Comments

Posts

Naturalized Japanese citizen: Don’t give voting rights to non-citizens

On Friday night’s episode of “Prime Minister Ota,” the DPJ’s decision to move forward with its plan to grant voting rights to non-citizens was introduced as #2 in the top ten anger-inducing news stories of the week:

A guest from the LDP voices opposition to the move, saying that foreigners who want to vote should naturalize and that he thinks giving voting rights to non-citizens is unconstitutional. A DPJ guest says he does not think it violates the constitution and that the measure has popular support because it was written in the party’s platform prior to the most recent election. He thinks that taxpaying permanent residents should be given voting rights.

Among the guests was author and political commentator Kin Birei (Kin Alice Mei ling), an immigrant from Taiwan who became a Japanese citizen last year. She often aligns herself with right wingers, and in this case she has taken their side in opposing the foreigner suffrage plan. Her argument, however, is not one of sensational xenophobia. Kin says she became a Japanese citizen so she could have the right to vote, and any other foreigner who wants that right should follow her example. Kin cannot see why it should be obvious that taxpaying foreigners be given voting rights. She fears that this will lead to an increase in foreigners with permanent residency who do not naturalize. In certain areas with large foreign populations, granting voting rights to non-citizens could make them a crucial swing vote in elections.

The DPJ representative replies by emphasizing that the measure will only grant voting rights for local elections, so it won’t have any impact on national issues.

The debate is cut off on that point. If the opposition had been given a chance to respond, they would have probably pointed out that local elections can influence national policy. In fact, much of the media is predicting that yesterday’s election of an anti-base mayor in a small Okinawa town will do just that.

Should non-citizens be given the right to vote in Japan?

—

Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
Dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)

47 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - January 25, 2010 at 7:30 am

Categories: Foreigners in Japan, Politics Tags:

Brenden

I may be slightly pessimistic, but I see the move to grant voting rights to permanent residents not so much as a way to increase participation, but as a way to avoid revising policies regarding naturalization.

LB

I wonder the same thing. Ozawa has said that the rules surrounding naturalization are overly strict and make it difficult for people who want to naturalize to easily do so – therefore the solution is to give PRs the right to vote.

Huh?

So, instead of fixing the “problem” by revising the laws concerning naturalization further to make it easier to become a Japanese citizen, Ozawa and the DPJ want to create a new problem by taking the “easy way out” and giving PRs the vote. Thereby removing one of the incentives to become a citizen, and arguably laying the groundwork for keeping PRs and SPRs truly “permanent”.

The PRs and SPRs who are for this often strike me as spoiled kids who want it both ways – “I want to be a citizen, as long as you let me do it on my terms (ignore the rules on “name Kanji”, or on using only katakana/hiragana/kanji, or get Japanese citizenship while maintaining foreign citizenship)” then “OK, if you won’t let me have citizenship on my terms, then I demand you treat me like a citizen and give me the right to vote. But none of that unpleasant stuff that goes with being a citizen like jury duty. Just give me the bits I want!”

Those folks are a lot like the “I demand you treat me like everyone else, but since I don’t believe in socialist junk like nationalized health care insurance, you have to make a special rule just for me so I can use private insurance. But aside from that, you must treat me just like everyone else! Until I find something else I demand you give me just because I’m special!” crowd.

Gooksan

The guy on the right looks like Obama
Level3

In general I oppose giving voting rights to non citzens, but I kind of can see the other side regarding local elections.

I can still vote in national and even local elections “back home” (due to lax enrollment standards in the USA which basically allow people, even the dead, to vote forever in any town they have lived in, especially if it’s Chicago), but I don’t bother voting in local elections because the issues don’t affect me, plus I don’t really feel I have the right, since I don’t live there anymore, I don’t pay any taxes there except sales tax when I visit family, and there’s no such thing as “local citizenship”.

I pay taxes HERE, why shouldn’t I have some voice in my town? But on the flip side, I too am a bit scared of the chance that someday in the future, some town might decide to vote for sharia law or install a NorK communist town council. But aside from that distant paranoid nightmare, what the hell is wrong with politicians actually having to pay attention to long-term resident tax-payers’ opinions?

Well, because they aren’t citizens. Become a citizen, act like a citizen, don’t demand special rights above native citzens, and you can vote. Any left-of-center party granting the vote to non-citizens is basically doing it out of self-interest, not compassion. They just think foreigners will tend to vote for the left (or just against the LDP’s ranks of blatant racists, they sure make it easy to pick), and they want more votes.

I agree, what is really needed is reforming the chaotic, vague Immigration system AND making sure the rules are applied universally instead of depending on the individual interpretation of whichever Immigration official you happen to meet and what mood they’re in that day.
http://www.binary-apotheosis.com/blogs/index.php Rob A

I don’t see why not. If that’s where someone’s living, why not let them vote?

Are they worried this will let the unregistered public sway policy so far in their favor that Japan is going to become some overrun-with-gaijin rock in the ocean?

Brendens

Because it goes to the fundamental question of what defines a citizen as opposed to a resident.

If we accept that citizenship carries with it both responsibility and privilege, then it becomes a bit clearer why some people would be opposed to the removal of one of the main responsibilities/privileges being taken away from the realm of the citizen.

Conversely, should a 1 year resident on a working holiday visa be allowed to vote? What about a student on a two-year visa?
http://blog.havill.com/ Eido Inoue

Because a non-citizen doesn’t have the same skin-in-the-game as a citizen.

A non-citizen could vote for things that benefit them in the short term, and not need to worry about the long term consequences of their vote. Because if things get bad, they can always go back to their home country.

shavedwater

If I’m not mistaken, Japan does not allow dual citizenship.
For example, if a US citizen becomes a naturalized Japanese
citizen, he/she must renounce the US citizenship at a US
embassy/consulate.

If a permanant resident is allowed to vote in Japan, that
same person can also vote in US elections via absentee
ballot. Being able to vote in elections in two countries
seem like double-dipping to me. It’s not fair for the
regular Japanese citizens(native or naturalized) who can
only vote in Japanese elections.

In any case, what exactly does the Japanese constitution say
on this subject. If the constitution says only Japanese
citizens may vote, then so be it. Anyone else who feels
otherwisde can work to get the constitution amended. (not
an easy task, but possible)

LB

In any case, what exactly does the Japanese constitution say on this subject.

第15条　公務員を選定し、及びこれを罷免することは、国民固有の権利である。

Article 15: The election of public officials, or the dismissal thereof, is the inalienable right of the people (国民 – Citizens of Japan).

Therefore allowing PRs the right to vote is in violation of the Constitution – something Ozawa has apparently missed, ironic as he likes to publicly berate reporters with “Have you read the Constitution of Japan?”

Constitutional amendment is possible, but requires:
2/3 approval of both houses of the Diet, at which point the amendment will be submitted to the people, and if a majority vote in favor of the amendment, it is added. On an issue like this, fuggedaboutit. Never be approved.

The difficulty of amending the Constitution is one reason why I always got pissed at the Socialist Party with their endless warnings that the LDP was going to up and amend the Constitution, and they (the Socialists) were the only thing preventing that – they were conveniently leaving out that even if every single LDP member voted in favor of amendment, the LDP didn’t have a 2/3 majority in both houses, and even if they cleared the 2/3 line, any amendment still required 50.1% of the voters to approve it.

Brenden

I’ve actually wondered about that though… why does the guaranteeing of a right to citizens necessarily preclude it from being granted to non-citizens?

LB

Because the word 固有, while generally translated into English as “inalienable” (which is a valid translation) also means “peculiar to” or “unique to”. Therefore in Japanese the meaning is clear – citizens, and only citizens, have the right to elect and dismiss public officials, and that right of citizens is inalienable.

shavedwater

can anyone please tell me the name of the hottie
who appears at 0:57 ???

THANKS!!!

I should start watching more Japanese TV…
don’t know half of the actors/actresses on TV…

Naniwa

I hope you die in a fire.
LP

It’s your Mom.
Kevin not kevin

Her name is Suzanne スザンヌ.

Gaijinocchio

“In certain areas with large foreign populations, granting voting rights to non-citizens could make them a crucial swing vote in elections.”

To me, that’s the point. Shake things up a little. Besides, foreign population in Japan is still vastly outnumbered in nearly all areas; so if they swing the vote, Japan has no one to blame but themselves for voter apathy.

And really, can we trust Japanese voters, who constantly re-elected Shintaro Ishihara? No.

Deepspacebeans

This is largely how I view the issue. For municipalities with large foreign resident populations, having elected local officials which represent some of the interests of that community is a large step forward.
LB

“And really, can we trust Japanese voters”

And there is tonight’s winner in the “idiotic broad, sweeping overgeneralization” sweepstakes!

Japanese voters also voted overwhelmingly for Minshuto, you know. And Ishihara, for all his foot-in-mouth gaffes has actually done a fair amount of good for Tokyo. That’s what keeps getting him elected.

helical

“Japanese voters also voted overwhelmingly for Minshuto”

Wait, that’s a good thing?

LB

Debatable – but Minshuto is the party floating this harebrained “let’s give the SPRs the vote” idea, after all – and I take it gaijinocchio is in favor of that…
helical

Ah okay, I see now the connection on why you mentioned it there.

For the laughably patronizing attitude Gaijinoccho’s comment represents, I would personally be forced to consider it to have merit when faced with the fact that Japanese voters did indeed, vote in the DPJ …
Gaijinocchio

Ahem, Ishihara has done NOTHING except waste time and money. He’s a crook and you know it. If you name ONE good thing he’s done, I can name at least TWO that negates and/or totally reverses that.

Go flame someone else, because deep down, you know I’m right. Also, you already know my stance on SPR voting from my initial comment.

“I would personally be forced to consider it to have merit when faced with the fact that Japanese voters did indeed, vote in the DPJ …”

See?

Initially my Ishihara comment was meant to be facetious; however, it seems there’s more truth in it than most are willing to outright admit.
nigelboy

“Ahem, Ishihara has done NOTHING except waste time and money. He’s a crook and you know it. If you name ONE good thing he’s done, I can name at least TWO that negates and/or totally reverses that.”

That applies to all politicians in general since the media only reports the negative and completely ignore the positive.

But considering the “alternative” candidates who ran for the election, you cannot find a more suitable candidate than Ishihara. That’s why people voted him in.

Here’s an article from Nikkei explaining the tax revenue, spending, and deficiency from the past four governers in Tokyo. As you can see, under Ishihara, the deficiency level is the lowest since 1988, quite remarkable considering that we’re comparing the bubble era.

http://bizplus.nikkei.co.jp/colm/harada.cfm?i=20080206c3000c3&p=1

In my opinion, Ishihara is one of very few governers who are not afraid to tell the elites from Kasumigaseki and Nagatacho to F off for the well being of To-min.

Buster

its about LOCAL voting rights, no? How exactly is this comparable to national elections, or citizen status in general? …

LB

Did you catch the voting results from Henoko? Local election, but with big national implications.

Buster

If you life in a place for years, why shouldnt you have a say in local politics? I’m not a pro at japanese politcs, but thats what the one politician said, and that sounds about right.

LB

If you live in a place for years, to the point you decide to get “permanent residency”, which would imply you intend to live there “permanently”, why shouldn’t you be expected to naturalize if you want a say in politics? That is how it works in most places*, and what is said by a lot of politicians and non-politicians, and that sounds about right.

*Yes, I know about the EU, but that is the result of a unique set of historical, cultural and political circumstances where you effectively have “nations” within a “nation”, a cultural mindset that more-or-less accepts that (excluding England, for the most part…) and only applies consistently to residents from other EU countries.
Buster

Well, as a EU citizen I can see where they are coming from, and yes, we are seperate Nations with different languages, histories, etc.

Besides that, the main problem here is that there seems to be lots of FUD about the whole topic to a point where people are willfully misguided into believing that is about more than just local elections.

k9

if they commit any crimes, are they brought to justice as same as japanese? if not, at least executives of the powerful lobbies of both N & S korean in japan can get anything thier own way. this new law will surely make thire political power more stronger as political machines.
I just want to request to jp gov “no more untouchable”.
Mike Guest

Presumably the candidates for local public office will only be citizens. Since only citizens can run, the idea that granting suffrage to NJs might lead to some nefarious foreign agent wielding influence seems to be a stretch.
weirdo

I’m on the fence for this particular issue. On one hand, they’re paying taxes and all that. But on the other hand, what’s the point of becoming a citizen if you can vote anyway? The foreign population isn’t nearly enough to do anything on the national scale anyway, so the local vote is all that really matters.

weirdo

A few more questions:

1. Why not Naturalize?
2. If you think Naturalizing is difficult, why is the issue about letting foreigners vote instead of making it easier for foreigners to naturalize to vote?
3. If the answer to 1 was something along the lines of “pride in my country”, is a citizenship required for pride? Your citizenship = pride? I find this silly and am of the opinion that pride should not be a part of this decision.
4. If your answer to 1 is along the lines of “I don’t plan on living in Japan forever”, then why should you have a say in matters that affect permanent residents far greater than you?

sevenfish

how many US citizens had chosen to become Japanese citizens
in the last 10 years? (and giving up their US citizenship)

LB

10,338 non-Korean, non-Chinese foreigners have taken Japanese citizenship in the last 10 years, according to the Justice Ministry’s website. While I am sure they have data on how many of those were Americans, they don’t break it down that far in their online published listing.

However, according to the Justice Ministry data used in the Japanese Wiki article on foreigners in Japan, Americans represent about 6% of the non-Korean & non-Chinese foreign population.

Assuming that Americans naturalized in Japan at the same rate as other groups (even as my gut tells me that is a false assumption…), about 620 Americans would have taken Japanese citizenship in the last 10 years. All of them “should have” renounced their US citizenship.

Buster

Assuming the number of foreign spouses, especially “mail order” brides from South East Asia is a lot higher than that the question is why these people won’t get naturalized.

LB

A fair number do: in 2007 for example about 13,000 Chinese married Japanese, and about 4,300 Chinese naturalized as Japanese citizens. Now, obviously due to rules on length of residence required prior to naturalizing etc. these two groups in 2007 are mutually exclusive, plus not all of the Chinese who naturalized are necessarily married to Japanese, but well over 4000 Chinese become Japanese every year. Chinese are also #1 in the “foreign partner of a Japanese in an international marriage” ranking, by the way, and by a respectable margin. #2 would be Filipinas/Filipinos at about 9,300 persons in 2007. The only other SE Asian country that rates a ranking other than in the “other” category on the Health and Welfare Ministry rankings is Thailand, but Thai spouses have been holding steady at only about 1500 people per year for years now.

Anyway, #3 on the list would be Koreans at about 7,700 people in 2007, and 8,500 Koreans naturalized that year.

I’d say a fair number of foreign spouses are getting naturalized every year, although certainly not all. Perhaps being the wife and mother of Japanese makes them feel secure enough in terms of being able to stay in the country and live life as they see fit (no work rules etc.), and they just don’t see the need to take that next step, or perhaps the family has plans to move to the spouse’s home country after retirement, who knows.

Anecdotal evidence I have seen or read from here and there suggests that probably, for the majority of non-”Special” permanent residents in Japan, being able to vote is either not a big issue or else they feel as I do that voting is a right of citizens, and one should naturalize if one wants to vote. It mostly seems to be the Koreans who want this, which in a way (since they are the group that could most easily naturalize, and the holdouts either won’t or else are prohibited from doing so due to criminal records) is probably one of the best arguments against giving them the vote.

http://blog.havill.com/ Eido Inoue

Less than 600 (often MUCH less; 2002: 403 people; 2006: 509 people) Americans per year renounce their U.S. citizenship, be it for Japan or any other country. This doesn’t count bogus non-formal attempts to renounce like burning your passport (actually illegal) or joining tax/debt evasion schemes like “Sovereign Citizens”.

Thus, less (MUCH less) than 600 Americans per year naturalize to Japanese.

In reality, this does not count people that bend the rules, for example, Christopher Savoie. And it doesn’t count Japanese-Americans with dual nationality, who technically aren’t naturalizing to Japanese citizenship.

People that renounce their U.S. citizenship have their name recorded in the U.S. Federal Register (quarterly), which is public record and can be searched online here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html

LB

Thanks Eido. I was looking for those numbers, but like so much else when it comes to trying to find government info, I found that same page but couldn’t figure out the exact phrasing needed to then find the exact page(s) with numbers on them.

I wouldn’t say Savoie “bent” the rules – he broke them. There’s no two ways about it. When you apply to naturalize, you are told from Day One you are required to renounce your previous citizenship if it is possible to do so. Any US citizen who naturalizes should instantly hit one of the US government’s requirements for getting their citizenship revoked: naturalizing in another country with intent to renounce US citizenship. I just don’t see any way one should be ale to say “Sure, I naturalized in Japan fully aware I was required to renounce US citizenship, but I never intended to actually do it…” Actions speak louder than words, and I would like nothing better than to see Savoie stripped of US citizenship and deported to Japan – and then be stripped of his Japanese citizenship and refused entry because he refused to give up his US citizenship as he was required to.

http://blog.havill.com/ Eido Inoue

While I actually agree with you and think Christopher Savoie probably broke the rules/law, I’m willing to play devil’s advocate and think that there’s some other condition that we don’t know about.

It is possible to attempt to formally renounce your citizenship and be refused by the U.S. In these particular cases, you don’t lose your Japanese citizenship (if you formally tried and have proof you tried). In addition to the U.S., there are a lot of countries that will refuse to allow you to renounce their citizenships, and there are also countries that will automatically assign you citizenship whether you want it or not (marriage to a national of that country, for example). Being denied or automatically assigned citizenship doesn’t DQ your Japanese citizenship.

Example: there are a lot of Japanese women married to men from states that follow Islamic law that are now dual nationals due to automatic assignment, and they can’t easily get rid of it.

Did Savoie attempt to renounce his U.S. citizenship after acquiring Japanese citizenship and be denied by the U.S.? I seriously doubt it. But I admit I don’t know for sure.

Either way, Savoie has got some explaining to do the next time he renews his passport. U.S. passport renewal form, DS-82, clearly states in the Acts & Conditions:

I have not, since acquiring United States citizenship/nationality, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state

A common misunderstanding about U.S. dual nationality; the U.S. tolerates it, but it doesn’t formally recognize it. In particular, the U.S. allows you to grandfather in pre-existing nationalities when you’re born/naturalized and allows for automatic nationality acquisition (via marriage etc).

But it does frown upon the voluntary acquisition of additional nationalities once you’re American.

Pragmatically speaking, while legally possible, stripping somebody of their citizenship is very, very hard to do — either for the U.S. or Japan. You basically have to do something approaching treason, like join the military of one country, have it declare war against the other, and fight against that country.

Usually what countries do if they really want you to ditch a citizenship is to make life very difficult for you, within the law (so it doesn’t fit the “forced to renounce under duress” test), by throwing the book at you regarding taxes, paperwork, detaining/interrogating you at airport immigration, etc.
LB

Yes, the US is a bit schizophrenic when it comes to dual nationality. On the one hand, you have the State Department saying “We recognize such a thing exists…” and issuing the usual cautions about if you are an American in the country of your other citizenship, the US won’t be able to help you or provide consular visits (funny, they did for Savoie – not sure why Japan allowed that…).

And on the other hand one the oath people take when they naturalize into the US clearly states that they swear to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which (they) have heretofore been a subject or citizen”.

Now, how one can do that and still be a citizen of another country (that is, a citizen of a country that allows one to renounce their citizenship, I am aware there are some that will not allow renunciation under any circumstances) is a bit beyond me. But then, I’m strange like that – I actually believe that being a citizen of a country should mean “having allegiance” to that country, and if you “renounce allegiance” you should excuse yourself from being a citizen post haste. In fact, you have already excused yourself from being a citizen.

The US State Department seems to agree with this:
“However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

Any US citizen who naturalizes in Japan would, IMHO, hit all three of those benchmarks: they are doing so voluntarily, by free choice, and as they announce to the Justice Ministry right from the start that they intend to renounce their US citizenship, and sign their names to that on the application they are declaring their intent to give up US citizenship.

I also know that if you naturalize in Japan and the Embassy finds out, they will ask you your intentions – and if you say “I never intended to renounce” then that’s basically the end of it. It shouldn’t be the end of the discussion, but unfortunately it seems it often is.
http://blog.havill.com/ Eido Inoue

Let me throw one silly unrealistic example where you can be naturalized as Japanese and not have to take an allegiance or get rid of your other nationalities (and the assignment is automatic): 大帰化 {taikika} (extraordinary naturalization).

Basically, 大帰化 {taikika} is when the Japanese Diet decides (>50% vote from both lower and upper houses) you’re so full of awesome win that they just give you Japanese nationality, no conditions or strings attached.

Since the concept of 大帰化 {taikika} was codified into law in 1950, not a single foreigner has ever been 大帰化 {taikika}-ed.

Since there is no reference example of a non-Japanese who qualified, I’m guessing this is how you get it: a plane, transporting the royal family, crashes, and you single-handedly pull them out of the burning wreckage and save them all. At the hospital, the prime minister visits you and thanks you for your incredible historic service to the country and says if there’s anything he can do for you, please let him know. You say “I want to become Japanese.”

Yup. I’m pretty sure that will get you 大帰化 {taikika}-ed.

and I’m pretty sure Christopher Savoie did not qualify.
Mamoru Kuwayama

“Any US citizen who naturalizes in Japan would, IMHO, hit all three of those benchmarks: they are doing so voluntarily, by free choice, and as they announce to the Justice Ministry right from the start that they intend to renounce their US citizenship, and sign their names to that on the application they are declaring their intent to give up US citizenship.”

Regarding the third part – if the person is applying for new citizenship WITHOUT the intention to renounce existing citizenship, then he is in the clear? Saying “I never intended to renounce” appears to be the loophole in the bit schizophrenic US system.
LB

“Regarding the third part – if the person is applying for new citizenship WITHOUT the intention to renounce existing citizenship, then he is in the clear?”

Yes, that is basically correct. There are countries out there that allow/allowed one to naturalize and keep their previous citizenship – Ireland springs to mind. The applicant basically just has to say “I’d like a passport, please”, and if they meet whatever requirements that country has (ancestry, residence, whatever) they get the passport without ever having to say “and I’ll give up my US citizenship if you give me that passport”. For those people, there would be no legal problem with saying honestly, if asked by a US consular official, “No, I never intended to relinquish my US citizenship when I applied for this passport.” And the US would accept that barring any other evidence or set of circumstances (such as becoming an officer in the other country’s military, or engaging in armed hostilities against the US) and continue to consider the individual a US citizen.

However, when it comes to Japan (aside from Eido’s example above), regardless of what one “intends” deep in their “heart of hearts”, they have to sign a paper during the application process saying they intend to renounce when/if they get Japanese citizenship. They can’t say the “signed under duress” or any crap like that – therefore in the case of Americans naturalizing in Japan, I don’t see as they should ever be allowed to say “But I didn’t intend to renounce” or “I’m just trying Japanese citizenship on for size, lemme get back to you later.” It is a long, drawn-out deliberate process during which there is plenty of time to have second thoughts. Anyone who gets a Japanese passport should have their US passport canceled the next day.
Mamoru Kuwayama

I could see someone easily making an excuse that “oh, I thought it was just a meaningless formality,” if an official asked about a signed paper stating an intention to renounce existing citizenship.

But anyway, wouldn’t it be better for everyone Japan and America to revise current naturalization laws to recognize dual citizenship without forcing naturalizated citizens who applied to renounce one country or the other?
LB

I could see someone easily making an excuse that “oh, I thought it was just a meaningless formality,”

Oh, I could see someone saying that as well – but it doesn’t mean we should believe them. And even if they did truly think it was a “meaningless formality”, should the sanction be any less? I mean, would you not give someone a ticket for going through a stop sign if they said “I thought stopping was just a meaningless formality”?

But anyway, wouldn’t it be better for everyone Japan and America to revise current naturalization laws to recognize dual citizenship without forcing naturalizated citizens who applied to renounce one country or the other?

My honest opinion? No. Let me preface what I am about to say with this: First, I have far more understanding for someone who was born a dual national as a result of an international marriage. They didn’t ask to have two passports, and I can sympathize with the fact that if those countries force their citizens to choose one or the other when the child reaches adulthood that can make life difficult for that individual.

However an adult immigrating to another country, living there and deciding to become a citizen is another thing. I would really like to think that people who do that are by and large like myself: they want citizenship not just for the legal protections and rights, but because the country they are living in is their home, and they have strong feelings for their home – allegiance, love of country, whatever you want to call it. That doesn’t mean that I don’t still have an affinity for the country of my birth, but that country is not my home anymore and I honestly don’t see myself ever moving back, in the same way that when my grandparents immigrated and became citizens they still had feelings for the “old country”, but they had stronger feelings for their new country. They could have kept their old citizenship, but didn’t see the point in it. And I also don’t see the point in keeping a passport for a country that is not my home, especially one that, if I ever win the lottery, is going to hold it’s hand out for a chunk of the winnings just because I still have a passport from it.

Still, I know of, for example, someone who is a natural-born US citizen, and has an Irish passport thanks to his father being originally from Ireland, and who now lives basically permanently in Japan and says he’d probably take Japanese citizenship as well except they’d insist that he lose the other two passports. That just blows my mind – which country does he owe allegiance to? All? None? From things he has written I would have to say “none”, that it is all about what his countries can do for him, and not what he can do for his countries, to mangle the JFK quote.

Anyway, citizenship is not, and should never be, a fashion statement. Asking for a country’s citizenship represents a commitment on the part of the individual to that country. We don’t need “fair weather citizens” who keep their US or Canadian or EU passports so they can jump ship if things get rough.

So no, Japan should not move to recognize dual nationality for those who choose to naturalize here.
Mamoru Kuwayama

I agree that non-citizens should not vote, and that citizenship should not be a fashion statement or accessory, but people who have obtained permanent residency here have established a deep, solid connection to Japan by living here a very long time, being gainfully employed, and/or by being married to a Japanese national. When you think about it, isn’t that what having a home and being a citizen is – having a mountain of connections and experiences to a place and the larger community?

And there are some people who have deep connections in multiple countries. Certainly there are emmigrants who leave countries never to return due to economic stress or political factors, but there are international citizens who travel and maintain their connections in both the country where they were born and raised and the country where they have lived for a long time as adults. It seems cruel to force a law-abiding member of society to reject a large portion of his life in exchange for the right to cast a vote in an election. Why can’t a person have multiple loves and multiple loyalties that have been based on experience? If a law was introduced saying a person can only inherit money and property from one parent and must choose in advance, we’d laugh that as ridiculous. But it seems with multiple citizenships, we’re subscribe to oldtype thinking like we are living in 17th century Europe with countries constantly fighting each other and nobody who wasn’t born into your race can be trusted.

The idea that we don’t need “fair weather” or “dead beat” or “citizens who will vote for the wrong things in the short term” etc is a dangerous train of thought. Countries have legions of their own native born citizens who are not productive members of society and are citizens because their status was determined by birth land or blood, but we don’t set up a “proof your worth” system of citizenship like the military citizenship of Starship Troopers nor creating a class of euniches on the assumption that only those who don’t have a genetic investment in the future can protect the government like Old China. And who is to decide whose votes damage society? Should America set up panels and strip the citizenship of everyone who voted for Bush twice? Or maybe they should strip people who voted for Clinton, since he started economic de-regulation which turned into the current meltdown. Or in Japan, now that DLP is in charge maybe they will strip citizenship of all the people who voted LDP for the past 40 years? The idea that in an election a naturalized dual citizen is going to vote in one country against it and flee to the other country to another is simply ridiculous and xenophobic. By living, working, be married, children etc – having ties to a country for a long time he has proven a vested interested in the continued success of his home. He’s not waiting for an opportunity to stab his country in the back to make a buck or a yen, and what kind of situation would allow him, in a national election, to do that? Direct referendum on giving free money to citizens of his birth country? Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

VGS

Permanent ethnic Korean residents of Japan (Zainichi Koreans) are granted special privileges compared to other foreigners.
e.g. The City of Iga(Mie Pref.) was criticized for the hidden reduction of the residence tax by 50%.(Nov 11 2007 )
Zainichi Koreans prefer voting rights for foreign residents since naturalizing in Japan means loss of all these privileges.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9C%A8%E6%97%A5%E7%89%B9%E6%A8%A9

Naturalized Japanese citizen: Don’t give voting rights to non-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