiving, cleaning, childcare, and other socially essential occupations may receive less recognition if income becomes the dominant measure. Economic contribution and social contribution are not necessarily identical. Moreover, if permanent residence is treated entirely as a reward granted by the state, there is a risk that continuing contribution will become an ongoing condition for retaining that status. Under such an approach, permanent residence could gradually lose its distinction from ordinary renewable residence permissions. A special permanent residence system must therefore be designed with both its admission requirements and the stability it guarantees after approval in mind.

Strict Entry Requirements Should Be Matched by Strong Legal Protection

I consider it a legitimate institutional option to design permanent residence as a status granted to individuals whose contributions to Japanese society meet particularly demanding standards. Such an approach could provide a coherent justification for stricter eligibility requirements. However, if the state grants permanent residence after a rigorous assessment, the resulting legal status should receive correspondingly strong protection. If permanent residents remain subject to repeated substantive reassessment similar to ordinary long-term residents, or if their status can be readily withdrawn, the rationale for establishing a distinct permanent residence category becomes less convincing. Strict entry requirements and strong protection after approval are not contradictory. They can be complementary elements of a coherent institutional design. At the same time, reforms must respect the legitimate expectations of people who have already obtained permanent residence or organized their lives around existing settlement rules. Criticism of the British reforms also raises questions about the fairness of imposing new requirements on people who relied on the previous legal framework.

The Balanced Coexistence Model: Mutual Responsibilities of the State and Foreign Residents

The Balanced Coexistence Model (BCM) that I have proposed emphasizes not only the rights and responsibilities of foreign nationals but also the corresponding obligations of the receiving state and society. This perspective is particularly relevant to permanent residence. Foreign residents may reasonably be expected to comply with the law, fulfill tax obligations, and participate in society. However, the state also has responsibilities: ensuring predictability, respecting established family and community relationships, and protecting recognized legal status against arbitrary deprivation. Permanent residence can therefore be understood not merely as a discretionary benefit awarded by the state but as a legal mechanism for stabilizing a relationship developed over many years between foreign residents and the host society. Another possibility would be a two-tier framework separating the protection of long-established residents from the recognition of exceptional contributions. Such a system could establish different eligibility requirements according to clearly differentiated institutional purposes, rather than forcing all long-term residents into a single category.

Define the Purpose in Legislation, Not Merely in Administrative Guidelines

The British settlement reforms demonstrate more than a political decision to tighten immigration requirements. They also show that when a government explicitly states what permanent residence is intended to recognize and achieve, the relationship between policy objectives and administrative measures becomes open to examination. In Japan, discussions have concentrated on eligibility criteria, administrative discretion, and grounds for revocation, while the fundamental legislative purpose of permanent residence has received comparatively limited attention. Is permanent residence primarily a mechanism for protecting the lives of long-established foreign residents? Is it a form of special recognition for contributions to the state? Or should it combine both functions? These questions must be addressed before determining whether particular requirements concerning residence periods, income, Japanese-language proficiency, social integration, and legal compliance are appropriate. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the British reforms, Japan can learn from the importance of articulating the institutional purpose of settlement. Before making entry requirements stricter or expanding grounds for revocation, the state should explain why it establishes permanent residence as a distinct legal status. Giving that purpose a clear legislative foundation would be an essential starting point for a coherent and accountable reform of Japan's permanent residence system.