No Welfare for Foreigners – Supreme Court

[Yokohammer]

Permanent resident? Been here for years or decades and paid your taxes? Born here even?
Sorry, but you don't count. This might make you wonder why you bothered.

Truly disheartening.

Foreign residents can’t claim welfare benefits: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that foreigners with permanent residency status are ineligible for welfare benefits, overturning a decision by the Fukuoka High Court that had acknowledged their eligibility under the public assistance law.

[wagyl]

Well, while a disappointing decision, I don't think people get permanent residency with the aim of receiving welfare. I think most apply to get stability in their immigration status, and to avoid the periodic application process. Further, if you are a welfare case at the time of application you are likely to be rejected as being a burden on the state.

[Russell]

Permanent resident? Been here for years or decades and paid your taxes? Born here even?
Sorry, but you don't count. This might make you wonder why you bothered.

Truly disheartening.

Foreign residents can’t claim welfare benefits: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that foreigners with permanent residency status are ineligible for welfare benefits, overturning a decision by the Fukuoka High Court that had acknowledged their eligibility under the public assistance law.

Does this also apply to unemployment benefits?

And if it does, would foreigners then be exempt from paying the premiums for those benefits?

This does not sound like they make it attractive for foreigners to move here, isn't it?

[Yokohammer]

Well, while a disappointing decision, I don't think people get permanent residency with the aim of receiving welfare. I think most apply to get stability in their immigration status, and to avoid the periodic application process. Further, if you are a welfare case at the time of application you are likely to be rejected as being a burden on the state.

Of course. I don't think anybody sees welfare as a goal.

The problem is that shit happens. You can be doing fine one day and then, for a variety of reasons, in need of assistance the next. That's what welfare is for, isn't it? To get people who have been victims of circumstances back on their feet, no? It could happen to me, and it could happen to you. And that's part of the service package you're paying for with your taxes.

Worse, it can happen to permanent residents who were born here and have nowhere else to go.

But the real issue is the precedent that has been set here. How many more people are going to be thrown out on the street or rejected because the supreme court has ruled that they are technically ineligible for assistance?

Personally, I'm very disappointed and concerned about where this might go.

[wagyl]

Does this also apply to unemployment benefits?

And if it does, would foreigners then be exempt from paying the premiums for those benefits?

This does not sound like they make it attractive for foreigners to move here, isn't it?

Rather than nationality, I think the requirement to enter into the employment insurance scheme may be related to the nature of your visa. I was given the option when I was on a work visa to not enter into the scheme, with the rationale that without work you are only allowed to be in the country for three months anyway and with the waiting periods and conditions the probability that you would get no unemployment benefit is very high. My guess is that if I had been on a spouse visa or permanent residency at the time they would have signed me up automatically.

Of course my employer also wanted to save a few yen by not having to do the employer co-pay. It was a fairly prominent employer with a minuscule proportion of foreign workforce and which was under shareholder scrutiny so they wouldn't have risked breaking the law for the sake of a few thousand yen a month: they would have cleared that they could do that.

[Russell]

Does this also apply to unemployment benefits?

And if it does, would foreigners then be exempt from paying the premiums for those benefits?

This does not sound like they make it attractive for foreigners to move here, isn't it?

Rather than nationality, I think the requirement to enter into the employment insurance scheme may be related to the nature of your visa. I was given the option when I was on a work visa to not enter into the scheme, with the rationale that without work you are only allowed to be in the country for three months anyway and with the waiting periods and conditions the probability that you would get no unemployment benefit is very high. My guess is that if I had been on a spouse visa or permanent residency at the time they would have signed me up automatically.

Of course my employer also wanted to save a few yen by not having to do the employer co-pay. It was a fairly prominent employer with a minuscule proportion of foreign workforce and which was under shareholder scrutiny so they wouldn't have risked breaking the law for the sake of a few thousand yen a month: they would have cleared that they could do that.

Thanks, Wagyl.

So, I understand that it is a matter of signing up to unemployment benefits or not, isn't it?

Interestingly, there are a similar discussions about welfare benefits in EU countries. In the EU people from most countries can move can move to another EU country without a visa. Will these people be illegible for welfare benefits?

[wagyl]

Yes, if you are not in the scheme making the "unemployment insurance premiums" before becoming unemployed you do not receive any benefits.

Reading the English article by Kyodo linked above, I can't help wondering if it might be a severe oversimplification written by someone who doesn't understand the situation completely. (Neither do I understand the situation completely, but things in that article do not gel) The only way that I can understand the article is if I make the following assumptions:

1) The law, existing from before 1954, restricts welfare to Japanese nationals
2) In 1954, the government issued a directive saying that foreigners should receive benefits.
3) In 1990, the government limited that (by directive? by law?) to foreigners with PR.
4) This welfare is administered by the municipalities, and they have discretion in making their decisions.
5) A Chinese nationality Japan born applicant had their application rejected because they had assets.
6) For some reason she seems to have claimed, in a lawsuit, that her application was denied because of her nationality.

The disconnect between 5 and 6 is what is making me go ??? Was there a difference between the assets standards depending on nationality? Why has her nationality come into this? Or is item 5 on that list a lie told by the municipality? Why is that in the article? Something doesn't follow.

In any event, these assumptions (more accurately extracts of points from the article) suggest that the real issue is the conflict between Item 1 and Item 2, and that may be resolved further by making amendments to the law (if there is the political will..... and I think that is the source of Hammer's feelings)

[matsuki]

Sounds like the article is missing some vital facts...so we don't have the clearest picture here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't part of the taxes we FG pay here for welfare? If they refuse FG welfare, that's their choice but if they're collecting funds from FG for that welfare, that's not going to sit well with any FG.

[Russell]

Sounds like the article is missing some vital facts...so we don't have the clearest picture here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't part of the taxes we FG pay here for welfare? If they refuse FG welfare, that's their choice but if they're collecting funds from FG for that welfare, that's not going to sit well with any FG.

The problem may be that even if you don't pay taxes you will be illegible for welfare benefits, so there is no direct link between paying and receiving. It is not an insurance.

[yanpa]

The court case is about welfare (生活保護), not unemployment insurance, which is an entirely different system.

According to this NHK report, non-Japanese have never had the explicit right to welfare assistance, but local authorities have been providing it at their discretion.

生活に困窮した外国人への生活保護費の支給は、永住資格を持つ人や難民認定された人などを対象に、人道上の観点から自治体の裁量で行われています。

This case was to decide whether foreigners fall within the "国民" definition of the law - this ruling says "no".

However NHK seems to think it will have no effect on the continued provision of discretionary support.

今回の最高裁判決はあくまで法律の解釈を示したもので、自治体が裁量で行っている外国人への生活保護には直ちに影響を及ぼさないものとみられます。

[Yokohammer]

Sounds like the article is missing some vital facts...so we don't have the clearest picture here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't part of the taxes we FG pay here for welfare? If they refuse FG welfare, that's their choice but if they're collecting funds from FG for that welfare, that's not going to sit well with any FG.

The problem may be that even if you don't pay taxes you will be illegible for welfare benefits, so there is no direct link between paying and receiving. It is not an insurance.

Russel, I don't understand this.

If you're a Japanese national you're eligible even if you don't pay taxes (in fact, inability to pay taxes is almost a condition for receiving welfare).

Welfare funds come from taxes, so if you're paying taxes you're contributing to the welfare fund. And it is a form of insurance, just not a personal one. Citizens of the country pay taxes with the understanding that, among other things, those taxes are paying for a welfare system that they just might have to take advantage of one day. There's a safety net in case things go wrong.

Thus far I had never even questioned the fact (now "myth") that if the bottom fell out of my life here in Japan that, especially as a permanent resident, there would be some help available. I have never applied or needed to, and I hope I never will, but my confidence is now shattered. Just one more of the little details that seem to be accumulating lately sending the message that "you really don't belong here, not matter how much you've sacrificed or contributed."

I can't imagine how Japan-born-and-bred permanent residents who have fallen on hard times must be feeling right now. They must be terrified.

[Yokohammer]

... However NHK seems to think it will have no effect on the continued provision of discretionary support.

今回の最高裁判決はあくまで法律の解釈を示したもので、自治体が裁量で行っている外国人への生活保護には直ちに影響を及ぼさないものとみられます。

Assuming the official handling your case isn't having a bad day.

The 「直ちに」bit in the comment above is standard code for "maybe."
The same as 「直ちに人体への影響はない」after the Fukushima plant blew.
There are so many loopholes you can see clear through it.

[Takechanpoo]

this decisions target is ching chong chinese and kimchese, who are natural born scammers.
you euro-american gaijins are entangled with those barbalistic natural born scammer fellows.
im really sorry for it

[Samurai_Jerk]

It'll be interesting to see how this will apply to families. Let's say you a have a family of four with with an FG spouse. If the Japanese spouse applies for welfare benefits for the whole family, will the government consider the FG spouse when calculating how much they receive.

[wagyl]

Reading Mulboyne's twitter I at last think I have worked out what is going on.

There is no legal basis for non nationals to receive welfare benefits. This was the case back before 1954, and nothing has changed. However, the authorities often allowed payments of welfare benefits to others on humanitarian grounds. It is not a right of non nationals to receive welfare, but sometimes/often they did.

What the Supreme court has said has not changed that. The law has not changed. They have just pointed at the elephant which has been in the room for sixty years. The real question now is whether the municipalities will react now that they have been forced to look at the elephant they all knew was there anyway.

I would also suggest that

The 「直ちに」bit in the comment above is standard code for "maybe."

is perhaps more accurately expressed as "directly": there is not a direct automatic cause and effect relationship between them.

[Yokohammer]

Reading Mulboyne's twitter I at last think I have worked out what is going on.

There is no legal basis for non nationals to receive welfare benefits. This was the case back before 1954, and nothing has changed. However, the authorities often allowed payments of welfare benefits to others on humanitarian grounds. It is not a right of non nationals to receive welfare, but sometimes/often they did.

What the Supreme court has said has not changed that. The law has not changed. They have just pointed at the elephant which has been in the room for sixty years. The real question now is whether the municipalities will react now that they have been forced to look at the elephant they all knew was there anyway.

I would also suggest that

The 「直ちに」bit in the comment above is standard code for "maybe."

is perhaps more accurately expressed as "directly": there is not a direct automatic cause and effect relationship between them.

「直ちに」is a bit ambiguous. It has two meanings:

１ 間に何も置かないで接しているさま。直接。じかに。「窓は―通りに面している」「その方法が―成功につながるとは限らない」

２ 時間を置かずに行動を起こすさま。すぐ。「通報を受ければ―出動する」

It is often used to make statements ambiguous and non-binding, which is why I said it is used as code for "maybe." It is sneaky forked-tongue-speak that I dislike intensely.

But yeah, the law has not changed. However, the standard way of dealing with foreigner welfare may change significantly because of this ruling. If the approval/rejection ratio was, say, 70:30 up until now, it might very well become more like the inverse, because now that would be officially OK. The Supreme Court said so.

[wagyl]

I don't think you can expect the Supreme Court to rubberstamp a discretionary humanitarian practice and in effect force the exercise of that discretion. That would be the judiciary becoming the legislature and/or executive. Were they meant to remain silent on this matter which was specifically pointed out to them?

I can understand a level of disappointment that the safety net isn't forced to be stretched as far as to include us, but I think some reactions here seem stronger than are warranted by the events. Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part, we will see. I suppose what spurred me to contribute to this thread was the strong emotions expressed by "make you wonder why you bothered" (and I am not sure what ... bothered applying for PR? Bothered paying tax?) and "they [don't] make it attractive for foreigners to move here." I really hope that nobody makes a migration decision based on the swag of welfare benefits they might receive, not the least because those benefits are always being tweaked and you can't guarantee that they will continue forever (and anyway the word used to be that the Netherlands was a welfare heaven).

I am still interested as to why the issue of the nationality of the applicant ever became an issue before the courts. Maybe the municipality in its defence used it to say "the decision to reject was based on our discretion, on the basis of the assets held by the applicant, and even if that discretion was poorly exercised there is no legal right to receive welfare based on the nationality of the applicant." I am hoping that the applicant wasn't the one to first raise the nationality issue, because that really would have been a case of being better off letting sleeping dogs lie.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I suspect the problem here is not that the woman was a foreign national, but that she had assets and refused to use them.

[Russell]

Wagyl, I basically see where you want to go.

My remark about not making it attractive for foreigners to move here was basically disappointment that they will not be treated equally.

BTW, I pointed out the situation in the Netherlands as an example, though I am aware that the situation there is very different from Japan. It is not easy for a non-Japanese to move to Japan, so there is not much risk that they will abuse the welfare system.

In the Netherlands there have been some abuses in recent years, especially by people from some East-European countries, who have recently been allowed to start living in the Netherlands without preconditions. These people have never paid taxes in the Netherlands, do not speak Dutch, and have no connection whatsoever with the Netherlands. These problems have motivated an increasingly strict policy. Discussions have also started to make some proficiency in Dutch language a condition to receive welfare benefits.

Anyway, in the case of Japan, it would be good to make clear by law that permanent residents will also be illegible to receive benefits. Virtually all permanent residents speak Japanese, and they have a close connection to Japan.

[Yokohammer]

Today's follow up article supports what I was saying yesterday. This is precisely the reaction I anticipated.

Welfare ruling stuns foreigners

Friday’s landmark decision by the Supreme Court that permanent foreign residents of Japan are not entitled to welfare benefits will discourage more municipalities than ever from doling out such aid amid ballooning public assistance expenditures, experts said Saturday.

Hiroshi Tanaka, a professor emeritus of sociology at Hitotsubashi University, agreed that the court’s decision will make it psychologically easier for municipalities to deny aid to non-Japanese.

He also denounced the ruling as “outdated” and “sure to make Japan a target of global ridicule,” as it reinforces the notoriously indifferent attitude that Japanese judges take toward the protection of human rights.

There was a time, he said, when Japan discriminated against foreigners in almost every aspect of the social security system, including child rearing allowances and the national pension plan. But that began to change after Japan joined a series of United Nations-designated treaties in the 1970s and 1980s, giving it the appearance of an “egalitarian society” true to the principals of those accords.

Yet poverty relief for the poor remains one of the few areas where foreigners are still discriminated against, or at least denied the same legal rights as Japanese.

“Foreigners pay taxes,” Tanaka said. “If you pay taxes, you should be eligible for the social security system that you’ve contributed to. That’s a common sense understanding.”

So ... unless the law is changed it's just going to be another smudge on Japan's human rights image, and a crushing blow to the morale of Japan's permanent residents. In my mind (and the minds of quite a few others, apparently) it is much more than a minor legal detail.

The only potential positive outcome would be that now that the ruling has brought the 1954 law to light, the government acts quickly to change and update it. That would be perfect damage control and make the J-gov't look really good. I'm not holding my breath, but I have my fingers crossed. We shall see.

[matsuki]

Lovely, not Japanese, not human mentality in 2014...

[BigInJapan]

Does this also apply to unemployment benefits?

Foreigners can indeed receive unemployment benefits.
Case in point: when I left my job at a Japanese company to go freelance, I registered with Hello Work (can't remember if it was mandatory or not), and told them that I was starting my own venture. They said that I was still eligible for benefits (I think it was 3 months), although it was a lower percentage than if I was completely unemployed and looking for a job.

[canman]

But, is this the beginning of the slippery slope? Next, it will be pension payments, then the national health insurance system. I really don't like the tone his country is adopting.

[kurogane]

Yeah, that is the worrying implication of this ruling. Hard not to get what YokoHammer is getting at there. This drive to the right is getting annoying. I wonder if Abe and Harper are pen pals? Still, it sounds to me like the news reporting is being hoodwinked by the bait and switch tactics of the applicant: her application was rejected because she wasn't eligible due to her assets, not due to her subhumanity. Disingenuous at the very least, wot wot. And as somebody above mentioned, the moron should have kept her mouth shut and not been so Chinese about it.

Let's also keep in mind we are not talking about the 122 of Us that might be affected by this ruling but about a rather large number of people born and raised here and largely invisible as foreigners. I would prefer the government just grandfather them all and allow dual citizenship, even only for them not Us, but it is no longer an onerous or demeaning process to adopt Japanese citizenship, and it is at least a little weird so many haven't. I mean, choosing to keep a citizenship that offers no passport or status?????? One more piece of evidence to show that Koreans can get 3 generations away from Korea and still stay close to stupid. I still think the onus is on Japan to do the decent thing, mind.

Anyways, much ado about nothing much for us, but still Bothersome and Fretful. Eeyore would not be pleased.

[havill]

Just added "can receive welfare" to my list on "Why would anybody want to become Japanese?"

http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/0 ... ecome.html

[Wage Slave]

Just added "can receive welfare" to my list on "Why would anybody want to become Japanese?"

http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/0 ... ecome.html

Shouldn't that be:

"Have a right to receive welfare in exchange for paying your taxes."

Very very sad that you have to actually renounce your original citizenship just to be a normal part the social contract. Still, TIJ eh. Most of the Japanese people I know living in the UK would complain bitterly if they were treated the same way BTW.

[havill]

Just added "can receive welfare" to my list on "Why would anybody want to become Japanese?"

http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/0 ... ecome.html

Shouldn't that be:

"Have a right to receive welfare in exchange for paying your taxes."

Very very sad that you have to actually renounce your original citizenship just to be a normal part the social contract. Still, TIJ eh. Most of the Japanese people I know living in the UK would complain bitterly if they were treated the same way BTW.

Actually, no. You can receive welfare without paying (or have ever) paid or have been able to pay taxes. That's kind of the point of welfare.

[Wage Slave]

Just added "can receive welfare" to my list on "Why would anybody want to become Japanese?"

http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/0 ... ecome.html

Shouldn't that be:

"Have a right to receive welfare in exchange for paying your taxes."

Very very sad that you have to actually renounce your original citizenship just to be a normal part the social contract. Still, TIJ eh. Most of the Japanese people I know living in the UK would complain bitterly if they were treated the same way BTW.

Actually, no. You can receive welfare without paying (or have ever) paid or have been able to pay taxes. That's kind of the point of welfare.

Well yes, that's true, but nevertheless the provision of a welfare state is based on a kind of social contract between "the people" and the Government. The Japanese Government has decided that unless you are prepared to renounce your original citizenship you are not to be included as part of "the people". As I said, the Japanese people that I know living in the UK and contributing there would take strong exception to being treated like that and rightly so.

Just sad really and symptomatic of a regime that doesn't and won't get it.

[havill]

Just added "can receive welfare" to my list on "Why would anybody want to become Japanese?"

http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/0 ... ecome.html

Shouldn't that be:

"Have a right to receive welfare in exchange for paying your taxes."

Very very sad that you have to actually renounce your original citizenship just to be a normal part the social contract. Still, TIJ eh. Most of the Japanese people I know living in the UK would complain bitterly if they were treated the same way BTW.

Actually, no. You can receive welfare without paying (or have ever) paid or have been able to pay taxes. That's kind of the point of welfare.

Well yes, that's true, but nevertheless the provision of a welfare state is based on a kind of social contract between "the people" and the Government. The Japanese Government has decided that unless you are prepared to renounce your original citizenship you are not to be included as part of "the people". As I said, the Japanese people that I know living in the UK and contributing there would take strong exception to being treated like that and rightly so.

Just sad really and symptomatic of a regime that doesn't and won't get it.

So the "social contract" between "the people" (more on that in a bit) regarding welfare in the Japanese constitution is in Article 25, which says:

第二十五条　すべて国民は、健康で文化的な最低限度の生活を営む権利を有する。
国は、すべての生活部面について、社会福祉、社会保障及び公衆衛生の向上及び増進に努めなければならない。

In the official English version:

Article 25. All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living.
In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health.

In case you're wondering why the Japanese constitution uses the word 国民 (legal Japanese national*) when the English version uses "People", that's because in Constitutional Law, "People", when used in an English language constitution, means nationals. For example, the U.S. Constitution says that the "people" elect representatives to serve in Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court (and other courts of the world) have made it clear that when the Constitution says "People" it's talking about the official people of the sovereign state/land: nationals/citizens. You can look at The Constitute Project and read all the other English language versions of the Constitutions of the World: it's clear that when Constitutions say "people", they mean "nationals" or "citizens".

Who exactly is a "kokumin" and who isn't? The Japanese Constitution addresses that in Article 10:

Article 10. The conditions necessary for being a Japanese national shall be determined by law.

日本国民たる要件は、法律でこれを定める。

And what is that law? It's the Nationality Law. And it makes it clear that Special Permanent Residents, Permanent Residents, etc., are not, but there is a way to become one. (and it's not that hard. Trust me. I know)

I noticed you used the word "regime". Are you saying that this is Abe or the LDP's fault? Because sorry, the nationality requirement has been in the law since 1950. The Supreme Court is not based on parties or left/right leanings. It's job is to literally interpret the law and constitution, not make it or bend it.

All they did was say that "kokumin" does not mean or include PR or SPR (a correct literal interpretation of Article 10 and The Nationality Law), and the welfare law (modified in NINETEEN FIFTY) says "kokumin".

There is a social welfare system for foreigners: it's called their country on their passport and their embassy. Japan is responsible for the welfare of its nationals, and your government (that's the one on your passport, not the country you happen to be in, even if you work there and have been there for a very long time) is responsible for your welfare; when you're on vacation in Thailand and the airport gets shut down due to riots, do you go to the Japanese embassy? No, you go to YOUR embassy, because it's YOUR government that is supposed to take care of you when you're out of the country and the shit hits the fan.

If you really want the Japanese government to be responsibly for your welfare, the solution is to legally link yourself to it. The process is called naturalization. I'm not going to sugarcoat it: In Japan, nationality is not just a reward for time logged or taxes paid. It's an ongoing FORWARD commitment (to past, present, and FUTURE laws, no matter where you are in the world) to the Japanese constitution and law. And one of the proofs of that exclusive commitment is yes, monogamy to her laws and constitution, ergo her nationality.

If you can't do that, that's your choice: you have permission to live and work in Japan as a non-national. But you shouldn't ever expect the rights that accompany nationality. And sorry, the J constitution says that the social contract is between kokumin and the nation. Which is pretty normal: most constitutions don't spend too many words worrying about people that legally belong to other lands.

Does that mean that foreigners will never get welfare? I doubt it. They will probably continue to give out welfare on a case by case basis per prefecture at discretion (or even make a new law/policy just for foreigners). The only thing that has changed is that the supreme court has clarified that the law (and the constitution) does not talk about non-Japanese having a RIGHT to it.

[IparryU]

Just added "can receive welfare" to my list on "Why would anybody want to become Japanese?"

http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/0 ... ecome.html

Shouldn't that be:

"Have a right to receive welfare in exchange for paying your taxes."

Very very sad that you have to actually renounce your original citizenship just to be a normal part the social contract. Still, TIJ eh. Most of the Japanese people I know living in the UK would complain bitterly if they were treated the same way BTW.

Actually, no. You can receive welfare without paying (or have ever) paid or have been able to pay taxes. That's kind of the point of welfare.

Well yes, that's true, but nevertheless the provision of a welfare state is based on a kind of social contract between "the people" and the Government. The Japanese Government has decided that unless you are prepared to renounce your original citizenship you are not to be included as part of "the people". As I said, the Japanese people that I know living in the UK and contributing there would take strong exception to being treated like that and rightly so.

Just sad really and symptomatic of a regime that doesn't and won't get it.

So the "social contract" between "the people" (more on that in a bit) regarding welfare in the Japanese constitution is in Article 25, which says:

第二十五条　すべて国民は、健康で文化的な最低限度の生活を営む権利を有する。
国は、すべての生活部面について、社会福祉、社会保障及び公衆衛生の向上及び増進に努めなければならない。

In the official English version:

Article 25. All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living.
In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health.

In case you're wondering why the Japanese constitution uses the word 国民 (legal Japanese national*) when the English version uses "People", that's because in Constitutional Law, "People", when used in an English language constitution, means nationals. For example, the U.S. Constitution says that the "people" elect representatives to serve in Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court (and other courts of the world) have made it clear that when the Constitution says "People" it's talking about the official people of the sovereign state/land: nationals/citizens. You can look at The Constitute Project and read all the other English language versions of the Constitutions of the World: it's clear that when Constitutions say "people", they mean "nationals" or "citizens".

Who exactly is a "kokumin" and who isn't? The Japanese Constitution addresses that in Article 10:

Article 10. The conditions necessary for being a Japanese national shall be determined by law.

日本国民たる要件は、法律でこれを定める。

And what is that law? It's the Nationality Law. And it makes it clear that Special Permanent Residents, Permanent Residents, etc., are not, but there is a way to become one. (and it's not that hard. Trust me. I know)

I noticed you used the word "regime". Are you saying that this is Abe or the LDP's fault? Because sorry, the nationality requirement has been in the law since 1950. The Supreme Court is not based on parties or left/right leanings. It's job is to literally interpret the law and constitution, not make it or bend it.

All they did was say that "kokumin" does not mean or include PR or SPR (a correct literal interpretation of Article 10 and The Nationality Law), and the welfare law (modified in NINETEEN FIFTY) says "kokumin".

There is a social welfare system for foreigners: it's called their country on their passport and their embassy. Japan is responsible for the welfare of its nationals, and your government (that's the one on your passport, not the country you happen to be in, even if you work there and have been there for a very long time) is responsible for your welfare; when you're on vacation in Thailand and the airport gets shut down due to riots, do you go to the Japanese embassy? No, you go to YOUR embassy, because it's YOUR government that is supposed to take care of you when you're out of the country and the shit hits the fan.

If you really want the Japanese government to be responsibly for your welfare, the solution is to legally link yourself to it. The process is called naturalization. I'm not going to sugarcoat it: In Japan, nationality is not just a reward for time logged or taxes paid. It's an ongoing FORWARD commitment (to past, present, and FUTURE laws, no matter where you are in the world) to the Japanese constitution and law. And one of the proofs of that exclusive commitment is yes, monogamy to her laws and constitution, ergo her nationality.

If you can't do that, that's your choice: you have permission to live and work in Japan as a non-national. But you shouldn't ever expect the rights that accompany nationality. And sorry, the J constitution says that the social contract is between kokumin and the nation. Which is pretty normal: most constitutions don't spend too many words worrying about people that legally belong to other lands.

Does that mean that foreigners will never get welfare? I doubt it. They will probably continue to give out welfare on a case by case basis per prefecture at discretion (or even make a new law/policy just for foreigners). The only thing that has changed is that the supreme court has clarified that the law (and the constitution) does not talk about non-Japanese having a RIGHT to it.

"the people", not "people".