Key Points of the Article
The article “How selective immigration policies can curb populist backlash” makes the following arguments:
- Immigration policies based solely on humanitarianism or open-door principles risk creating unequal burdens and visible costs, which can fuel public resentment. (caliber.az)
- Conversely, selective and transparent immigration systems based on economic needs tend to be more acceptable to citizens and can weaken populist backlash.
- The piece highlights contrasting cases of Sweden and Canada:
- Sweden’s model emphasized asylum and humanitarian acceptance without economic or skills-based criteria. This led to higher welfare costs, weak social integration, and growing public frustration, which strengthened right-wing populist parties.
- Canada’s model employs a point-based, merit-oriented immigration system that evaluates skills, education, language ability, and other factors. Its transparency and adaptability allow for high immigration levels while maintaining broad public support.
- Ultimately, the article argues that sustainable immigration in democracies requires clarity in answering the question: “Who is admitted, and why?”
Implications for Japan
1. Japan’s Current Situation
Japan faces acute demographic challenges: an aging society, declining birthrate, and chronic labor shortages in sectors such as caregiving, agriculture, and construction. In response, programs like the Technical Intern Training Program and the “Specified Skilled Worker” visa have been expanded.
Yet, public opinion in Japan remains cautious toward the broader concept of “immigration.” Concerns about crime, cultural cohesion, and fiscal burdens on welfare persist, making it politically difficult to frame immigration as an explicit policy goal.
2. Sweden vs. Canada: Which Model Matters for Japan?
The Swedish Case
Sweden’s generous humanitarian acceptance policies, without strict skill requirements, brought significant social costs. Strains on welfare, education, and housing systems fueled public frustration, paving the way for populist, anti-immigrant parties.
For Japan, adopting a purely humanitarian, open-ended approach would likely trigger similar backlash. With welfare costs already rising due to aging, unselective immigration would be politically unsustainable and socially destabilizing.
The Canadian Case
Canada, in contrast, selects immigrants based on a transparent, points-based system that prioritizes skills, language ability, and adaptability. It frequently adjusts quotas and criteria according to economic needs, while ensuring public understanding of its rationale.
This approach enables Canada to maintain both high immigration inflows and broad democratic support. For Japan, this model is far more relevant, as it balances demographic necessity with political sustainability.
3. Concrete Lessons for Japan
A. Expanding a Points-Based System
- Japan already has a “Highly Skilled Professional” visa and “Specified Skilled Worker” categories. These should evolve into a more comprehensive, points-based system similar to Canada’s.
- Criteria could include education, Japanese and English language proficiency, professional experience, age, and willingness to settle in regional areas.
B. Policy Flexibility
- Immigration quotas should be adjusted based on housing capacity, local labor market conditions, and macroeconomic shifts.
- Visa categories such as student or technical intern programs should be closely monitored, with swift policy adjustments to prevent misuse and maintain public trust.
C. Linking Immigration to Regional Revitalization
- Municipal governments should be empowered to manage local immigrant quotas and demonstrate measurable contributions, such as sustaining local industries or reversing depopulation trends.
- Publicizing successful regional cases can counter negative narratives and strengthen acceptance.
D. Integration Support and Public Accountability
- Japanese language education, cultural orientation programs, and local exchange initiatives should be expanded to help integration.
- Regular publication of data on immigrants’ economic and social contributions would strengthen transparency and public trust.
E. Raising the Quality of Public Debate
- The government and media should emphasize evidence-based debates, focusing on who is accepted and why.
- Structured dialogues, such as town halls or online consultations, could bring citizens into the policy-making process and prevent alienation.
Conclusion: Selective Immigration as a Democratic Necessity
The Canadian-style selective model illustrates that immigration policy can succeed when it is transparent, merit-based, and flexible. By clearly articulating who is admitted and for what purpose, governments can preempt populist backlash and sustain democratic legitimacy.
For Japan, where demographic decline is unavoidable, the lesson is clear: unselective, humanitarian-only approaches like Sweden’s risk fueling social division, while selective, transparent frameworks like Canada’s can create sustainable immigration policies that balance economic need with public acceptance.
Ultimately, selective immigration is not just about labor supply—it is about political stability, public trust, and ensuring that immigration strengthens rather than destabilizes society. For Japan, adopting such an approach could secure both economic vitality and social cohesion in the decades ahead.