I mean, that's exactly it. Why is it so shocking an idea that the Japanese apparently prefer to retain their homogeneity even if it weakens their economy?
And as far as the places that have refugees where people are not happy about it, many people are insisting that refugees "help the economy" as a reason it should continue of course it's a narrow assessment and totally invalidates citizens concerns and that's the problem. Not to mention those pushing for refugees never seem to live in the neighborhoods where the burden or problems will need shouldered. It's always some moral stance rather than an empirical one and frankly a citizens preference to not have to deal with the trouble should be the first consideration but lately it hasn't been.
There are tons of places in the world with fairly massive immigration and/or multicultural societies - that are far worse than Japan.
Brazil is a very, very multi-ethnic and blended society - and it's not exactly a paradise.
In fact - the opposite may be true: Japan is not a huge-huge country, and they hit massively 'above their weight' on so many things.
One could possibly argue that their ethnic cohesion and national identity are actually drivers of their success.
On the whole I guess it's hard to tell, but again I don't think it's fair to always assume 'immigration = good for economy'.
Is this true? How do you know?
And it may be a surprise to many westerners who find a need to push their cultural and political perspectives everywhere, but some people do indeed prefer protecting a cultural or national identity over quick economic gains. A non-insignificant portion of the world looks at America and and instead of thinking, "Wow, this is what we need to be", thinks, "This is what I don't want to become."