[klausa]

If they meant "permanent resident" when they said "resident" that'd be a pretty weird, given, you know, our 在留カード literally say "residence card" on them; but perhaps this actually common, and I'm one of today's lucky 10,000.

But if they're here on a Digital Nomad visa, then their stay is limited to 6mo with no pathway to extending this — _I_ personally don't think that qualifies as "living" in a place, but perhaps reasonable people can disagree on this point.

[timr]

Yes, I knew as soon as I wrote that that someone would chime in with the English definition of 在留. I thought about deleting it since it isn’t important to the argument, but I left it in because it’s a thing I’ve heard expats say here.

Look, even if OP is just living here on a tourist visa and doesn’t have any form of residency at all, and (s)he’s still following the rules as established, it’s not even remotely ironic to say that the rules are the rules, and the host has the right to change the rules.

It would be ironic if OP did that while admitting to violating immigration law.

[klausa]

But that's the entire point!

>if OP is just living here on a tourist visa and doesn’t have any form of residency at all, and (s)he’s still following the rules as established

No, I don't think they are. I think if you're _living_ here on a tourist visa, that's very much "abusing the visa".

[timr]

It’s not the point. If you’re following the rules, you can call it whatever you like. If you’re not following the rules, then it’s at least ironic that you’d be calling for defense of the rules.

It’s a weirdly motivated form of pedantry to get snarky at someone for using the word “living” when you know nothing about their situation. It’s almost like you’re looking for a reason to be upset.

[cedws]

That’s correct, I’m here on a DN visa. I also stayed on one 6 months last year.