Noriko Calderon’s parents to be deported
February 27th, 2009 by James
An update on the case of Noriko Calderon:
The Japanese government ruled today that Arlan and Sarah Calderon, Filipinos who illegally entered Japan with forged passports in 1993, must leave Japan by March 9th or be deported (they have been told there will be no more extensions). Their daughter, Noriko, will be allowed the chance to continue living in Japan. The Calderons are determined to fight the decision instead of deciding whether or not they should leave Noriko behind in Japan.
Meanwhile, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has made an “emergency inquiry” to the Japanese government about the case.
The fairest outcome would be:
- Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
- dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)
- Kirainet.com – A geek in Japan (Subscribe)
| Related Posts: |
|
Noriko Calderon to stay in Japan Amnesty International comments on the Noriko Calderon case Japanese government may grant Noriko Calderon special permission for residence |
Full RSS Feed
I think it is fair to let her stay since she didn’t commit a crime, but her parents have left her with a tough choice: stay in the only country she knows (in the care of the govt. I assume), or be with her family.
Although, even though they are being deported does the final decision of what happens to Noriko rest with the parents?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
According to the article, it seems that the decesion does rest in the hands of the parent’s, because if the parent’s do not make a choice by 3/9/09, they will be forced to be deported as a family (including Noriko) but if they make a decesion, either way, then Noriko atleast has the option to stay.
I am a bit annoyed though about the UN sticking their nose into this situation, simply because it has had more media coverage than other simliar situations. If anything, the UN should be concerned over more “important” cases, such as the genocide occuring in Darfur region, etc.
In addition, I would like to simply point out the fact that the United States and Japan contributes over 50%, more closer to 60% of the funding which UN receives.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“In addition, I would like to simply point out the fact that the United States and Japan contributes over 50%, more closer to 60% of the funding which UN receives.”
Official figures seem to put the USA at 22%, and Japan at about 16%.
Given the ceiling at 22%, it would not be possible to have any two countries totalling 50% or more.
Moreover, I fail to see the link with the subject at hand. Japan is a major contribution, so the UN should just keep quiet and look elsewhere?
I am not saying that I approve the UN getting involved in this (there are, as you said, more urgent matters), but I do not think the budget argument is a valid one.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Damn. You can get away with murder if you aren’t caught within 15 years, but illegally staying in the country? “No way man, that shit just ain’t cool.”
Apologies if this comparison has been made in the comments of the many other posts on this issue.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I hadn’t thought of that. Yeah, it’s pretty absurd that murder is a-okay but illegal immigration is not.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Technically, you can’t “stop” being an illegal immigrant just by living in the country for 15 years. I mean, they were committing a crime right up to the moment they were caught.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You can’t stop being a murderer either.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Being a murderer is not a crime.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Hah! Brilliant point there, Overthinker.
But I still think I have at least half a solid point.
I mean, quite a large number of the world’s people, including those in Japan, are descended from people who just shipped over and set up shop. The only thing making them ‘residents’ is the passing of a duration of time.
Hmm. Following that logic, I guess there really IS a statute of limitations on illegal immigration—that being one generation, if Noriko’s case is to set a precedent. Whether the government would be comfortable defining the terms as such is another matter…
The statute for murder has been increased to 25 years, incidentally.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You cannot be held criminally liable if you murder someone, stay in Japan (time spent hiding abroad does not count) and do not get caught for 15 years. True.
You can be held civilly liable beyond that. If the 15-year criminal statute of limitations passes, and then the murderer surfaces, the family of the victim has 3 years from that time to file a wrongful death suit. You don’t get a 100% free pass to commit murder just by hiding out within the country for 15 years.
In any event, as the Overthinker pointed out, as long as one is still in the country illegally, they are continuing to break the law. Statute of limitations arguments do not apply and are irrelevant.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
It’s irrelevant to argue that it’s utterly absurd to have a 15 year statute of limitations on murder yet no statute of limitations on illegal immigration? Yeah, I guess it’s irrelevant if you live in a moral and intellectual vacuum.
If you murder someone, you’re a murderer.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You are confusing yourself because you think that because murder is worse than illegal immigration that illegal immigrants should have a shorter statute of limitations. As I pointed out above, being a murderer is not a crime. The crime is the act of murder. Illegal immigration is also a crime committed at the time, but, and please note this carefully, remaining in the country illegally is ALSO a crime. It is difficult to have a statute of limitations on a crime that is by definition indefinite in duration. If you can see a way that an illegal alien can stop being an illegal alien without being caught, then please let us know. Perhaps by smuggling themselves out the country in the same way that people get smuggled in?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Well yes, that’s how it usually tends to work.
It’s also difficult to decide that the crime of murder magically expires in 15 years, but somehow they managed to do it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You just don’t get it. As has been pointed out, being in the country illegally is something that is ongoing. Even if it had a statute of limitations of a week, then that would be no good as you would be still committing the crime right up to the moment you were caught.
Your second comment shows that you definitely don’t get it. How the limit was decided or how long it is is *completely* immaterial.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Please tell me what natural law prevents the Japanese from deciding that illegal immigration ceases to be illegal in X years? They can do it with murder, so nothing whatsoever is preventing them from doing it with illegal immigration. Nothing.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
A statute of limitations is a statute that sets forth the maximum period of time, after a certain crime, that legal proceedings based on the crime may be initiated.
Roughly speaking, the clock for the limitation start running when the crime is finished.
You kill a person, the person is killed. The crime is finished. The clock start running.
You invade the house. The crime continues until you leave the house. The crime is not finished as long as you stay in the house illegally. The clock won’t start.
You kidnap a person. The crime continues until you release the person.
You stay in the country illegally as the illegality continue as long as you stay
The Overthinker is saying that technically the illegality of an illegal immigrant continue until he is caught.The clock won’t start.
If you want to write off the illegality, you need to appeal to the amnesty. In a way that is what the lawyer is doing now. But that is another story.
One of the rationales for the statue is said to protect a person against claims made after disputes have become stale, evidence has been lost, memories have faded, or witnesses have disappeared.
People are discussing whether to abolish the statue of the limitations for murder because DNA evidence is available now.
Another rational that Japanese lawyers sometimes talk about is to protect the stable condiones of a suspect which has continued peacefully for a long period of time.
(新訴訟法説
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/公訴時効#.E5.85.AC.E8.A8.B4.E6.99.82.E5.8A.B9.E5.88.B6.E5.BA.A6.E3.81.AE.E6.9C.AC.E8.B)
You might want Japan to set up the law to protect the illegal immigarant based on the analogy to the rationale.
But still it is one of the conditons for the amnesty.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
A lawyer friend of mine took on a similar case in my country where a child was born to a single mom who was facing deportation. The child, however, had full citizenship.
Apparently it is a violation of human rights to forcibly separate a family like that so the woman was allowed to stay.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Why didn’t the mother just take the kid with her? Was there something stopping the child from going with her?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
1. Noriko is not a citizen, so technically she has no “right” to stay in Japan.
2. Japan is not forcibly separating the family. Noriko can stay in Japan or she can accompany her parents back to the Philippines. It is the Calderons’ choice.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
It seems that I did have my figures wrong, but still
United States 22.00% $362.7 (in millions)
Japan 19.47% $279.6 (in millions)
My point was, if two countries are putting more than 40%, which is a significant figure, they should shut up and do what they were created to do, which is not to interfere in domestic policies that do not infrindge on human rights.
Also, I would like to point out that even though Japan contributes so much money into the system, they still are not allowed the Secuirty Council seat, which I think is not really fair (that was agreed upon after WWII) and I find it funny that China and Russia, who do have a permanent seat in that council, are not even in the top 10 countries that contribute to the UN. So, in the end, you should get what you pay for.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Just because you’ve got more money doesn’t mean you should also have more power. Unless you’re a fan of aristocracy or something…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Well, Russia was given a seat so that the US and Russia couldn’t do anything that angered the other unilaterally that would cause each other to launch nukes.
China more or less stole their UN position from the Republic of China, however (not without bad decisions by the then authoritarian ROC, but still).
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Not quite – the Soviet Union had a seat before they had Nukes. The Security Council was set up from Day One with the Soviets on board (1946, they exploded their first nuke in 1949). The permanent members are the “Big Five” allies that “won” World War Two: the US, the UK, the Soviet Union, China* and France*.
*Who were theoretically on the Allied side, at least most of the time, even if they really didn’t do much aside from provide space on which the Allies could fight the Axis Powers.
Things might have been better if permanent seats were given to, say, Brazil and Mexico instead. Those countries at least fought with distinction.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
It seems to me that this clearly is a case concerning human rights, since Noriko Calderon has a right to protection as a child and a proper education.
As such the UN has a duty to look into it, regardless of how big a contributor Japan is.
Security council seats were allocated to the winning Allies of WW2. The world has changed since then and there are many arguments for reforming the situation.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Noriko Calderon has a right to protection as a child and a proper education. ”
That she does, but they have schools in the Philippines and I don’t think they systematically abuse their children there. While it’s crappy for young Noriko, parents make decisions all the time that affect their children as well as themselves.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
” they have schools in the Philippines”
Indeed they do. Excellent schools. A graduate of a Philippine medical university, for example, can get certified as an M.D. in the US just the same as a graduate of a US university. The level of education is considered to be the same by the US government.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The United Nations is a useless organization. Where was the UN when the Tutsis and Hutus were slaughtering one another in Rwanda? Or in Darfur? They’re focusing on a case of illegal immigration?!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Im sorry I dont think this is a human rights issue.
The fact is the parents came into the country as illegal immigrants, breaking the law of a soveriegn nation. I DO believe this is a crappy situation for Noriko, but the fact is, the parent’s took the chance in coming into Japan illegally. They took the chance of getting caught, which they eventually did, and they are being punished rightfully so.
I don’t udnerstand how you can look at it as a human rights issue, when the basic legal facts are plain and simple. Parents broke the law. Child obviously gets affected from this situation the most. BUT, she’s not being harmed physically from this, mentally/emotionally, sure but she should take that up with her parents. Its her parents fault for having to put Noriko through this.
If they came into the country legally, this would have NEVER occured. But the fact is, the parents broke the law. They should be punished like-wise.
When I think about human rights issues, I typically think about Darfur and genocide/rape/hunger issues first, I dunno about you.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Me, I try not to think about Darfur. Can’t do a thing about it, after all. But you’re right – if and when issues like Darfur are dumped in favour of Noriko, then the UN might have its priorities a bit wrong. Let me know when they do.
I find it interesting that you seem to think that the law cannot infringe on human rights: that breaking the law means you have none left, or that they cannot come into consideration.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
So are you not granted Japanese citizenship by being born in Japan? Seems like if she were a citizen her parents would get some sort of legal status as well.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
According to Japanese law, being a citizen means that you are listed in a family registry. If you are a foreigner, there is no registry and therefore you cannot become a citizen. The best you can hope for is resident alien status. There are millions of Koreans who have been in Japan for decades and are not citizens.
It used to be worse. In Japan, when people get married, the woman’s entry is transferred from her family’s registry to that of her husband. If a Japanese man married a foreign woman, she was added to his family’s registry. But if a Japanese woman married a foreign man, she would lose her citizenship because her husband didn’t have a registry. Thankfully, they changed that back in the 80’s. But they still don’t allow dual citizenship.
There are exceptions and loopholes of course. You can petition the government to grant citizenship but I heard it can take decades.
In this particular case, the law is clear. The parents have to leave because they entered under false pretenses. The daughter can stay but only as a resident alien.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Kurt, I’m afraid you’re wrong on so many counts there. For instance, Koreans choose not to become Japanese; it’s not that they are prevented by law.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Wow. Right up until the last paragraph you had a perfect batting record with the facts: .000
What made you actually get something correct and blow the perfect record you were setting?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Thankfully, they changed that back in the 80’s.”
The 1880s?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
No, Japan (like most countries in the world) does not recognize jus soli, the principle by which someone born within the borders of a country is automatically a citizen of that country.
Perhaps if Japan did consider Noriko a citizen things would be different – or perhaps not. The US is in the process of deporting a bunch of Liberians (as in a few thousand) even though they entered the US legally and in some cases are parents or spouses of US citizens. And yes, if the child is a minor they are being deported with their parents, even though they are citizens.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I’m with AM on this one, its a regrettable situation and Noriko must be going through some extremely tough times right now, yet her parents still broke the law. They came into the country illegally, they had a kid in that country, they brought the situation upon themselves.
Furthermore, the question was what is the fair thing to do. I wonder about all the potential immigrants who want to come to Japan and are waiting for a legal opportunity when a quota will open up enough to let them in. How must they must feel about a family breaking the law, getting a first world education for their child, and potentially getting away scot-free?
The only thing the Japanese government should be blamed for is the glacially slow speed at which they made their decision.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Seem not necessarily
Rate this comment:
0 
0
She should be allowed to stay until she has the maturity to realize she should carry her parents’ mistakes burden. Now at her age she will be shocked if she gets deported asking why the cruelty. Also she should stop playing the “poor little girl” role despite her age.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Why should she take the blame for something other people did before she was born? Should all Japanese people take the blame for what their ancestors did?
And what does her age have to do with this?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Oh boo hoo.
There are many bad things happening to children in the world, being deported with your law-breaking parents to the Philippines doesn’t even ranks in the top 100.
If she wants to be upset/bitter/sad/whatever – direct that at her parents, who broke the law, not Japan who is doing nothing but looking out for their law abiding citizens.
Nice to see that the UN has solved all the other problems in the world and can now focus on the problems of a single child.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
WELL LOOKING FROM THIS SITUATION, I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING.
1- LET NORIKO IN JAPAN WITH SOMEONE WETHER RELATIVES, FRIENDS OR SOMEONE WHO CAN SUPPORT AND GIVE ALL NEEDS TO HER IN JAPAN UNTIL SHE TURNS 21 YEARS OLD. DURING THIS TIME, NORIKO WILL STUDY HARD, WORK HARD AND THEN AFTER 21 YEARS OLD SHE CAN CHOOSE TO STAY WITH THEIR PARENTS IN THE PHILLIPINES OU JUST TO STAY IN JAPAN AND VISIT HER PARENTS IN THE PHILLIPINES EVERY YEAR.
2-DURING THIS TIME GOOD THINGS CAN COME TO HER, MAYBE AFTER INSSISTING WITH IMMIGRATION WORKERS THEY WILL GIVE THEIR PARENTS TO LIVE IN JAPAN. YOU NEVER KNOW THE FUTURE, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE IN JAPAN THAT IN THE PAST HAD PROBLEM WITH IMMMIGRATION, BUT TODAY THEY ARE OK, THE SAME THING CAN HAPPEN WITH HER, JUST KEEP THE FAITH THAT IT CAN HAPPEN.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
And I would suggest turning off Caps Lock.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The poll is difficult to answer – if the UNHCR is getting involved then the only solution that will satisfy both the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the Japanese Gov is to send them all back home (yes, the Phillipines is from a legal point of view home for them all). They could apply for asylum, I suppose, but I think they’d have no case there.
I think the parents/laywers tactic is to stall and force the J gov to take the PR hit for deporting them all or to draw out the legal proceedings, so the poor girl is ending up even more of a pawn.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Agreed with your last sentence. The parents should be ashamed of themselves – or better yet, be declared unfit parents, lose custody of Noriko and then be deported.
As for the lawyers – well, Shakespeare is proven right again.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Thinking better about this, her parents had her in Japan intentionally to use her as an anchor to stay in Japan so what they did was very sneaky trying to slip through the law. So both should be deported.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Ugh… efforts ARE being made by the UN to bring aid and attention to Sudan and Rwanda. Before making judgments on any of their efforts, check out their website first and see what they’ve been up to. It’s easy getting informed.
As for this story being insignificant, consider that Japan has a declining birthrate with a majority of it’s population retiring soon. In the next few years, the need for health care workers from Philippines and Indonesia, as well the likelihood of similar cases, will increase. What is decided now may effect the decisions of future immigrant workers coming here.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
There’s a disparity between the fairest and nicest outcome.
Letting them all stay would mean the parents’ illegal immigration will go unpunished. This may be the nicest thing to do for this particular family, but they basically get a free pass for their transgression just because they got publicity, and that’s not fair to everyone else who followed the law, or got nailed or will get nailed and have their asses shipped back to where they came.
Kicking them all out would be most unfair from Noriko’s perspective. Whatever legal standing she is in, one can’t just accept the fact when you’re suddenly announced to one day that one’s mere presence where she grew up and knew all her life is illegal. She didn’t ask to be born as an anchor baby and she will still have a hard time adjusting if she moves to the Phillipines, however insignificant it may be in comparison to the stress of getting caught up in other real human rights abuses.
So the fairest taking into consideration legal and pragmatic ramifications would be the middle ground — deport the parents back to the Phillipines but give the kid a choice. She’s free to stay if she chooses, since it’s not the kid’s fault she ended up in this situation.
Separating the parent and child seems to be the least evil, or least damaging of all three options. It’s not like they’re going to be isolated from one another … unless one considers fees for postage or international calls as somehow gravely abusive.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
That was a well thought out comment helical.
Rate this comment:
0 
0