The Immigration Issue

New Immigration Guideline - a prescription for bad medicine

From April 2010 the Japanese Immigration authorities will implement a new "guideline" which will mandate non-Japanese who are obligated to enroll in the social insurance system to display their health insurance cards as one of the criteria to qualify for visa renewal.

New Immigration guideline problematic for expats.

Let's be clear. This is not a law or regulation, it is merely a "guideline". It also has nothing to do with the new immigration laws that were passed in the diet recently (those will go into effect in 2012). The guideline that is specifically referred to here is identified as number "8" on a list of other guidelines named as requirements for visa renewal.

If you carefully read the new guideline, which is displayed on the Ministry of Justice website, you will see that it has a link to download a .pdf file. That page explicitly uses the Japanese word gokyouryoku, which means that it requests our cooperation. It appears to have been written with a degree of built-in fuzziness. While it's speculative whether or not Immigration will actually use this particular guideline as a basis to deny visas, it is our hope that it will nevertheless be revised or withdrawn by the time it is scheduled to go into effect.

We do not believe it to be fair or equitable that Japanese citizens can often live here without being enrolled in social or national health insurance (which, by the way, is the stated law for everyone) and not be subject to legal punishment, yet non-Japanese not in the system will now face the possibility of not being able to renew their visas. By attempting to tie together two completely separate concerns, Immigration is effectively taking the all-important concept of humanity out of medicine. Indeed, Immigration should no more be able to tell us what health care plan to buy than it can dictate whether we send our children to public, private or international schools.

The Law, but . . .

The National Health Insurance Law states that all residents of Japan must be enrolled in National Health Insurance if they are not enrolled in one of the other government insurance plans (Social Health Insurance, etc). But there is NO PUNISHMENT for those who do not comply - that is, until now; and that punishment will be selectively administered only to non-Japanese. The fact of the matter is that there are millions of Japanese citizens who also are not paying into the social system - far, far more than the corresponding group of foreign residents. There are also scores of businesses and schools that are mandated to enroll their employees (Japanese and non-Japanese alike) but do not, and they too go unpunished. Yet, non-Japanese will now be expected to be enrolled or possibly lose the right to renew visas.

Indeed, Immigration should no more be able to tell us what health care plan to buy than it can dictate whether we send our children to public, private or international schools.

Who is responsible for all this . . .

Many non-Japanese are understandably very confused about the new guideline. And, while it was not the Immigration Bureau that drafted it, they are by no means exempt from blame for the confusion. The guideline is actually part of a Cabinet report drafted by the now-defunct Abe Cabinet of 2007. Again, this document was not a law passed in the Diet but a mere report called Third Report on the Promotion of Regulatory Reform and the Opening Up of Government-driven Markets for Entry into the Private Sector. Take our word for it; the report's title makes no more sense in the original Japanese than the preceding official translation.

Interestingly, the Immigration Bureau's version of the guidelines is only a "summary" of the original Cabinet Office report. Furthermore, an official at the Bureau recently told one of our supporters that Immigration has no intention of translating their edition into English - or any other language, for that matter. However, the strongest reason we cite for Immigration deserving its share of the blame is the fact that they have omitted certain sentences which shed additional light on the issue, as revealed below:

The guideline is only intended as a "format," and the decision to renew a visa "shall be left solely to the discretion of the Ministry of Justice" (read as 'the individual Immigration official reviewing your case').
The original guideline further states that "care should also be taken to use the listed items as a format because of individual cases, such as those who have a grace of payment, etc." Obviously, this sentence is very vague. Although mere conjecture, it's possible that it could be a warning to the Immigration Bureau to be careful about 'forcing' non-Japanese who, as a result, might have to make large NHI premium back-payments.
This segment is also omitted: ". . . while taking into consideration the human rights, cultural and social backgrounds of non-Japanese and their families." Perhaps this could be interpreted to mean that if a non-Japanese has his or her own private health insurance and is unwavering in sentiment about it being part and parcel of their heart, soul and body, then they should just be left alone.

Whether our assumptions are right or wrong, a few things are certain.

The Abe Cabinet Office gave the Immigration Bureau a license to do as they please. If an Immigration Officer does not like the way you part your hair, for instance, you're out. If you have all the other seven guideline points in order - and provided, of course, that they don't mind your hair - then you can stay. (Certainly, we are being a bit facetious here, but the underlying point is no less valid.)
The Immigration Bureau has left us totally in the dark, failing to point out certain exceptions, such as those stated above that are included in the original guidelines. We feel it's only fair that the foreign community should at least be told the real rules of the game - and with information in English and other langauges.
The report itself is simply quite vague - so vague, in fact, that we have our doubts whether Immigration can even understand it. Indeed, the answers that our supporters have been getting from Immigration offices around Japan would seem to indicate stances that vary from extremely lenient to extremely militant.

Unexpected side effects . . .

Should Immigration actually attempt to enforce this new guideline, it's easy to foresee the negative impact that it could have on the foreign community of Japan, as well as the very real possibility of creating even more problems for Immigration.

Many foreign workers of Japanese businesses and schools may still not be allowed access to Social Health Insurance at their workplaces. They could be forced - either by their companies or by Immigration - to apply for National Health Insurance (another form of public insurance for the self-employed and the elderly). However, in doing so, they would be required to pay up to two years (more in some cities) of back premiums, calculated from the time they first registered in Japan to the present. It's reasonable to assume that many would not be able to afford such a payment and, as a result, would be forced to leave Japan. It would also compel many would-be legal aliens underground. This would have the exact opposite effect of the intended purpose of the newly-passed immigration laws which seek to curtail non-Japanese from overstaying their visas.

The Free Choice Foundation is strongly opposed to the new "guideline" and intends to garner support from the public and petition the government over this issue. Such an attempt to intervene in individual health care choices and punish only non-Japanese is, after all, a prescription for bad medicine.