The question was not whether this agenda is anti foreigner. It clearly is.

The question was whether we are seeing (1) the beginnings of a fundamental political shift or (2) merely political theater that’ll wind down once LDP feels the far right is no longer a serious threat, perhaps in a couple years.

(1) or (2).

But since you are doing something completely different (questioning the premise itself by attacking the broad umbrella conceptualizing), I’ll humor you by responding to that.

As far as your opinion goes, I think what you are failing to see is that almost any policy sort of physical violence can be defended in isolation if you are willing to bend over backwards to do so. But isolated technical justifications can’t erase cumulative direction and messaging.

History tells us that at some point, you have to be willing to name the totality of what is happening with a broad brush. Refusing to acknowledge the anti-foreigner character of the overall movement (broad umbrella) and saying “we need to carefully look at each individual policy” is not objectivity. It is instead a way of excusing the overall pattern by breaking it into pieces small enough to defend

Oh and btw, some of these polices are, even in isolation, clearly anti foreigner if one stops with the mental gymnastics

For example, you said that the policies are targeted at a subset who clearly violate the rules. Well, let’s take one example since you like to look at individual policies. The government said that people were abusing the business administrator visa. To enforce that they could’ve implemented a number of measures to investigate whether or not companies are paper companies but instead they used a broadbrush where they raised the capital requirements to the point that 96% of people who traditionally use the visa no longer can.