Many people are asking whether imminent regulatory changes will really transform the nation’s flawed immigration control system, which has been facing scrutiny over its reliance on the practice of detaining individuals who overstayed their visas for extended periods.

The revision to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law, which changes the rules for detaining and deporting foreign nationals, will take effect from June 10.

During the two years the Diet spent deliberating the bill, the reality of detentions that led to the deaths of detainees and flaws in refugee recognition procedures was brought to light.

The ruling coalition rammed the bill through the Diet despite criticism it make the human rights situation worse for foreign nationals who run afoul of immigration regulations.

The Immigration Services Agency must work hard to regain the public trust it has lost. It can do this by ensuring the revised law is implemented in a way that clearly demonstrates a commitment to valuing human rights and transparency.

The main focus of the revision was to review the often prolonged detentions at immigration facilities, which sometimes last for years. The review was spurred by a disturbing incident in 2019 in which a Nigerian detainee died from starvation while on a hunger strike to protest his long incarceration.

In 2021, Sri Lankan detainee Wishma Sandamali died of illness, exposing the poor medical conditions at a detention center.

A critical problem with immigration detention in Japan is a lack of external oversight. Unlike the arrest and detention of suspects as part of criminal justice procedures, a court-issued warrant is not required to place an overstayer in a detention center. However, the revision has not fixed this problem. The only way forward is to start reducing the term of detentions as much as possible.

The revised law introduces a new “kanri sochi” (supervisory measure), which allows overstayers to remain in Japan without being detained while their cases are processed under the “supervision” of their families, acquaintances or others who serve as unpaid “kanrinin” (supervisor).

This system is crucial for determining whether the revision will reduce the number of detentions. But many lawyers and groups supporting overstayers have said they are unable or unwilling to serve as “kanrinin” because custodians are required to report on the activities of the individuals for whom they are responsible. They say this requirement is inconsistent with their mission of supporting such individuals.

There are legitimate concerns about whether there will be a sufficient number of willing supervisors. The system should be constantly reviewed and improved so it can be used widely.

One element that has been attracting the attention of people concerned both at home and abroad is the implementation of a provision that allows for exceptions to the rule of not deporting asylum seekers whose applications are under review. From the third application onward, those who fail to submit documents showing “sufficient reason” for seeking asylum may face deportation.

This review was based on the immigration authority’s claim that many individuals pretend to be refugees so they can stay in Japan. However, the number of refugees recognized by the government is far lower than in other developed countries, constantly leaving the possibility that those who should be recognized as refugees are not. There have indeed been cases where applications were recognized on the third or subsequent tries.

Sending back people who need protection as refugees to their home countries is not permissible for a country that is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the new rule should be implemented in an extremely cautious manner.

Another improvement allows people seeking refugee status to apply for a “special stay permit” from the justice minister. Many overstayers have already established the foundations of their livelihoods in Japan and integrated into the local community.

The government should take an activist attitude toward allowing such people to stay legally while carefully examining their individual circumstances.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 8