Comments

Posts

Multiple nationalities for Japanese citizens?

The Japan Times has reported that LDP lawmaker Taro Kono has proposed that Japan drop its law banning dual citizenship.

Kono’s plan contains the following features:

The government allows Japanese nationals to be citizens of other countries.

Japanese holding other nationalities must declare this to the local authorities where their Japanese residency is registered. Those who fail to do so may be fined or lose their Japanese citizenship.

Japanese can obtain citizenship elsewhere, except for locations Japan does not recognize, and continue to hold Japanese nationality as long as the other countries allow multiple nationalities.

People from countries other than North Korea or other areas lacking Japanese diplomatic recognition can obtain Japanese nationality without losing their original citizenship as long as their home countries allow multiple nationalities.

The Imperial family, Diet members, Cabinet ministers, diplomats, certain members of the Self-Defense Forces or court judges can only hold Japanese nationality.

Japanese who become presidents, lawmakers, Cabinet ministers, diplomats, soldiers, court judges or members of royalty of other countries will lose their Japanese nationality.

Japanese who have a Japanese parent and hold multiple nationalities will lose their Japanese citizenship if they have not lived in Japan for 365 days or more by the time they turn 22.

If Japan goes to war against a country, Japanese public servants cannot hold citizenship in that country.

Japanese holding other nationalities will lose their Japanese citizenship if they apply for and join the military of other countries.

Even if Kono finds support for his plan, it will probably be years before it can actually become law. Still, it is interesting to see that some lawmakers are discussing this issue.

Do you think Kono's plan is a good idea?

—-

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

62 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - January 3, 2009 at 6:45 am

Categories: Foreigners in Japan, Politics Tags:

Joe

DO WANT!
LB

Nationality is not a fashion statement. It should be taken seriously. You owe allegiance to one country, and one country only. Dual or multiple nationality should not be allowed.

Tim

I have a son who will have to choose if he wants to be Japanese like his mother or American like his father when he is 22. The US allows him to be both Japanese and American, but not Japan. It only makes sense that people who are in fact citizens of two countries should be able to hold dual citizenship.
The Overthinker

“You owe allegiance to one country, and one country only.”

Why? This is such a medieval view. Nationality is nothing more than rights.

LB

” This is such a medieval view.”
Fortunately, most of the countries in the world (since most do not recognize multiple citizenships) disagree.

“Nationality is nothing more than rights.”
No, it is a set of rights and obligations. One does not just get “rights” without simultaneously incurring obligations. If a dual national has “rights” in both countries s/he holds nationality in, then s/he also has obligations to those countries. Those obligations may conflict, then what? This is why one should only hold one citizenship at a time.

The Overthinker

Nationality only incurs obligations as the rulers tell us it does (or should) – obligations which benefit them. This is why it is medieval – it is positively feudal. The only obligations that should hold now are the obligations to obey the law (and pay taxes). These are not likely to clash. A better word is “duties,” or “legal responsibilities.”

“Fortunately, most of the countries in the world (since most do not recognize multiple citizenships) disagree.”

Or “Unfortunately.”
LB

“Nationality only incurs obligations as the rulers tell us it does”
Or nowadays, the society of one’s peers. “Duties”, “legal responsibilities” – you’re playing word games. These words and “obligations” mean one and the same thing. In a democracy society determines what the obligations of citizens are.

Non-citizens hold some of the same obligations as citizens (such as taxes and obeying the law) but only have some of the same rights. Citizens get more rights in exchange for more obligations (such as jury or court duty and potential military service). Since there is the potential for conflicting obligations if one holds more than one nationality, most nations do not recognize multiple nationality – and if they do, most have qualifications on which other nationalities they will allow their nationals to have.
The Overthinker

No, “obligations” carries the connotation of “things you should do,” whereas “duties” and “responsibilities” are “things you need to do.”
LB

Overthinker, I am afraid your usually excellent logic completely escapes me. “Things you should do” as opposed to “things you need to do”? In the context we are talking about (and indeed most contexts) those are one and the same. If you “should” do something, then you “need” to do it, and if you “need” to do something then you “should” do it. There is no difference in meaning.
The Overthinker

No, what I am attempting to say is the difference between things you feel obligated to do – like if you get a Christmas card from someone, you ‘should’ send them one as well – and things you have no choice in. For example, say a war breaks out. You may feel you should (as in ‘ought to’) join the army, but unless there is a draft you don’t actually have to.
http://www.japaneconomynews.com/ Ken

LB,

You’ve raised some good points here, but I have a question about this:

…most nations do not recognize multiple nationality

Do you have a breakdown of OECD countries and where they fall on this issue?
LB

Ken, I researched that exact question a year or so ago, you can find all the relevant nationality laws through Wikipedia (I will leave it to you as to the trustworthiness of that source).

Roughly half of the OECD nations recognize dual nationality n some form or another. The other half do not. Of those that do recognize it, you run the gamut from countries like the US which “recognizes that dual nationality exists” on the one hand, and requires all those who naturalize to renounce all previous allegiances and loyalties (which to me would be the same as making people renounce their prior citizenship, but the US claims this is not what they are doing), to the Netherlands which officially but conditionally recognizes dual citizenship – if you are born a Dutch, you are always Dutch no matter what, and you can inherit certain other nationalities but not others from your parents (cannot be a Dutch-Austrian dual national, for example). However foreigners who naturalize in the Netherlands are required to renounce their previous citizenship.

So the number of OECD countries who recognize dual nationality under pretty much any circumstances are about 1/4 of the total. From what I could gather with a token bit of extra digging around on the web, they are ahead of the curve worldwide.

http://www.victorymanual.com Alex

What about international marriages? Why would it be a problem for me to want to pledge my allegiance to a country where my mother and all other relatives live, and another country where my wife, daughter, and in-laws live? (Actually, the bulk of our extended family is distributed among 3 countries and our family specifically moves between them often, and I wouldn’t be against triple-citizenship if it were possible)

LB

If you care enough about a country to want to naturalize there and accept that country’s citizenship, then you should be a citizen of that country and no other. If it bothers you to give up the citizenship you currently hold, then you shouldn’t naturalize in another. What would happen if, for instance, one held two citizenships and those countries then went to war? In this neighborhood (and several others), that is something that could conceivably happen. If it did, one suddenly becomes an enemy national in their own “home country”. Then what?

The Overthinker

What if you just want the legal protections and advantages of citizenship? What if you just want to be able to vote to try and make things a little bit better? This isn’t about caring about the country, it is about caring about you.
LB

“What if you just want to be able to vote to try and make things a little bit better? This isn’t about caring about the country, it is about caring about you.”

I would classify “vote and try to make things a little bit better” as “caring about the country”. If all you care about is yourself, fine. But in that case you wouldn’t need to naturalize. And if you want to care only about yourself and still vote, that’s fine too – go live in the country that issued your passport so you can vote for yourself there. Be self-centered in your own home, please.
http://www.victorymanual.com Alex

You’re trying to force an out-dated view of identity on everyone. I don’t doubt that most of the world today still holds the same view as you, but that doesn’t mean it’s the “right” view.

What does it mean to be “patriotic”? Does it mean to forfeit your life for your “country”? What is a country? Is it the people, or the people who run it? Why do you owe them allegiance? How do you draw the line? You draw it at nation, but why? What’s so special about nation that family, work, city, and state identities don’t fully encompass, and how is it that continent, ethnicity, or the entire human race are beyond the line?

You’re arguing that if war broke out, someone with dual-nationality would have to pick a side, and therefore dual-nationality shouldn’t be allowed. What about civil war?

Dual-citizenship is the beginning of the way things should be. The only reason we are forced to have citizenship at all is because we were born into a world where barriers were already in place.

You could just as easily argue that countries that don’t recognize multiple citizenships are in fact stepping on your natural human rights.
The Overthinker

“If all you care about is yourself, fine. But in that case you wouldn’t need to naturalize.”

Nonsense. Why does anyone vote? Abstract ideals of patriotism? No, they want things to be better for themselves. And if I wanted to use political power, such as it is, to make where I lived better for me, then of course I would need to naturalize.
LB

@Alex: “The only reason we are forced to have citizenship at all is because we were born into a world where barriers were already in place.” Yes, and at least as concerns Japan a perfectly sensible barrier. You could argue the line between, say, the US and Canada is artificial, or the line between some European states, but this is an island with one dominant culture, one dominant language, in short everything that identifies “Japanese” as a unique group. Humans form groups, that is the natural order of things. We choose which group to belong to, and if group A wants its members to belong exclusively to that group, that is a perfectly normal world view IMHO.

“You could just as easily argue that countries that don’t recognize multiple citizenships are in fact stepping on your natural human rights.”
I could, but then I would be a raving space loon.

@overthinker: People consistently vote against their personal interests and for what they perceive the “national interest” to be. If this were not true, the entire US military would have voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008, since it would be in their personal interest to vote for someone who would pull them out of harm’s way. Not to mention all the working stiffs who voted against their personal interests in 2004 and re-elected Bush. Look at where they are now, thanks to that choice.

In this last election, as someone living in Japan, it would have been in my personal interests to vote for McCain, since the Japan-US relationship does better under Republican administrations, but if I had voted I would have done so for Obama as he was the better choice for America.
The Overthinker

“and if group A wants its members to belong exclusively to that group.”

But this is not true. Kono is definitely a member of Group A, for example, and is for dual citizenship. Group A has *previously* had this idea, but that idea is changing.

“in their personal interest to vote for someone who would pull them out of harm’s way.”

But then why join the military in the first place if you are not happy with being in harm’s way? And the trick with the working stiffs is that they are conned into thinking Bush is better for them. Poor rednecks dream of being rich rednecks….

I don’t entirely follow your final paragraph, unless your personal interests are in fact directly tied to the US-Japan relationship. Also, assuming you are American and will eventually return there (assumptions, I know), a “better America” will be in your own interest, no?
LB

The point of the final paragraph is that as a politically-aware (at least I like to think so…) permanent resident of Japan, I feel it is in Japan’s interest to have a US administration that favors Japan over China. US Democratic administrations tend to go the other way around and snuggle up to China while demanding Japan do things like open up its auto market to US gas guzzlers with the driver’s wheel on the wrong side. Funny how they never seem to demand those things of China…

And to clear up assumptions, yes, American citizen for now, until the naturalization process gets finalized and I get a red passport. Not returning in any event, so a “better America” really doesn’t concern me. As far as I care, they could have elected Bush to a third term and mandated that creationism alone be taught even at university level, but that is really neither here nor there…
http://www.victorymanual.com Alex

@LB: I don’t understand what your definition of citizenship is. If you plan on renouncing your U.S. citizenship for Japanese citizenship, then obviously you aren’t particularly attached to the idea of unyielding loyalty. Yet you still feel that everyone should only have one citizenship. Why? If you can freely just change your citizenship, what’s the difference?

If the entire world was like the EU, I wouldn’t see a problem in just holding one citizenship, because it wouldn’t matter – I’d be able to freely move between countries sans visa. But instead we have all of this red tape nonsense to get through.

And, perhaps you’re not in the same boat so you can’t identify with this, but I think it’s unreasonable for a country to force my daughter to “pick a side” between her father’s roots or her mother’s. “Your with us or against us,” hey? I’m glad to see dual nationality is an increasing trend, with 62 countries recognizing multiple citizenships.
LB

@Alex: Wrong, I am very attached to the ideals of loyalty. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with changing loyalties as new situations and circumstances appear. The problem is with trying to be loyal to two nations at once. If one is loyal to the US then one is loyal to the US; if one becomes a Japanese citizen and is loyal to Japan then they are loyal to Japan, but one cannot be loyal to Japan and loyal to the US at the same time.

As for “picking a side”, if your daughter was born and raised in Japan, then she is Japanese. She is not from whatever country issued your passport, even if that country gives her citizenship solely by virtue of who her father is.
http://www.victorymanual.com Alex

My daughter was born in Korea and raised in Japan. Japan will not give her citizenship.

Anyways, I understand what your definition of loyalty is, but I don’t hold the same world view as you.

http://sushimonsta.blogspot.com taksan

it is not a fashion statement, it wouldn’t be bad if you owe allegiance to more than one country.

The Overthinker

Let’s go really New Age and say we should owe our allegiance to the entire Earth….

http://www.zdwonline.de Haf

Maybe in 300 years.

For now, making it possible to obtain dual citizenship in more countries is a good start.

I wonder how difficult it will be for people who resigned/renounced(?) their Japanese citizenship in the past to get it back once this is made into law.

My Japanese teacher is of Japanese heritage, but became a German citizen after her marriage. I guess she would be glad about being able to have a citizenship in both countries.
I wouldn’t mind either.

LB

Unless one is North Korea and the other is South Korea. Or Taiwan and China… or Turkey and Greece… or Syria and Israel….

weirdo

YES! I’ve been waiting for this, I don’t want to have to choose between my American and Japanese citizenship dammit.
James

Yes, Japan should enter the arena of dual citizenship’s like other great countries allow. Nothing wrong with it!
Big D

love the idea! cuz I want a Japanese citizenship in addition to my American citizenship.
pwim

The being Japanese and becoming a soldier clause is interesting, as many countries require military service. I wonder how this works, or if it blocks members of those countries.

LB

This is but one reason why dual/multiple citizenship is a bad idea.

Matt

Kono’s proposition sounds right: I don’t want my children to have to choose between their mother or their father when they turned adult. The exceptions listed in the draft are more or less all based on common sense and are good answers to critics like LB.
On the plus side, it might be a way to boost up the population, something that Japan needs at the moment.

LB

“The exceptions listed in the draft are more or less all based on common sense and are good answers to critics like LB.”
Except that under those exceptions you create separate classes of citizens. Japanese citizens who hold a second nationality are banned from elected office and certain jobs. A dual national could be a lawyer, but not a judge. S/he could work at an embassy, but never be an ambassador. S/he could join the SDF, but be denied promotion to certain jobs. S/he could vote in Japanese elections but never stand for office.

Those exceptions are reasonable. Very reasonable. But they point to the crux of the problem: there are certain people society as a whole does not want to hold a foreign nationality. If you pass a law saying dual nationality is OK unless one wants to be Prime Minister, you are banning some of your own nationals from holding that office. Sure, those people could renounce their second citizenship if they wanted that job, but then again, if one is willing to renounce to get a job why were they keeping the other citizenship in the first place? And if they are not willing to renounce then they are being denied one of the perks of citizenship in their own country. That would probably be unconstitutional, not to mention morally unsound. You would be creating “castes”, in effect.

Still think this is a good idea?

The Overthinker

“if one is willing to renounce to get a job why were they keeping the other citizenship in the first place?”

For the same reason anyone gives up anything in favour of another thing. Maybe having their citizenship of Canada was useful, but only to a certain point – that point being when they wanted to be PM.
Kat

I believe most people (like myself) who hold dual citizenship, find themselves given that citizenship by their parents, at the time of their birth (or shortly thereafter). As an adult, if I choose to a) freely serve in the military or b) run for public office, or c) vote in an election, then as an adult, I may make the decision to choose a single nationality. If I hold my dual citizenship more dear, than as a rational adult, I will not take any of those choices that would jeopardize my dual- status.

It makes sense for Japan to ask those with dual citizenship to live for at least one year in Japan or forfeit their Japanese citizenship, because of social programs that they need to know how to fund in terms of retirement, healthcare, etc.

Pingback: Brazilian Green Propolis fights Cancer | Bee propolis
Pingback: Brazilian Green Propolis fights Cancer | Bee propolis
madne0

Seeing how dual/multiple nationality has worked wonders for the integration of immigrants in Europe (see: France, Holland, Belgium, Britain, *insert pretty much any western european country here*), I can’t see why anyone would try to change the law in Japan.
madne0

“Comment by ChrisinHI
2009-01-03 19:01:30

The more bonds between countries, the better the prospects for eternal peace, nothing naive about that.”

Very naive unfortunately. Just see how North African/Arab countries use the large numbers of immigrants/dual nationality citizens in European countries as leverage. It goes on constantly.
HachimitsuBoy

I think multiple citizenships are a great ideas. Japan definitely needs an increase in population and opening itself to people from other countries to nationalize would help to solve that problem. Japan has always been nationalistic, since it has the longest living Imperial family, and only opened for trade with the rest of the world through force (black ships). And it sided with Germany in WW2. Japan has slowly been abandoning those ideologies, and i am sure nobody really thinks that way anymore, but it still does not allow foreigners to easily nationalize. Before one had to live there for about 10 years to become a permanent resident and then apply for citizenship. That period of time has decreased i think tho, i cant quite remember. But anyway, becoming world citizens and not trying to take sides between countries is the only way towards a calmer, more peaceful and prosperous future. The only reason for allegiances is so that wars can be warred, which is never a good thing. Nationalism is pointless and i beleive that allowing multiple citizenships will be a great step away from that.
Chieze

I like this idea. I have no idea what LB is going on about with dual citizenship. I think that tt’s pretty oversimplistic to say in all cases that dual citizenship makes no sense. My father is Nigerian, my mother is American, and I hold both citizenships. Cases like this make perfect sense.
ChrisinHI

Its probably fair to say that a smaller percentage of mankind are going to die in war this century than the last. I`d bet money on it.

But that`s besides the point. The point is that the way to get to more peace and prosperity is more human relations and interaction and not less, as it seems you`re suggesting.

Along with unquestioned loyalty to various religious causes, nationalism has caused a huge chunk of the aforementioned deaths. You take some of this away and you take away one of the main reasons men fight.
ChrisinHI

Its probably fair to say that a smaller percentage of mankind are going to die in war this century than the last. I`d definitely bet money on it.

But that`s besides the point. The point is that the way to get to more peace and prosperity is more human relations and interaction and not less, as it seems you`re suggesting.

Along with unquestioned loyalty to various religious causes, nationalism has caused a huge chunk of the aforementioned deaths. You take some of this away and you take away one of the main reasons men fight.
ChrisinHI

for those still afraid of dual-nationality and what it represents, go ahead and read the JTimes article at the top of this page. It`s really not as scary as you might believe.
LB

You know, I am still waiting to see someone explain how allowing dual nationality benefits a society. Madne0 has well pointed out the pitfalls western Europe faces, but pretty much all the rest seems to be “I think it would be personally cool” or Yoko Ono-esque naive appeals to “world peace”. Hence my comment about some people thinking nationality is some form of fashion accessory.

I completely fail to see how dual nationality is in either society’s or the individual’s interest. There is an American above saying how he wants to be able to get Japanese citizenship and keep his US citizenship. FFS why?!? Does anyone actually relish the idea of being a Japanese/American dual national and having two tax burdens? Granted if you stay in Japan and aren’t a movie star you probably won’t actually have to pay US taxes, but if you do make enough to pay and then decide to renounce you’re screwed royally – don’t plan on going back to the US ever again! And if you keep US citizenship and leave an estate, make sure your heirs get enough to pay both Japanese and US inheritance taxes, they will be liable for both!

The Overthinker

But isn’t that their own decision? There are also a lot of countries more generous than the US in that regard. It is in society’s interest to give individuals as much freedom as possible, since society is formed of individuals. Societies have struggled for hundreds of years to assure freedom for the individual. Merely because it might be financially a bad idea is no reason to ban something.

LB

@alex: I meant to answer this earlier, but was short of time, so to keep that particular thread from getting completely unreadable I will start down here:

“What does it mean to be “patriotic”? Does it mean to forfeit your life for your “country”?”
Not forfeit, but be willing to fight for your country. Only stupid patriots die for their country – smart ones make other people die for theirs.

“What is a country? Is it the people, or the people who run it?”
The people, the ones who decide who runs it. The people make the nation, not the politicians.

” Why do you owe them allegiance?”
Why do you not? Sorry, I don’t mean to be obtuse, but to me that is about the same level of question as “why is the sky blue”. As an adult, functioning member of a society you have a duty to be loyal to that society, to defend it, and to try to make it better.

“How do you draw the line? You draw it at nation, but why? What’s so special about nation that family, work, city, and state identities don’t fully encompass,”
Family, work, city, state – these are subunits or parallel units to nation. You can be loyal to a city, but that is just a subunit of a state, which in turn is a subunit of a nation. So to say you are loyal to your city but not the nation that city is part of is more than a little ridiculous (for example).

“and how is it that continent, ethnicity, or the entire human race are beyond the line?”

Does the entire Asian continent share the same history, language and society? Don’t think so. Do I share anything in common with the Taliban? I sure as hell hope not. That is why those things are beyond the line. A nation is a collection of people with enough in common that they decide to become a unique unit. I suppose if they share enough in common with the units around them they could all decide to form some kind of superunit like the EU, but I don’t see Germans suddenly declaring they are no longer “German” but are instead now “Unionites”.

“You’re arguing that if war broke out, someone with dual-nationality would have to pick a side, and therefore dual-nationality shouldn’t be allowed. What about civil war?”
If one took up arms against their own government (and setting aside any questions of the rightness or wrongness of that, it could certainly be the “right” thing to do depending on circumstances) the government of that country would doubtless declare them to be the “enemy”. They may revoke the citizenship of anyone fighting against the government, and they would certainly be justified in doing that (from the government’s point of view). There is no difference between, for (historical) example, being an American fighting for the Confederacy and being an American fighting for Nazi Germany. Both would be enemy combatants, and both should be considered to have renounced their US citizenship.

The Overthinker

Sorry, I don’t mean to be obtuse, but to me that is about the same level of question as “why is the sky blue”. As an adult, functioning member of a society you have a duty to be loyal to that society, to defend it, and to try to make it better.

First, I’ll bet a lot of money that very few people, even adults, can actually tell you why the sky is blue. It might seem like an obtuse question, but in fact it is a very important one.

You still haven’t explained what it is about the ‘nation’ that trumps all other loyalties. In fact your explanation of family, work, city, and state as subunits of nation is very similar to how it was explained in prewar Imperialist Japan. I don’t know about you, but I am more loyal to my family than my country.

“I don’t see Germans suddenly declaring they are no longer “German” but are instead now “Unionites”.”

But what about the various states and principalities of Germany coming together to form the modern nation of Germany? No longer Bohemian or Bavarian, but now German?

“A nation is a collection of people with enough in common that they decide to become a unique unit.”

It would be more accurate to say that a nation is a collection of people who were instructed/forced/persuaded/whatever to become a unique unit. Nations don’t just pop out of nowhere. They are created, and in the process of creation old local or regional loyalties must be deliberated recast and shaped into the new ones of “nation.” A nation is, in a very real sense, an imagined community, to borrow Benedict Arnold’s famous phrase. Japan is certainly no exception.
http://www.japaneconomynews.com Ken

Only stupid patriots die for their country – smart ones make other people die for theirs.

Wow. That is just wrong man. Try telling the family of a KIA that he was “a stupid patriot.” Try telling the Department of Defense that the Medals of Honor they give out went to “stupid patriots.”

LB

That wasn’t exactly what I meant. The question was “Does being patriotic mean forfeiting your life for your country”, to which my response was meant to be that willingly going out to die for your country (as more than a few Japanese troops did in WW2, for example), is not patriotic, it is stupid. Fighting to defend your country, and making the other guy die for his while you come home safe, is a “smart patriot”. Naturally not everyone who fights comes home safe, and I did not mean my response to seem disrespectful for those who gave their lives in battle, but I do see how it could have been read that way.

http://www.japaneconomynews.com Ken

LB, Got it, thanks!

ChrisinHI

why cant I post here?

Mods keep erasing my responses.
http://thoughtsofapragmatic.blogspot.com/ 4A4350

Dual citizenship is just wrong people should only be able to be citizens of one country maybe people don’t love (that right I said love) a country enough that they commit the rest of their lifes to it (to me being part of a nation it’s not a right but a privilege). Would you risk your physical integrity for your countrymen and your country or would you flee (that is the people that have dual citenzenship)?

P.S. …ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country… John F. Kennedy, Inaugural address, January 20, 1961

The Overthinker

…ask not what your leaders can do for you – ask what you can do for your leaders…
http://www.victorymanual.com Alex

“Dual citizenship is just wrong…”
…from your narrow perspective of global society.

“to me being part of a nation it’s not a right but a privilege…”
…granted by? Should we start selectively choosing which babies to grant citizenship to? Based on what? Oh! I know! Let’s recreate Sparta. If they aren’t worthy soldiers by the age of 7, banish them!

“Would you risk your physical integrity for your countrymen and your country or would you flee?”
Who’s attacking? Why are they attacking? What are the implications of me not attacking them? Will it be all for naught?

The Overthinker

“I for one welome our new insect overlords….”

LB

That is rather naive. The people who would be most affected by war are never the ones who decide to start one. Wars are started by politicians – and under laws like the one being discussed as a “possibility” here, politicians would be prohibited (and rightly so) from holding dual citizenship.
weirdo

I’m pro dual citizenship but “eternal peace” really is naive.
weirdo

We’re also living longer, that doesn’t mean that we’re going to be immortal one day.
LB

“There are fewer and fewer wars every century and it`s not for lack of technology.”
You really want to say that? There have been about 40 wars (that is only actions counted as “wars”, not “incidents” or “actions”) in the last 20 years, over 1/3 of which are still ongoing. If you count ongoing “incidents” etc. there are about 35-40 such “warlike states” in existence right now around the world. That is about average for any period of man’s history.

Multiple nationalities for Japanese citizens?

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