Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.daionet.gr.jp!news.yamada.gr.jp!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!216.196.110.149.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Declan Murphy Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: One of those frustrating things... Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:33:07 +0900 Lines: 58 Message-ID: <40EB60E3.2020105@hotmail.com> References: <40E9EDAF.1030809@yahoo.com> <40EA4B2C.9050002@hotmail.com> <40EA568B.8050207@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de NiTofIqALX9RR7IRNFpG+gyt8MVzupkwp5QVaBBXpyv642FHZ5 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:15303 Ernest Schaal wrote: > in article 40EA568B.8050207@hotmail.com, Declan Murphy at > declan_murphy@hotmail.com wrote on 7/6/04 4:36 PM: >>The point I was making was that *in the context* of this issue your >>point isn't particularly relevant. We aren't talking about an immigrant, >>or an asylum seeker, the kid is the legal dependant of a Japanese >>national and currently in Japan - there is no particular reason why PR >>status shouldn't be granted, or a bridging equivalent. A Japanese >>citizen or legal foreign resident should have every right to expect that >>their children will not be forcibly separated from them through no fault >>of their own. That the issue has even become news at all suggests that >>the current legal immigration legal framework has cracks people can fall >>through. > > I think you are missing my point. If she comes here and stays, she will be > an immigrant. Her visa might be different than some other immigrants, but > she still is an immigrant, and the nation has full control of deciding those > matters. I fully understand your point (and the associated nitpicks - one of the benefits of being an Application Agent for the Immigration Bureau is reasonable access to staff and familiarity with procedures). What I disagree with is the notion that the state has to right to refuse entry to the legal child/spouse/dependant of a citizen. I think there is something missing from the article (I still haven't found the original July 3rd Japanese article) - perhaps the legal adoption is not yet completed, or perhaps the petitioners do not understand fully the processes of obtaining permanent residence, or whether it is appropriate in the case. Either way, there should be no need or requirement for her to leave the country, even temporarily. > As to what the citizen or legal foreign resident has the "right" to expect, > if you mean that the expectation is not unreasonable I would agree with you, > but if you mean that they have a legal "right" to a particular outcome I > would disagree with you. > > Do I want the child to be allowed to stay? Yes, I do. > > Do I think it is my business, or your business, or Raj's business to dictate > to the Japanese Government what they should do? No. I do not. > Basically, unless you are Japanese citizen, you have ZERO right to demand > anything. There is a difference between petitioning/requesting and such, and your language "dictate"/"demand", and yes the opinions of citizens carry (as they should) more weight than those of non-citizens (particularly short term visitors), but no, the idea that a non-citizen has zero right to request fair and sensible assessment of visas or anything else is over the top and incorrect. Japanese law does extend considerable protections to non-citizens, even to tourists in Gifu. A non-citizen such as this child, should have the right to be with her (legal) father, simply on the basis that the resident is a resident citizen. -- "You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on"