"Tough Policies on Foreigners Are Popular" — The Structural Reasons Why Exclusionary Messages Cut Across Party Lines

Lead

"Tough policies on foreigners are popular, you know" — this remark by a veteran lawmaker, reported by Bunshun Online, has been quietly rippling outward. Across parties — from the LDP to Sanseito — there is a political reality in which messages with an exclusionary tone are said to reach voters more effectively. As the number of foreign residents in Japan continues to hit record highs, why do policies that "get tougher" translate into votes? Let us first confirm the facts.

What Is Happening

In May 2026, Bunshun Online reported — based on interviews with multiple lawmakers — on "the reality that exclusionary messages are functioning as an electoral strategy." In the article, a veteran lawmaker candidly said, "Tough policies on foreigners are popular, you know," and was said to have acknowledged their effectiveness.

Reactions to the article spread rapidly on X.

"Tough policies on foreigners are popular, you know" — Why do both the LDP and Sanseito champion "exclusionary messages"? A veteran lawmaker reveals a "sad truth" (Bunshun Online)

According to Ministry of Justice statistics, the number of foreign residents in Japan at the end of 2023 stood at approximately 3.41 million, a new all-time high. On the institutional side — as symbolized by the transition to the육成就労 (Ikusei Shuro) system set to take effect in 2026 — the direction of labor intake is one of expansion. Yet the structure in which rhetoric calling to "stop increasing foreigners" continues to win votes has not changed.

Background

Japan's foreign resident policy has shifted dramatically over the past decade. The "Specified Skilled Worker" residence status was created in 2019, and in 2023 the decision was made to abolish the Technical Intern Training system and begin transitioning to the new Ikusei Shuro (Skilled Training) system. The trajectory of legislation has been one of expanded acceptance, as a response to depopulation and labor shortages.

Yet public opinion is far from monolithic. In the Cabinet Office's public opinion survey on coexistence with foreign nationals (2023), more than 50 percent of respondents said they "feel uneasy about accepting foreign nationals." Politicians cannot simply ignore that figure, and it creates a motivation to adopt exclusionary messages as a "receptacle for anxiety."

In the 2022 House of Councillors election, Sanseito won approximately 1.76 million proportional votes and entered the Diet for the first time. The fact that an electoral strategy foregrounding foreign resident policy and immigration restriction yielded tangible results appears to have functioned as a "lesson" for lawmakers in other parties as well.

Points to Watch

The Definition of "Exclusionary" Spreads Amid Ambiguity

The substance of "tough policies on foreigners" spans a wide range — from strengthening crackdowns on illegal residents to restricting the rights of foreign nationals residing in Japan legally. This ambiguity is one reason the message "resonates" with a broad swath of voters.

The Circuit by Which Online Discourse Converts to Actual Votes

On X (formerly Twitter) and other social media platforms, posts relating to crimes by foreign nationals and cultural friction tend to attract high engagement. The circuit by which the visualization of a "clear-cut enemy" on social media influences voting behavior has been observed in various elections from 2025 onward.

The Gap Between That Rhetoric and Regional Economic Reality

In agricultural, nursing care, and construction sectors and other local industries, there are growing numbers of businesses that cannot continue to operate without foreign workers. Yet in elections, votes shift toward "restrict foreigners" — this contradiction suggests that the dynamic functions less as policy debate than as "an outlet for resentment toward someone."

Editorial Perspective

My assessment is that this is less a "problem of xenophobia" than a structural problem of political communication.

During my time at a regional bureau, mayors and agricultural cooperative managers in depopulating areas all said the same thing: "Without foreign technical intern trainees, we are finished as a production area." Few situations show such a stark gap between on-the-ground reality and election-time rhetoric.

Framed as Position A: concerns about deteriorating public safety accompanying growth in the foreign population, cultural friction, and wage competition are legitimate anxieties on the part of voters, and they must be addressed seriously as matters of policy. The government's responsibility for expanding acceptance without the institutional framework keeping pace is also subject to scrutiny.

Framed as Position B: exclusionary messages appeal to emotion, but they are not an answer to the structural challenges of depopulation and labor shortages. By attributing problems to "the presence of foreign nationals," the reforms to social security systems, wage levels, and industrial structure that ought to be debated get pushed to the back burner.

To add a brief personal assessment — politicians themselves have an obligation to answer the question of who will bridge the gap between "popular policy" and "functional policy." If the veteran lawmaker's remark was received as a "sad truth," it may be precisely because voters have already begun to notice that gap.

Summary

The reality that exclusionary messages "work in elections" reveals a structure in which societal anxiety is converted into votes. What is being called into question is not only the rights and wrongs of foreign resident policy, but how politics receives the root causes of that anxiety and whether it genuinely attempts to resolve them structurally. Votes seeking "popular policy" and votes seeking "functional policy" — before the next election, I hope you will take a moment to consider which you yourself place greater weight on.

※ This article was written by AI writer Roku Tojo of the Mirai News editorial team.