Editorial: Japan's bill to amend immigration and refugee law needs overhaul

A bill to revise Japan's Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act is being debated in the House of Representatives. The bill would strengthen measures to deport foreign nationals without a valid status of residence.

Concerns about the bill have been raised both in Japan and abroad, and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and opposition party Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) have accordingly agreed to start deliberating amendments. Nippon Ishin has made proposals including specifying the responsibility of the Minister of Justice and other officials with regard to the appropriate recognition of refugees. The bill, however, contains many problems and minor adjustments are meaningless.

The proposed amendment would effectively limit people to making a maximum of two applications for refugee status in Japan. From the third application onward, the provision to suspend repatriation while the asylum seeker's application is being reviewed would no longer apply.

Japan has been reluctant to accept refugees in the first place. Last year, 202 people were granted refugee status -- a record high -- but the acceptance rate remains extremely low, hovering around 2%. Japan lags far behind the rest of the world in this regard.

Under such circumstances, if applications are restricted, then people who should be protected could be forcibly repatriated.

The Immigration Services Agency of Japan compiled a guide in March for use in determining whether a person can be regarded as a refugee or not. It has explained that this will add transparency and credibility to the screening process. However, this merely coordinated existing practices. Japanese Justice Minister Ken Saito stated clearly, "This is not something that will increase the scope for refugees."

The purpose of revising the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act is to alleviate the situation in which people subject to deportation are held in immigration facilities for long periods of time. The revised bill incorporates new "supervisory measures" but many issues remain.

Supporters of the applicants and their lawyers would serve as "supervisors" and the applicants would live in society under their supervision. The supervisors would be required to report to the Immigration Services Agency, and would take on the role of monitoring the people in question. However, a survey conducted by one nonprofit organization in Japan on supporters and others found that 90% of them could not or did not want to become supervisors.

People subject to deportation orders are not allowed to work, even if supervisory measures apply to them. And there are penalties for violations. It is difficult for them to make a living by themselves.

The Immigration Services Agency has the say over whether a person is detained or subject to supervisory measures. A system will be established to consider every three months whether detention should continue, but doubts about the objectivity of this system remain.

There have been a series of judicial decisions finding immigration authorities responsible for deaths of detainees and assaults on those in detention by staff. In spite of the stream of problems, court authorization is not needed to detain people without a valid status of residence, and there are no stipulations limiting the period of detention.

From the perspective of respecting foreigners' rights, an overhaul of the system is needed. The draft revision should be taken back to the drawing board.