Revised Nationality Law

Kyodo reports that revisions to Japan’s Nationality Law will be enacted on Friday:

At present, a child born outside a marriage can obtain nationality if the Japanese father recognizes paternity when the child is still in the mother’s womb. In other words, nationality is not granted to a child who receives paternity recognition after birth.

The envisioned amendment would enable nationality to be given to any child born out of wedlock as long as he or she receives paternal recognition.

Update: The Japan Times has more details about DNA tests and the new nationality rules.

Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)
Kirainet.com – A geek in Japan (Subscribe)

16 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - December 4, 2008 at 7:15 am

Categories: Foreigners in Japan Tags:

helical

Good grief.
This would have been somewhat acceptable if they hadn’t intentionally left out the portion about DNA testing. Something about DNA testing supposedly being a form of discrimination.
http://www.hormel.com VonSkippy

That faint noise you hear is the 1950′s giving this a golf clap.
GAPS

Just so I’m clear, maternal recognition already bestowed nationality, right?

And yeah, the DNA testing is pretty bollocks.

LB

I don’t know if you’d call it “maternal recognition”, but yeah, if the kid came out of a Japanese womb then the kid was Japanese. It is much easier to nail down exactly which womb a kid came out of then where the sperm came from.

The catch is that if the birth mother was a surrogate, the child would be eligible for Japanese nationality even if s/he was 100% non-ethnic Japanese. Granted, surrogacy is not legal in Japan, but if a Japanese national became a surrogate overseas, and her name was on the birth certificate… But what would happen to the Japanese Identity the hawks were going on about?!?

And yes, the exclusion of DNA testing is silly, but then again I haven’t heard they allow provisions for any testing. Paternity was always establishable to a high degree of certainty even in the days before DNA testing, but in Japan you have to get the father to ‘fess up, and can’t (apparently) drag him in for testing.

Next step: fixing the family register laws so that a child born within 300 days of mom’s divorce is not forced to be registered only as the ex-husband’s kid (and I think this will happen fairly soon).

stereo

“in Japan you have to get the father to ‘fess up, and can’t (apparently) drag him in for testing.”

That is because a kid out of wedlock does not need to make his father take a DNA test. If the kid’s mother testifies sexual relation with the man and the man declines to take a DNA test, the judge is most likely to recognize paternal relationship between the kid and the man. DNA tests are used to refute relationship.

“a child born within 300 days of mom’s divorce is not forced to be registered only as the ex-husband’s kid”

This is not a fault of law but that of lazy mothers. If the ex-husband testifies in the court that the child is not his, the child is not recorded as his child. That is about it. Even in the unlikely event that the ex-husband declines to testify, which means he has to pay the costs of living for someone else’s child, the child or the mother can file a lawsuit to refute paternal relationship. Winning such lawsuit is a piece of cake and with the judgment, the child is not recorded as ex-husband’s child.

LB

“If the kid’s mother testifies sexual relation with the man and the man declines to take a DNA test, the judge is most likely to recognize paternal relationship between the kid and the man.”

Right, that is why there was that Filipina on the news shows a year or two ago still trying to get Japanese citizenship for her second daughter. She had two girls, both by the same Japanese father. He acknowledged one before birth, so she got citizenship. He would not acknowledge the second one, so she didn’t. The mother was going to court, and petitioning the justice ministry, and everything else. She was not “being lazy” – the courts held that the father needed to acknowledge paternity before birth, and since he didn’t acknowledge by then or subsequently, too bad, so sad, the kid can’t get a passport.

“Even in the unlikely event that the ex-husband declines to testify, which means he has to pay the costs of living for someone else’s child, the child or the mother can file a lawsuit to refute paternal relationship. Winning such lawsuit is a piece of cake and with the judgment, the child is not recorded as ex-husband’s child.”

Uh-huh – and that is why the recently-filed court case in Okayama made headlines, right? The woman who is suing the state because they won’t let her child be registered as anything other than her ex-husband’s? She says the kid is her new husband’s, her new husband says it is his, as far as I can tell from the articles I read her ex-husband isn’t saying anything. So the parents say it is theirs, and the state says “Nope, it’s the child of that guy over there.” A court case should not even be needed.
stereo

LB, what is your point?
Thanks to the Supreme Court judgment and the amendment to the law following it, paternal recognition after the birth is as good as that before the birth as far as Japanese citizenship is concerned. Now, do you want to make an issue out of a case that has been solved?
And as I wrote above, if a father does not recognize paternal relationship, a judge will establish such relationship based on mother’s testimony. DNA testing is not needed.

“She says the kid is her new husband’s, her new husband says it is his, as far as I can tell from the articles I read her ex-husband isn’t saying anything.”

The current legal procedure requires the new husband to say so in the courtroom before the judge, and the ex-husband be informed of such proceeding. I think it just fair. They should follow established legal procedures, rather than quibbling about the law.
LB

“And as I wrote above, if a father does not recognize paternal relationship, a judge will establish such relationship based on mother’s testimony.”

Except that there have been cases where the mother has testified, as I said, and the court still decided against her.

The point is, the father still, at some point, has to acknowledge paternity. If he does not, the child may not be granted citizenship, as in the above case.

“The current legal procedure requires the new husband to say so in the courtroom before the judge, and the ex-husband be informed of such proceeding. I think it just fair. They should follow established legal procedures, rather than quibbling about the law.”

I actually agree that established legal procedures should be followed while such laws remain in place. However, the law is antiquated. If both parents of a child say it is theirs, then unless the husband or boyfriend objects, the child should be registered according to the parents’ claim. The state has no business saying “yes, but, there’s this 300 day line, you see, and your divorce from your last husband wasn’t finalized until 299 days ago…” That’s BS, especially in this case:
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20081201p2a00m0na007000c.html
stereo

“However, the law is antiquated.”
No, it is not. If the “real” parents follow the legal procedures, their child is recorded as their child and not as ex-husband’s. This is what most divorced couples do in this country.

It boils down to this sentence in the article you linked.
“The woman claims that she was technically unable to get in contact with her former husband because she had been placed under the protection order and therefore it is unfeasible for her to have a child with her former husband.”
All she had to do is to file a lawsuit at a family court and testify before a judge. The ex-husband will be informed of the proceedings and may come to the court to confront her. However, who but that women would think such contact violates the “protection order”? How silly. Haven’t they been fighting a divorce lawsuit for years?
I do not think there is any legitimate reason that she cannot follow current legal procedures to record her daughter as hers and her new husband’s.

Mister M

It would be better if people who are born in Japan were considered Japanese citizens. I wonder when it will happen??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

LB

No, that would not be better. People with at least one parent who is a Japanese citizen should automatically be Japanese citizens, not any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to be born on Japanese soil.

Mister M

It would be better if people who are born in Japan were considered Japanese citizens. I wonder when it will happen

The Overthinker

Watch the skies for airborne porkers….

Jerry

If I put in a dollar in a vending machine and Coke comes out, does the Coke belong to me or the vending machine?

?

If I put a scalpel in you and take your kidney out, does the kidney belong to me or you?

.l.

You did not take part in making the kidney, so it still belongs to him

Revised Nationality Law

Recent Comments

Further Reading

South Korean Government Demands That International Hydrographic Organization Use “East Sea”

Japanese Documentary About Sea Shepherd’s Protest Activities in Taiji (English Subtitles)

Babies Born on March 11th Receive Special Present

Washington Times Freelancer Slams Former Employer, Fails to Ethically Disclose Relationship?

Christopher Johnson Attempts to Silence Criticism of His “Gaijin Gulag” Article (Legal Threats!!!)

Tabloid Reports About Yu Darvish’s Love Life: Kirara Asuka & Miho Koga?

Does K-Pop Group KARA Have Ties to North Korea?

Tokyo Gate Bridge

Sara Errani Admits She Avoided Tennis Tournament in Tokyo: Feared Radiation

Chinese Workers Who Survived March 11th Tsunami Return to Tohoku

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

Japan Blogs

Korea Blogs

Linkroll

Other Asia Blogs