No voting rights for North Korean citizens in Japan? Good.

Thank you, Mr Overthinker, that is what I thought too, that the people they are talking about in the issue are NON-citizens.

“If Japan allowed dual citizenship like most of the rest of the civilized world,”

Most of the rest of the world, including the civilized parts, does not recognize dual nationality or else severely restricts it. Countries such as:
Austria
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Holland
India
Norway
Poland
Russia
Singapore
South Korea
Ukraine

And many, many more.

“That is avoided in the proposal which would not allow Norks to naturalize since Japan and NK don’t have diplomatic ties.”

“Norks” being the only group that might have split allegiances influencing their voting?

Though I believe not all Zainichi are “Norks”. I also read that the historical split between “Norks” and “Sorks” is to some degree arbitrary. Still, I guess it’s only the Chosen Zainichi that we need to be worried about?

But they are not excluded from James’ argument by virtue of ethnicity, but by their actions/attitudes.

“their actions/attitudes… are a direct result of their ethnicity”

Are you positing an ethnic basis for stupidity and wrongheadedness, then?

James, up to the 80′s, essentially you did have to take a Japanese family name for full rights. Job and education opportunities would otherwise be limited, so it’s not just some simple ethnic mumbo jumbo crap (which might be common for their South Korean cousins) that they haven’t naturalized; plenty are quite skeptical and/or paranoid about it.

Actually a lot of changes in the past that have improved these conditions for the zainichi have also transferred over to “gaijins”, so you’re taking for granted eased measures of naturalizing which was partly due to the stubbornness of these people, so be more respectful.

What you are talking about here is social acceptance, not legal. Nothing to stop them from taking a Japanese nom-de-plume, even if they retained their Korean name. And many did (and do).

Not quite. African slaves did not take Western ‘Christian’ names to be better assimilated into Western society, they were often forced on them through baptism (the more souls you save the bigger your slice of heaven, or something).

google 金 政玉（きむ じょんおく)

We are not denying there is discrimination against Koreans. We are denying that they have to take Japanese names when they naturalize.

Iago, you are right. Some of us are discriminating, as Zainichi Koreans are in making a clear distinction between themselves and others in what is, after all, whether they will admit it or not, their “home country”. If they wish to fully partake of all the benefits of citizenship, then it is they who need to stop discriminating, or making a distinction, between themselves and Japanese and become full-fledged citizens of this country. However as long as they insist on remaining “Korean” then it is entirely proper for Japan to make a distinction between rights granted to its citizens and rights granted to Zainichi and other foreigners.

Actually James, the original SPRs were Japanese citizens, and they were stripped of that citizenship largely at the behest of GHQ. There were doubtless some Japanese who were more than happy to push the Koreans out of the “Japan pool”, granted, but it was the GHQ that pushed hard for it and gave legitimacy to the Japanese government’s decision.

I agree with you that SPR is a status that should end. IMHO the Justice Ministry should create a fast-track naturalization process whereby Koreans and Chinese with that status get recognized as former Japanese citizens, or direct descendants of same (both of which are true) and as such are automatically entitled to Japanese citizenship. All they have to do is show up at the local Justice Ministry office.

Still, there are those who won’t show up. My idea won’t appeal to some Zainichi anymore than your idea to grant children of SPRs citizenship upon birth within Japan would. I have personally met SPRs who are half Japanese, and received Japanese citizenship through their mother from birth – only to throw it away when they got older and decided they were “Korean”.

At which point the only sensible thing to do would be declare that SPR status will cease to exist as of a certain date – naturalize and take Japanese citizenship, or get normal PR status. I suppose that would be “discriminatory”, though, forcing people to crap or get off the pot…

No, my comment about “Korean schools” was just to note that not all of them go to Japanese schools. Some go to Korean schools, and to address your next point, sure, they may not be 100% Korean, but chances are they are more “Korean” than those that go to the Japanese schools.

I really have no idea how Irish you are. I know a lot of Irish-descended people still take pride in Ireland and its heritage, so is this the level you are aiming at?

Also, not sure about high schools, but Jesuit universities in general you’d be hard-pressed to realise were Catholic. They don’t ram anything down your throat.

But Nikkei are considered more Japanese than other foreigners, don’t forget.

But remember the special visas the nikkei got to work in Japan based on the idea that, well, they were semi-Japanese.

Not that many years ago, surely. Not if we are looking at the post-war treatment of ethnic minorities in Japan.

Got any sources for an official Japanese policy of fobbing off? I haven’t done much research into the issue, but nothing I have read indicated they were trying to get rid of the undesirables. Seemed to be largely farmers and the less well off, true, but a policy?

Okay, that is a bit more realistic. Official govt sanction for emigration, definitely (including to places like Manchuria). Japan was getting very concerned about its expanding population. Targeted at the poor, definitely. And I can believe some nudges towards the commies and trades unionists etc. Your previous statement was just a little too broad and sweeping. Thus I find it less plausible that the Nikkei visa was in recompense for these left-wingers the govt tried to resettle, since they were a minority.

I have never heard of or met an African-American who insisted they were African, or who claimed citizenship in any African country and refused to take American citizenship. African-Americans are – brace for it – Americans. In terms of citizenship and in terms of culture. Most of them proudly so. They are not “Africans”, do not claim to be “Africans”, and no native of any African country would consider black Americans to be anything other than American.

There’s the difference for you.

“An African-American, born and in America, educated in American schools, with, likely, grandparents who were likewise born and raised in America, is still entitled to possess an African heritage, are they not? Or is it imaginary?”
I would lean toward “imaginary”, as most African-Americans have no idea of where their ancestors came from, aside from “Africa” or, more specifically, “West Africa”. That is a lot of real estate, with lots of different peoples and cultures. African-Americans have created an “African-American culture”, but it is something created out of American culture far more than it is something created out of African culture (if we were even to accept an “African” culture, which is something that does not exist).

“Does a Korean who naturalizes give up his heritage?”
I would say “no”, but the Zainichi who won’t naturalize obviously feel differently. Then again, as I have already said above, their “heritage” by now is far more Japanese than it is Korean.

“Is a Korean who was born and raised in Japan disenfranchised from his Korean heritage?”
I am not sure would use the expression “disenfranchised”, but let me put it this way: My mother was born in America to Irish Catholic parents who had immigrated only a few years before. Her ancestry may be Irish, but culturally she is American. As am I. I’ve got a ton of relatives in Ireland, and I understand the Irish way of looking at some things in a way someone without my background probably wouldn’t, but I am not Irish. Culturally, legally or in any other way.

Nor are the Zainichi “Korean”, despite their protestations to the contrary. Of Korean ancestry I will concede, but that is all.

I’m not sure I’d class myself as a Japanophile, since I am perfectly willing to admit where this country (Japan) is fucked up, so I don’t have blinkers on or anything. Nevertheless I shall give it a stab.

Japanophiles don’t like Korea (too blanket a statement of course) because Korea (this should be the anti-Japan segments there and in China really) keep making the most ridiculous claims and lies and will basically do anything to attack Japan. Yes, Korea has a very valid historical grievance against Japan, but they seem determined to make Korea under Japanese rule the Auschwitz of Asia. Nor is there any acknowledgement of the diversity of discourse in Japan, and that most of it is in fact sympathetic (what with Japanese historians being left-wing in general): they latch onto stuff like the Tsukurukai text and claim Japan is whitewashing its past – or indeed, because primary achool children are not being told about sex slavery, that Japan is hiding its past. And they respond with idiotic ideas like trying to get the name of the Sea of Japan changed to the East Sea in English.

The posts on this board are mainly hostile to a mindset, as far as I can see, rather than a people per se. The one that refuses to naturalize under the excuse that that would dilute who they are, but it’s mainly a political protest. It seems a pointless protest.

Are Japanophiles conservatives? I would say it depends on why you are a Japanophile – I know some who are extremely left wing. Perhaps those that approach Japan through manga are more left wing, and those that approach through “traditional” Japan are more right wing. Also the economics ones, perhaps.

Overthinker: In response to your point that historians in Japan are left-wing in general, if that is true, then they surely don’t have much influence in contemporary Japanese society; this kind of historical understanding seems confined to academia, and doesn’t quite translate to the average person. In fact, I would disagree that the majority of Japanese are “sympathetic” to Chinese and Korean grievances. Rather, it seems that the perceptions of Japan’s neighbors in the media generally trend towards criticism, and these attitudes are in turn emulated by ordinary people.

In other words, how would you explain the increasing tolerance of anti-Korean and anti-Chinese remarks by conservative politicians? Where are the vocal left-wingers?

“I would disagree that the majority of Japanese are “sympathetic” to Chinese and Korean grievances.”

Based on what? You seriously don’t think the majority of Japanese think that the Japanese invasion of China was a bad thing?

“the increasing tolerance of anti-Korean and anti-Chinese remarks by conservative politicians”

Here’s a good debate tactic – toss in “increasing” when you mean you are seeing more. Is this tolerance in fact increasing? Is it proportional to any rise in anti-Japan statements? What exactly constitutes an “anti” China/Korea statement?

“the perceptions of Japan’s neighbors in the media generally trend towards criticism”

Criticism of Koreans littering beaches, for example, is not denial of Korean suffering in the war. Nor should the two ever be conflated. Also, “generally” is a rather vague word as well. A lot of the stuff Japan Probe picks up on is critical, as the blog is designed to get comments and debate.

And re the historians, “if that is true” – no “if” about it.

No, your logic is flawed. The statement “your are either A or B” is untrue if it is clear some people are both “A and B”. The fact that the “A and B” state can only exist in a limited number of cases doesn’t make the statement that it can exist untrue, does it?

Clearly the options of a citizen of one, or none, or multiple are all possible, given the right host state.

To argue that saying “dual nationality is wrong” is a mistaken statement just because a minority of nations allow it is no more sensible than saying “gambling is OK because Las Vegas allows it” or “pot smoking is OK be cause Holland allows it”.

I guess I missed that it was a subjective statement indicating that dual citizenship is, in his/her opinion, wrong.

Philosophically, gambling in Las Vegas is OK, but you can still think it’s wrong. Gambling, generally, in Japan is illegal, but you can still think it’s not fundamentally wrong, just illegal.

So if you personally think that dual citizenship is wrong or nonsensical, that’s fine. The absolute statement that you are “one or none, not multiple” though is at odds with the facts. I think one could argue that being stateless (i.e. none) is wrong, too.

Actually americans can give up thier citizenship. They are just not allowed to get it back. Only in rare and exotic circumstances you can. Debito does not pay taxes because hes not American anymore. Japan does not allow dual nationality thus he had to give up his US citizenship to do so. He feels he is fighting a way of thinking that excludes him and many others from society. For example my father is Jewish. My mother is not. Therefore I am not jewish as far as Israel is concerned. Ergo I am Jewish enough to be hated but not Jewish enough to be Jewish. His situation is similar in that he has Japanese nationality. A Japanese passport. He pays taxes in Japan though many believe he is still not Japanese. Making it a racial issue. So your logic regarding debito is erronious. How can he evade taxes to a country he is not a citizen of or reside in.

Robert

A little over 20 years ago there was a major shift in U.S. state department policy. Americans can no longer renounce their citizenship or evade citizenship’s legal obligations and responsibilities. Debito or any other American can become Japanese. Pledge allegiance to the emperor and burn the American flag but they are still technically American. Getting back your U.S. citizenship is not even the question because you can’t lose it. The only way that a U.S. citizen could ever lose their U.S. citizenship would be to join the North Korean Army or some other hostile nation or terrorist group to the U.S.

This U.S. citizenship used to be quite different more than 30 years ago during and before the cold war but the state department made a drastic shift in policy in this regards. I don’t think that many of the underlings or flunkies in the State department are even aware of this policy clearly. But if you talk with any consulate general around the world that is in the know they’ll give you the correct and current policy. Which is once a U.S. citizen always a U.S. citizen until death do us part. Whether you like it or not. The same goes for all of thousands of Japanese babies that are born in the U.S. And then the parents register their birth. They have become American and when they become 18 they are legally required to register for the selective service if they are male. Although this isn’t being enforced all that much their may come a day when the U.S. starts calling these young men into service. And if they don’t register they may extradite a few back to the U.S. and prosecute them to set an example. Japanese and other foreigners that think they are so smart in having their children born in the U.S. so that they become U.S. citizens upon birth have absolutely no idea what the obligations of being a U.S. citizen entail. Debito may have renounced his U.S. citizenship but he’s still a U.S. citizen and if he’s making good money in the future as a talent he’d better file a U.S. tax return and pay his taxes or it’s possible he might be made an example of by the I.R.S. Yes, they can do that and sometimes they do.

@Gaijin – you are wrong, American citizens can renounce as Overthinker pointed out, and Debito renounced far more recently that 20 years ago. There are nations out there that refuse to allow their citizens to renounce citizenship, but the US is not one of them. Thousands of people renounce their US citizenship every year, and are recorded in The Big List of Not Nice People in the Congressional Register for that year. The list is online if you care to look for it.

US citizens living overseas are required to file a Federal income tax return, yes, but if you make less than about 80,000 USD a year you have no tax obligation. If you make more than that amount but are paying income taxes to the country you live in, you get credit for the taxes on any amount over the 80,000 USD you earned. This is all spelled out in the 1040 book you get every year.

So, now that we’ve established conclusively you don’t know whereof you speak…

@Overthinker – the “10 year tax obligation for renouncing US citizenship” is only for those who are determined to have renounced their citizenship for tax reasons. It was part of a law aimed at the “Yacht people”, wealthy Americans who lived offshore and were thus able to deduct that 80K I mentioned above. If the US government determines that your primary reason for renouncing citizenship is to get out of paying US taxes you are held responsible for the taxes on 100% of your income (no 80K deduction) for the next 10 years and permanently banned from ever re-entering the US.

There have been questions raised about how the State Department, which handles renunciations, would be able to determine one’s tax liability as the IRS is specifically prohibited by Federal law from sharing specific individual’s income and tax information with other Federal or State agencies. There is apparently an allowance made for criminal investigations that specifically involve tax fraud, but if one has been paying their taxes properly that allowance should not be applicable. In theory, but we are talking about the government…

Well, we can’t really go much further. On the one hand we have the State Dept saying it is possible, on the other we have you saying it isn’t based on personal coversations. Not being an American citizen I have never had the need to talk to a consul-general or ambassador, but I will try and remember to raise the issue. After all, it’s not impossible they would tell Americans that just to try and prevent them from thinking about trying…. We really need someone who has gone through the process. I certainly won’t ever renounce US citizenship, for the very good reason I don’t have it.

If it had not been for Sarah Palin I would not have minded if McCain took the White House. He seemed a decent chap. Obama seems good too, I think. Aside from Palin, who gave me the shits, I wouldn’t have minded WHO got in the White House. Though Hilary Clinton was a bit scary too.

“I just worried about the effect of all those years of his being a P.O.W. in Vietnam”

I think if they had driven him nuts it would have been obvious well before the election stage….

@Overthinker – I finally figured out what Gaijin is confused about. Under old interpretations of 8 USC §1481 the mere act of naturalizing elsewhere was taken as intent to give up one’s US citizenship, and the State Department would automatically cancel that individual’s citizenship. Supreme Court decisions starting with Afroyim vs. Rusk held that the US Government could not just cancel people’s US citizenship, as that would run counter to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. And in 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Government could not revoke one’s citizenship without a preponderance of evidence that the individual committed one of the acts listed in the above USC with the specific intention of renouncing their US citizenship. As a result, US immigration laws were changed in 1986 to specify that potentially expatriating acts would result in the loss of US citizenship only if they were performed with the intent of relinquishing US nationality.

In other words, the law was changed so that the US government cannot unilaterally decide “Person X naturalized in another country and so is no longer a US citizen”. Now the person in question must demonstrate that they intend to give up US citizenship. I think this is where Gaijin is confused.

There is nothing in US law prohibiting an individual from renouncing. But there are clear US laws regarding what must be done when someone renounces – their name must be recorded in the Congressional Register for that year, and the State Department must issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the individual.