On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:00:50 +0900, Ernest Schaal
<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:

>in article 40EA4B2C.9050002@hotmail.com, Declan Murphy at
>declan_murphy@hotmail.com wrote on 7/6/04 3:48 PM:

>> Ernest Schaal wrote:
 
>>> 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.

>The point I was making is that each country can determine who is a citizen
>and who is not, and if a person is not a citizen then that country can
>deport the non-citizen and/or refuse re-admittance of a non-citizen who has
>left the country.

>If they wanted to, under international law, they could send her packing to
>Thailand. Under international law, they could send her packing even if she
>was born here, if she is not a citizen. Now, Japanese law could limit their
>options.

Forgetting the letter of the law for a moment how about a MORAL
interpretation of the code, Ernest? How about taking into
consideration that she has loving Japanese grandparents who have
legally adopted her and want to raise her here and that her parents in
Thailand are dead?

>>> But cheer up. The Immigration service has granted her an extension as it
>>> readdresses her case.
 
>> As they bloody well should.

>You might think they should, but they don't have to do as you demand.

Well actually as it turns out they do. The public outcry from we who
feel like this way is most definitely being heard and affecting the
Immigration Department's handling of the case.

Raj