Summary of Key Points
Many developed countries, despite facing significant labor shortages (for example, the EU will lack 44 million workers by 2050, and South Korea will need nearly 600,000 more by 2032), are tightening their immigration policies. However, the real purpose is not to reduce the influx of labor but to raise the barriers for those seeking to become citizens. At the same time, public sentiment against immigration often diverges from the actual number of immigrants and public demands: in the UK, although the number of immigrants has decreased by two-thirds, dissatisfaction remains; in the US, public opinion has softened, yet enforcement has tightened; in Japan, where the proportion of immigrants is the lowest, the backlash is the strongest. Behind this is the tactic by political parties to use tough anti-immigration rhetoric as a distraction from real issues such as population aging and misallocation of responsibilities.
Detailed Analysis
1. Shortage of Labor, Yet Stricter Policies? The Reality is About Control over Status, Not Work
The labor gap in developed countries is a well-documented fact: the EU will need 44 million more workers by 2050, and South Korea will require an additional 900,000 (with only 316,000 from natural growth). The so-called "tightening of immigration" policies do not aim to prevent people from working but to prevent them from becoming full citizens:
- UK: The process for converting refugee status to permanent residence has been extended from five years to a temporary permit that must be renewed every 30 months, and the residency period has been increased to 20 years.
- South Korea: The quota for the E-9 visa (for low-skilled workers) has been reduced from 165,000 to 80,000, but there are efforts to expand Top-Tier visas for science and technology professors and create a K-CORE channel to attract skilled talent.
- Japan: The requirements for permanent residence and citizenship have been tightened (including Japanese language proficiency), while the import of certain skilled workers continues.
The essence is to treat immigrants as either "tool people" (for low-skilled or temporary jobs) or "potential citizens"; those seeking full citizenship face significant barriers.
2. Why Does Public Anger Against Immigration Diverge from Reality?
Public dissatisfaction is not about an excessive number of immigrants but about unmet economic pressures:
- UK: Although the number of immigrants has decreased, 67% of voters still feel that immigration is increasing—due to stagnant wages and rising rents, they blame immigrants.
- Japan: Immigrants account for only 3.2% of the population (the lowest among developed countries), yet 64% believe that foreigners are receiving too many benefits. Rent in Tokyo has increased by 20% in three years, and young people's real wages have stagnated, making immigrants a scapegoat.
- US: The proportion of voters supporting reduced immigration has dropped from 55% to 30%, but enforcement has become more stringent (with ICE detaining more people, including those with no criminal records). Policies are not a response to public opinion but aim to give voters the illusion that action is being taken.
The disconnect between public sentiment and reality lies in the fact that immigrants are often seen as a scapegoat for broader economic issues rather than the real source of pressure.
3. Why Do Political Parties Prefer Tough Anti-Immigration Rhetoric?
Voters want "order" (distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants, refugees, and smugglers), but parties focus on showing how tough they are:
- Danish Social Democrats: Adopted welfare chauvinism, reducing asylum applications by 90%, but lost votes in the 2026 election to far-right parties.
- UK Labour Party: Increased the residency period from five years to 20 years, but voters credited this to the far-right Reform UK party, which still failed to gain trust.
- US: Increased deportations of families with no criminal records, causing the Republican Party's advantage on immigration to drop from 16% to 1%. Excessive enforcement has crossed the line for many voters.
The logic behind this is that it is easier to target immigrants as a convenient scapegoat than to address difficult issues like wage stagnation and rising rents.
4. "Anti-Immigration" Policies Are Selective
So-called anti-immigration measures are actually targeted at specific groups:
- US: Increased the cost of H-1B (for tech and university workers) by $100,000 to burden tech companies, while reducing wages for H-2A visas for agricultural workers to benefit farmers.
- Europe: The Kishinev Declaration allows for off-shore processing of immigration cases and revised deportation regulations to send people to third countries. This is not exclusive to far-right parties; mainstream parties also seek to appear more "strict."
- South Korea: Reduced E-9 visas for low-skilled workers while providing incentives for skilled talent, balancing the need for local jobs with economic interests.
The reality is that these policies target the weakest groups or those who are politically convenient to target.
5. Avoiding Real Issues: Using Rhetoric to Hide Incompetence
All countries avoid addressing a core question: how to integrate a growing population of immigrants into society in the long term:
- Misallocation of Responsibility: Central governments benefit from immigration-related GDP and taxes, while local governments bear the costs of education, healthcare, and housing (e.g., cities with high immigrant populations bear the burden of schools and emergency services).
- Avoiding Direct Answers: Japan emphasizes "orderly coexistence" without mentioning immigrants directly, focusing on superficial toughness rather than solving how to integrate immigrants.
- Shifting Blame: Structural issues like aging and wage stagnation are shifted onto immigrants, creating a scapegoat that does not require significant policy changes.
The cost of this approach is that immigrants live in fear (unwilling to demand higher wages or report wage violations), leading to deeper social tensions and unresolved problems.
Conclusion
The essence of the current anti-immigration trend is not about immigrants themselves but about societies' reluctance to confront their own issues head-on. Either they invest in solutions to aging and wage stagnation or they use immigrants as a scapegoat for their economic and social frustrations. Unfortunately, most countries choose the latter approach. This logic of using emotion over governance has a more lasting negative impact on societal stability than any immigration issue itself.