Declan Murphy <declan_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ever article I browse mentions different things. Earlier today it was
> permanent residents will not be subjected to the new measures, whereas
> this article implies that of permanent residents only special permanent
> residents will be exempt.

Hm... i haven't looked for any related articles yet (just found the one
in the JT by chance), but i figure some reliable information will
eventually be available at the local branches of the immigration office
- i imagine if people who want to know were to call those offices now
the information dissemination process will be sped up (surely SOME of
the front line staff will send often heard questions up the command
pipeline).

> Yes it is a stupid attempt. But while I can avoid travel (and have) to
> the other country, I can't avoid re-entering this one as easily.

Assuming for a moment that this new rule does indeed apply to permanent
residents as well, i suspect that a good number of carefully worded
notes of protest to high officials (maybe even via the embassies),
accompanied by related publicity, could quickly bring about a situation
where, regardless of what the law says, some people might just quietly
be exempted from the treatment. This kind of flexibility (discretion
when interpreting rules) is, after all, not unheard of... ;-)

> > But the latter looks rather impossible under the current government,
> > since Japan, unlike Germany and other countries, has not yet come out
> > from under the big thumb it was placed under 60 years ago...
>
> Japan was placed under a big thumb a lot longer than 60 years ago.
> Germany and Japan aren't easily compared.

Well, yes, any comparison can only go so far, but you can say that
Germany, too, had been under some thumbs well before 60 years ago. In
any case, Japan acts like the puppet it is...

Al

--