in article tm-F9C303.13493607072004@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp, tm at
tm@tmoero.invalid wrote on 7/7/04 1:49 PM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>>  Declan Murphy wrote on 7/7/04 11:33 AM:
>>> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> On what legal basis do you base your conclusion to refuse entry to the legal
>> child/spouse/dependant of a citizen? The Japanese Constitution? Japanese
>> law? International Law?
> 
> [...]
> huh? Oh shit, i misread the subject...
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C2B811DB8

I realize that you are frustrated, but I don't think you have shown that you
have the authority to make Japan bow to your particular wishes.