Ernest Schaal wrote:

> in article j3gke094hjsmn66lchgkmfcvv87bppm44o@4ax.com, puntspeedchunk at
> puntspeedchunk@gmail.com wrote on 7/6/04 3:11 PM:
> 
> 
>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:09:19 -0500, "John W."
>><worthj1970@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... about Japan that I honestly don't understand.
>>>
>>>From Mainichi:
>>>http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20040705p2a00m0dm012000c.html
>>>
>>>In short, there is a Thai girl's whose grandmother lives in Japan and is
>>>married to a Japanese. The girl's parents died, so she went to live with
>>>her grandmother. The Japanese government refuses to give her a visa
>>>other than a temporary visitor one, even though the Japanese man has
>>>adopted the girl.
>>>
>>>Just doesn't make sense; I'm hoping there's more to the case than meets
>>>the eye.
>>
>>Started to reply but got too angry to type. <<ARRRRGH!>>
> 
> Sorry to disagree with you on this one, but one of the cardinal rules of
> international law is that each country has the basic right to determine
> entry into the country and citizenship. That basic right can be modified or
> limited by treaty, but ultimate authority rests in each individual country.
> 
> For instance, in the US, if you are born there then you are a citizen. That
> is the exception, not the rule. Being born in Japan doesn't necessarily make
> one a Japanese citizen.

So what? The issue here is whether a parent (a Japanese citizen) can 
keep his (legally adopted) kid in the country where he (the 
parent/citizen) and the kid's only family (he and her grandmother) live. 
The citizenship of the kid isn't relevant here.

> But cheer up. The Immigration service has granted her an extension as it
> readdresses her case.

As they bloody well should.


-- 
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on"