Urmas Teder, journalist
There are restrictive immigration policies. And then there are policies that, under the banner of integration, end up punishing precisely those who have already built their lives in the country. The proposals championed by Kimi Onoda to tighten language requirements for foreign residents are moving uncomfortably close to that line.
Learning Japanese is desirable. Few would dispute that. The problem arises when language proficiency becomes a condition for a family to enjoy legal stability. Once the right to permanent residence depends on passing an examination that many elderly people, individuals with cognitive disabilities, or long-term residents may simply be unable to pass, language ceases to be a tool for integration. It becomes an instrument of exclusion.
Japan is facing an unprecedented demographic crisis. It needs foreign workers, it needs to retain talent, and it needs families willing to build their future in the country. Yet part of its political class continues to behave as though every foreign resident must repeatedly prove that they deserve to stay. For many international families, this legal uncertainty is far from theoretical. Cases such as that of the Indian resident from Saitama, who was ultimately deported together with his family by the immigration authorities, have reinforced the perception that even a life deeply rooted in Japan offers no guarantee of lasting security.
Democracies are ultimately judged by how they legislate for the most vulnerable. A language examination does not have the same implications for a thirty-year-old as it does for someone in their seventies. Nor does it affect equally those living with learning difficulties or cognitive disabilities. If the state applies these requirements without adequate safeguards, the outcome may become profoundly discriminatory, regardless of how often the policy is described in the reassuring language of “integration.”
States have the legitimate right to control their borders. But human rights exist precisely to prevent governments from placing disproportionate obstacles in the way of family life. When public policy begins to jeopardise the cohesion of binational families, it ceases to be a matter of immigration administration and becomes a question of fundamental rights.
Kimi Onoda and the political leaders promoting this model should be held accountable not only for its effectiveness, but also for its human consequences. A society that requires an examination before allowing a family to enjoy lasting security risks forgetting a simple truth: integration is not built through tests. It is built through trust, stability, and equality before the law.
