in article ccg3c7$7ri$1@bgsv5648.tk.mesh.ad.jp, cc at
cpasuneadresse@spam.com wrote on 7/7/04 2:56 PM:

> 
> "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
> 
>> I don't know what you mean by the term "non-national,"
> 
> Not a  national. Foreigner.

But you were trying to make a distinction between someone who is not a
"national" and someone who is not a citizen. Nationality is determined by
citizenship.
 
>> I don't know what you mean by the term "non-national," since it is not a
>> recognized legal term.
> 
> Nationality is not a recognized  legal concept ?

Not separate from citizenship. If you aren't a Japanese citizen, you are not
a Japanese.

> 
>> Are you confusing the term "national" with
>> "resident"?
> 
> If you don't like "national", let's say "person of that nationality".
> 
> Maybe you're unable to understand the difference between citizens that have
> citizen rights in their country , and people that have a nationality but no
> citizen rights (or not all of them)  : children, people condemned to no
> longer have such rights, person of the nationality of a country that has no
> citizens.

According to my dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language), nationality is synonymous with citizenship.
> 
> It's sure the status of the child is discussed in certain countries, and
> there are tries to give them a legal existence other than "special pet"
> belonging to their parents. But that's not in Japan, not in Thailand. So
> it's irrelevent here.

I think you are mischaracterizing Japanese law.
> 
>>> The legal status of children is different to that of adults. A child
>>> cannot
>>> leave his/her family, migrate on his/her own to another country, make a
>>> living, etc.
>> 
>> This does not seem to be an accurate portrayal of the law.
> 
> Ah yeah ? What's not accurate ? You mean the Japanese law says children are
> independant from their families ?

They are individuals, with individual rights. I think you are confusing the
term "individual" and "independent."

>> Don't get hung up on the guardian situation,
> 
> The girl's legal existence in Japan is daughter of a Japanese citizen. It's
> more than a "guardian situation" debate in your village.

But you make the wrong conclusion that the citizenship of the guardian
determines the citizenship of the child.
> 
>> because sometimes the guardianship is changed for legal purposes, such as
>> immigration matters.
> 
> In Japan ?
> I think that was Mike Cash that explained how uncommon it is for Japanese
> judges to take a decision of removing a child from parents even in cases of
> extreme abuse.

But it does happen. Your statement would only be true if it NEVER happened.
 
>>> It's the Japanese guy and his wife that asked the visa for their adopted
>>> child.  The *right* is that of the Japanese guardian.
> 
> The right of the Japanese father in his own country.

What particular right are you talking about, and where does it come from?

> 
>>> His right to have his
>>> child in his country, so he can do his duty of educating that child.
>> 
>> Where do you think that this "right" exists? I think you are making up law
>> here.
> 
> I make up the law when I say parents have parental rights?

I think you are making up the law when you say that those "rights" include
the residency status of their children.

>> As to being coherent or incoherent, the law doesn't always seem coherent
>> to laymen, it doesn't always seem coherent to some lawyers.
> 
> In my country, we have the same system of Roman law as Japan. It is meant to
> be globally coherent,  incoherencies and loopholes have to be corrected by the
> lawmakers. It happens all the time laws are supressed or changed for better
> coherency. In that context, anybody that finds an incoherence in Japanese
> laws, even a foreigner living in another country, can indicate it to a
> Japanese lawmaker that may propose a change. That's not that the Japanese
> lawmakers or government care about what I or the Thai girl think, but it's
> considered general interest (=the interest of Japanese citizens, their
> children and their civil servants) to have a coherent system. Lawyers are not
> a very important part of the system.

Then you should be able to point to a particular part of the code that
supports your position?