Adult Children Born with Dual Nationality

[Tkydon]

A few weeks ago I saw a post on Reddit Japanlife (probably got deleted though) about a son who encouraged his Japanese mother to naturalize American because she had lived in the US for like 20+ years but planned to live in Japan for retirement. Apparently the Japanese embassy in the US found out she had naturalized so they told her she wasn't Japanese anymore by virtue of Article 11.

Dual nationality is a massive grey area in Japanese law and the definition of "endeavor" has always been kept vague. Once the kid reaches 20 (is it now 18?) just choose Japanese and "endeavor" to think about getting rid of the other nationality for the next 50 years.

The only grey area is for people born with Japanese and Other Nationalities who, under the Japanese Nationilality Law should declare their choice of Nationality by age 20 (majority + 2) (Article 14-1) and then 'try to' or 'endeavour to' relinquish the other nationalities (Article 16-1). Many do not make the declaration, and many then 'try to' or 'endeavour to' relinquish the other nationalities without success...

Everything else is clear. Taking another nationality by their own choice (or the choice of their parent or legal guardian) (Article 11-1), or by selecting that other country's Nationality (Article 11-2) result in the immediate loss of Japanese Citizenship, or by assuming the post of a government employee of that foreign country (with the exception of a post that may be assumed by a person not having the nationality of that country) on their own will, if it is found that the assumption of the post is directly contrary to the gist of the selection of Japanese citizenship the Minister of Justice can revoke their Japanese Citizenship (Article 16-2)

This woman can apply for Visa of Spouse or Child of a Japanese National
She will be granted 1 Year, then will be able to extend to 3 years, and either apply for PR or Re-Naturalization (Article 8(iii)), but Re-Naturalization will require her to be domiciled in japan and to relinquish US Citizenship (Article 5(v)).

There have been many cases in the news over the past couple of years, the most prominent of which is a Lawyer who lives in Fukuoka who lost her Japanese Citizenship by Naturalizing in the US, and who has appealed her loss of Japanese Citizenship to the Japan Supreme Court, and lost.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/ ... ty-ruling/

and a group of overseas residents who lost her Japanese Citizenship by Naturalizing who also appealed to the Japan High Court and lost.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20 ... na/016000c

The Press coverage of this issue to horrible, and very misleading, and causes a lot of anxiety amongst legitimate Dual Nationals and people who have lost their Japanese Citizenship under Article 11-1 alike.

A person who has lost their Japanese Citizenship under Article 11-1 is supposed to report that fact under Article 103 of the Family Registration Law, but may not find out they have actually lost Japanese Citizenship under Article 11-1 until they try to renew their Japanese Passport, and their application is refused.

Japanese people should NOT take any other nationality by Naturalization, or they IMMEDIATELY lose their Japanese Citizenship.

[zeroshiki]

I think we need to be careful with calling them "legitimate" dual nationals though. As we have covered here, technically you're not allowed to be dual national. It's only the vagueness of Article 16 that creates the legal grey zone for kids born with both nationalities. For all we know, the MOJ wakes up tomorrow and decides to define what 努めなければならない is supposed to mean and close that loophole.

[Tkydon]

I think we need to be careful with calling them "legitimate" dual nationals though. As we have covered here, technically you're not allowed to be dual national. It's only the vagueness of Article 16 that creates the legal grey zone for kids born with both nationalities. For all we know, the MOJ wakes up tomorrow and decides to define what 努めなければならない is supposed to mean and close that loophole.

There are 'Legitimate Duals.

Those under 20 who have both by birth or by 'acknowledgement', and have not chosen yet, and those who have chosen Japanese Citizenship, but whose other nationality does not allow, or makes it very difficult to relinquish the other nationality, and who have not taken a government job in the other country's government that can only be done by a National of that country...

[TunaSki]

I think we need to be careful with calling them "legitimate" dual nationals though. As we have covered here, technically you're not allowed to be dual national. It's only the vagueness of Article 16 that creates the legal grey zone for kids born with both nationalities. For all we know, the MOJ wakes up tomorrow and decides to define what 努めなければならない is supposed to mean and close that loophole.

There are 'Legitimate Duals.

Those under 20 who have both by birth or by 'acknowledgement', and have not chosen yet,

What do you mean, When you say by “acknowledgement”

[Tkydon]

I think we need to be careful with calling them "legitimate" dual nationals though. As we have covered here, technically you're not allowed to be dual national. It's only the vagueness of Article 16 that creates the legal grey zone for kids born with both nationalities. For all we know, the MOJ wakes up tomorrow and decides to define what 努めなければならない is supposed to mean and close that loophole.

There are 'Legitimate Duals.

Those under 20 who have both by birth or by 'acknowledgement', and have not chosen yet,

What do you mean, When you say by “acknowledgement”

認知　‐　胎児認知（出生前認知）　or　任意認知（出生後認知）

[TunaSki]

For all we know, the MOJ wakes up tomorrow and decides to define what 努めなければならない is supposed to mean and close that loophole.

They wouldn’t be able to just wake up and change it though. It would have to go through the correct channels to change legislation.

Also if legalization on that terminology is adjusted to clearly define it, then wouldn’t that also means the requirement to wear bicycle helmets also change to “must wear” instead of “strive to wear”?

[RetireJapan]

For all we know, the MOJ wakes up tomorrow and decides to define what 努めなければならない is supposed to mean and close that loophole.

They wouldn’t be able to just wake up and change it though. It would have to go through the correct channels to change legislation.

Also if legalization on that terminology is adjusted to clearly define it, then wouldn’t that also means the requirement to wear bicycle helmets also change to “must wear” instead of “strive to wear”?

The difference between those two is that currently the government is choosing to ignore adult dual nationals who were born with two nationalities.

If they choose to stop ignoring them there wouldn't be any need to change the law, just the instructions to the civil service.

[adamu]

They wouldn’t be able to just wake up and change it though. It would have to go through the correct channels to change legislation.

The legislation is deliberately ambiguous to allow it to be interpreted.

The constitution works the same way too. See the case where the court ruled the nationality act was not unconstitutional by banning dual citizenship:

the Nationality Act may have been designed to prevent to the greatest possible extent Japanese nationality from coming into existence without substance and to avoid to the greatest possible extent the emergence of dual nationality, which has been criticized for having harmful influence on, for example, domestic order.

That is an interpretation based on the values of the day, not something that's written in the constitution or the law.

There's also a more recent case from the Fukuoka high court, but I can't bring myself to tackle the PDF (English writeup).

[adamu]

I can't bring myself to tackle the PDF

I found this related one, which is cleaner and much more machine translatable. Not sure what the relation is
https://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanr ... hanrei.pdf

[TunaSki]

For all we know, the MOJ wakes up tomorrow and decides to define what 努めなければならない is supposed to mean and close that loophole.

They wouldn’t be able to just wake up and change it though. It would have to go through the correct channels to change legislation.

Also if legalization on that terminology is adjusted to clearly define it, then wouldn’t that also means the requirement to wear bicycle helmets also change to “must wear” instead of “strive to wear”?

The difference between those two is that currently the government is choosing to ignore adult dual nationals who were born with two nationalities.

If they choose to stop ignoring them there wouldn't be any need to change the law, just the instructions to the civil service.

They would need to change the law. Because Article 16 paragraph 1 has no penalty written within it. And no where in the whole nationality act (including the the enforcement of regulations of the nationality act: https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/359M50000010039/) does it state that Japanese nationality can be lost via non-compliance of Article 16 paragraph 1

Therefore, they cannot just wake up one day and change interpretation. It’s currently impossible for them to revoke Japanese nationality via Article 16 paragraph 1 so the law would need to go through legislative changes first.

They have the ability to wake up one day and force people to make their declaration of choice (Article 15) though. Which would result in the loss of Japanese nationality if not actioned in time