“Why not simply abolish the permanent residency system altogether?”
At first glance, this may sound like an argument against allowing foreign nationals to settle permanently in Japan.
But what I mean is almost the exact opposite.
If Japan is to maintain permanent residency as a particularly stable legal status, clearly distinct from other statuses of residence, then the law should first explain why such a status exists at all.
Only after defining that purpose should we design, as a coherent system, who should qualify for permanent residency, what obligations permanent residents should bear, and how strongly the status should be protected once granted.
My concern is not whether the requirements for permanent residency are too strict or too lenient. The fundamental problem is that the “entrance” and “exit” rules are becoming increasingly detailed while the underlying question — “What is permanent residency for?” — has never been sufficiently articulated in legislation.
In 2026, Both the “Entrance” and “Exit” of Permanent Residency Changed Significantly
On 1 October 2026, the Immigration Services Agency of Japan revised its Guidelines for Permission for Permanent Residence.
The revised guidelines describe a permanent resident as a person whose permanent residence has been authorized by the Minister of Justice. They further provide that, in determining whether permanent residence would positively serve Japan’s national interests, a broad range of circumstances may be considered, including Japanese-language ability, the applicant’s history of residence and conduct in Japan, demographic trends, labour-market demand, the impact of accepting foreign nationals on Japanese society, and the stability of residence for family units.
The revised framework also clarifies a range of factors concerning income, pensions, taxes and other public obligations, Japanese-language ability, understanding of Japanese systems and rules, and school attendance by school-age children.
At the same time, amendments to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act enacted in 2024 expanded the grounds on which permanent resident status may be revoked, with the new system scheduled to take effect in April 2027.
In other words, both the “entrance” into permanent residency and the “exit” through possible revocation have become much more clearly defined.
Yet the most fundamental question remains unanswered:
Why does Japan have the legal status of “permanent resident” in the first place?
The Purpose of the Mid- to Long-Term Resident System Is Relatively Clear
The position of mid- to long-term residents is comparatively easy to understand.
Japan’s current residence management system is designed to continuously maintain accurate information on foreign nationals residing in Japan for the medium or long term under a valid status of residence, thereby contributing to the proper management of their residence.
Residence cards are issued for this purpose, and residents are required to report certain matters such as their place of residence and, where applicable, changes relating to affiliated organizations.
In other words, the category of mid- to long-term resident has an identifiable institutional function: residence management aimed at ensuring proper residence in Japan.
Special Permanent Residents Also Have a Clear Rationale for Their Legal Status
The position of Special Permanent Residents is also comparatively clear.
Special Permanent Residents have a distinct historical background and should not simply be treated as equivalent to ordinary permanent residents.
What matters for this discussion, however, is the structure of the legal framework.
Separate from the general Immigration Control Act, Japan has a specific statute governing Special Permanent Residents: the Special Act on the Immigration Control of, Inter Alia, Those Who Have Lost Japanese Nationality Pursuant to the Treaty of Peace with Japan.
Their special legal status therefore exists within a statutory framework reflecting the historical circumstances that justify that status.
So what, then, is the rationale for the ordinary status of “Permanent Resident”?
There Are Two Fundamentally Different Ways to Conceive of Permanent Residency
I believe there are at least two possible ways to define the purpose of permanent residency.
The first is what might be called a “settlement-protection model.”
Under this approach, permanent residency exists to provide stability to the lives and legal status of foreign nationals who have lawfully lived in Japan for a long period, worked here, formed families, and developed substantial ties with their local communities and Japanese society.
The second is what might be called a “special-status model.”
Under this approach, permanent residency is a particularly stable legal status granted to foreign nationals whose past contributions to Japan, together with their expected future contributions, are considered sufficiently significant to justify treatment beyond that afforded under ordinary statuses of residence.
These two approaches may appear similar, but they lead to very different institutional designs.
If Permanent Residency Is a “Special Status,” Strict Requirements Are Not Inherently Unreasonable
I believe the second model is also a perfectly legitimate option for Japan to consider.
Under such a model, permanent residency would not simply be something granted because a person has “lived in Japan for a long time.”
Nor would long-term residence alone be sufficient.
Paying taxes and social insurance contributions would not, by themselves, justify permanent residency either. Those are obligations that people living within Japanese society are ordinarily expected to fulfil.
The question would instead be what contribution the person has made to Japanese society in the past, and what contribution can reasonably be expected from that person in the future.
Taking those matters into account, the state could determine that a particular person should be granted an exceptionally stable legal status, substantially freed from the ordinary restrictions of residence management.
That would constitute a coherent rationale for permanent residency.
And if Japan were to adopt such a model, I would not regard substantially higher requirements for permanent residency as inherently unreasonable.
If permanent residency is genuinely a special status, there is a rational basis for making the entrance to that status narrow.
But the Principle Must Be: “A Narrow Entrance, a Strong Status”
There is, however, an important condition.
If the state imposes exceptionally high requirements, examines an individual’s past achievements and expected future contributions, and only then decides to grant permanent residency, the resulting status should be protected with corresponding strength.
At the entrance, the state would conduct a rigorous examination and effectively declare: “You qualify for permanent residence in Japan.”
If, after granting that status, the state were nevertheless to continuously reassess the individual in much the same way as an ordinary mid- to long-term resident, and allow permanent residency to be lost too easily, the very reason for creating a special permanent status would become unclear.
If the entrance is narrow, the status should be strong.
These two principles should be considered together.
Indeed, in relation to the new revocation system, a supplementary resolution adopted by the Diet called for particular caution so that the interests of permanent residents already settled in Japan are not unjustly harmed, and referred to factors such as the extent of their settlement in Japan and the seriousness of any legal violations.
In other words, the idea that permanent residents possess interests arising from their established lives in Japan already appears on the revocation side of the system.
If We Cannot Explain Permanent Residency, Why Not Abolish It?
This brings us back to the question at the beginning.
If Japan cannot clearly explain what permanent residency is for, why not abolish the system altogether?
Foreign nationals could simply remain within the framework applicable to mid- to long-term residents and renew their periods of stay at regular intervals.
At each renewal, the authorities could examine income, taxes, social insurance contributions, compliance with the law, Japanese-language ability, and ties with Japanese society.
If the government wishes to continue reviewing all of these matters even after a person has obtained permanent residency, such a system might actually be more internally consistent.
But if we nevertheless believe that Japan should retain a separate status called “permanent resident,” there must be a reason for doing so.
What is needed now is to articulate that reason.
“Long-Term Settlement” and “Permanent Residency” Could Be Separated
There is another possibility worth considering.
Perhaps we should not expect a single permanent residency system to perform both the function of protecting long-term settlement and the function of granting an exceptional legal status.
For example, foreign nationals who have lawfully lived in Japan for a substantial period and established their lives here could be granted a separate, stable form of residence reflecting the fact of their long-term settlement.
Among those residents, individuals whose past and expected future contributions to Japan warrant special recognition could then qualify for the even stronger legal status of permanent resident.
This would create a two-stage structure.
Such a framework would allow us to move beyond the apparent conflict between the view that “a person who has lived in Japan for a long time should be granted permanent residency” and the view that “permanent residency should be reserved for people whose contributions to Japan merit special recognition.”
Stability for long-term residents. A stronger permanent status for those who meet the criteria for special recognition.
Each could serve a different legislative purpose.
This Is Not an Argument for Taking Away the Status of Existing Permanent Residents
One point must be made absolutely clear.
Nothing in this argument suggests that people who have already been granted permanent residency should have their existing status disadvantaged or weakened.
Current permanent residents satisfied the requirements applicable under the laws, policies, and administrative practices in force at the time, and the Japanese state granted them permanent residency accordingly.
If Japan subsequently changes the philosophy or requirements of the system, that change should not be used to disadvantage people whose permanent status has already been recognized.
On the contrary, respect for legal certainty and trust in public institutions requires that their established legal status be properly protected.
The same consideration should apply to people who have been preparing to apply for permanent residency in reliance on the existing system.
Some have spent many years in Japan accumulating the required period of residence, building careers, paying taxes and social insurance contributions, raising families, and arranging their lives around the requirements that the state itself established.
If Japan fundamentally redesigns the permanent residency system in the future, sufficient notice and reasonable transitional measures would therefore be essential to prevent unforeseeable disadvantages to those people.
Institutional reform should not destroy legitimate reliance on the rules that the state itself previously established.
The Real Question Is Not Whether Japan Should Be “Strict” or “Lenient”
Debate over permanent residency can easily become framed as a choice between being “strict” or “lenient” toward foreign nationals.
I do not believe that framing captures the real issue.
The question should instead be:
To whom, and for what purpose, does Japan grant the special legal status of permanent resident?
Is permanent residency intended to protect the stability of people who have become deeply settled in Japan?
Is it a special status granted to people whose past and future contributions to Japan merit particular recognition?
Or should the system combine elements of both?
That choice must come first.
Only after answering it can we meaningfully debate what requirements relating to years of residence, income, Japanese-language ability, taxes and social insurance, social integration, and contributions to Japan should reasonably be imposed.
“What Is Permanent Residency?” Should Be Answered by Law, Not Merely by Guidelines
The revised Guidelines for Permission for Permanent Residence issued in October 2026 expressly address the “position” of permanent residents and provide a more detailed explanation of how permanent residence should be assessed.
That clarification is important for improving the predictability of the system.
But a more fundamental question remains.
Should the very “position of permanent residents” be defined primarily through administrative guidelines?
The purpose of permanent residency.
The legal status of permanent residents.
The obligations that the state expects them to fulfil.
The degree of protection attached to a status once granted.
And the limits on the state’s power to take that status away.
These are matters that arguably should be debated by the legislature and systematically defined by statute.
If Japan creates a special legal status, the law should also explain why that status exists.
I believe the time has come to consider such legislation for ordinary permanent residents as well.
I Am Not Calling for Permanent Residency to Disappear
So my answer to the question posed at the beginning is clear.
“Why not abolish permanent residency altogether?”
This is not a call to eliminate permanent residency for its own sake.
If we cannot explain why the system exists, then perhaps we should be willing to reconsider it from first principles — including the possibility of abolition.
But if, after doing so, we conclude that Japan does need a permanent residency system, then the state must answer the next question:
“What exactly is permanent residency?”
I believe it would be entirely rational to design permanent residency as a special legal status granted to people whose past contributions to Japan and expected future contributions merit particular recognition.
Under that model, the entrance could legitimately become narrower than it is today.
But once an individual crosses that high threshold and the state grants permanent residency, the resulting status should be protected accordingly.
At the same time, people who already hold permanent residency, and those who have legitimately relied on the existing system while preparing to qualify for it, should not be disadvantaged by a fundamental redesign of the system.
A narrow entrance, but a strong status.
Protect legitimate reliance on the rules of the past, while designing the rules of the future from a clearly defined purpose.
What Japan needs now is not simply another debate about making individual permanent residency requirements stricter.
It is time to define in law why Japan grants the status of permanent resident in the first place.