Court rules Japan's dual nationality ban constitutional

Sounds like Ms. Kondo encountered some inflexible, out-of-touch Kyushu danji buchou (domineering, patriarchal male department manager) intent on exercising his waning influence in the exciting world of passport renewals. Troubling her is likely his greatest “accomplishment.” So sad.

I’m happy to my foreign passport and my Japanese permanent residency. There is no point to have Japanese passport because there is no political party to vote for.

They can't strip it if they don't know about it. Good rule to remember about this place, out of sight out of mind.

Presiding Judge Fumitaka Hayashi said the denial of multiple nationality is "rational" as the law ensures the freedom of changing one's nationality.

….

So, the judge means what exactly?

People can flip flop back and forth between nationalities as they wish?

Judge Hayashi has obviously never changed nationality.

Article 11 states explicitly that if you get gaikoku nationality, you automatically lose your nippon nationality. So, I don't understand the purpose of these court cases. If these people don't like the law, why don't they petition for a constitutional amendment. As it stands, the Kyushu officials' actions were perfectly constitutional.

You'd think by now that Japan would be doing all it could not to reject young (talented) dual nationals but no. I mean, they even have some of the lauded Japanese genes for whatever!!

petition for a constitutional amendment??!!

in Japan?! Good luck with that. This article 11 is another dinosaur law stemming from the exclusionism and ‘Japanese exceptionalism’ deeply rooted in the culture. It’s what’s leading to the demise of this country in the ensuing handful of generations.

Presiding Judge Fumitaka Hayashi said the denial of multiple nationality is "rational" as the law ensures the freedom of changing one's nationality.

No. It's not. But again, neither are many of Japan's laws so oh well.

I’m happy to my foreign passport and my Japanese permanent residency. There is no point to have Japanese passport because there is no political party to vote for.

Exactly.

Dual citizenship is really unfair to the whole population that those who already are mainly the ones who support it.

One life. Why two citizenship? Choose one country.

Billions of people don't even know if they can able to eat food next day and here some people are so greedy and selfish for getting/supporting dual citizenship?

Their no. 1 reason is to stay with the family? When you get high salary job/career in another country, you simply follow money and gone and now fighting for dual citizenship because you can't live together with your family?

All of the recent cases have dealt with Japanese nationals who were born Japanese nationals and then chose to adopt another nationality AS AN ADULT.

I have little sympathy in these cases. An adult was born as a citizen of Japan and then, at some point, as an adult, decides to become a citizen of another country. Not a resident, not a permanent resident, but a citizen.

That person is saying that they ACTIVELY CHOOSE, AS AN ADULT, that new country as their country.

I get that.

Compare that to a child who acquires dual nationality at birth, that has 2 nationalities from the day they were born, with nothing connected to any choice they made as an aduit.

Go into any Japanese consulate and you will see signs indicating that dual citizenship must be given up at age 20. In other words, one must decide between one or the other. Yet there is no agency to enforce this as I was told by a Japanese lawyer when I inquired about my daughter who was about to turn 20 while attending uni in the USA. She had to go to the Japanese consulate to renew her Japanese passport in the USA. The staff handling her paperwork certainly knew of her dual citizenship but no one said anything or questioned her in any way. The lawyer just said to keep our mouths shut and we did. Fast-forward to today and she is working and living in Japan with two passports. I have heard this same story from many half-kids. So if you are a parent reading this, don't worry about it. It will all be okay if you keep quiet and never let your child enter Japan on anything but a Japanese passport.

I’m happy to my foreign passport and my Japanese permanent residency. There is no point to have Japanese passport because there is no political party to vote for.

I agree with you there. Japan is a great country to live in. However, the political parties here suck. They don't really get much done, if anything. If they do, it's a slow process. The Japanese citizens don't really turn up much to voice their opinions. At least one of my daughters is happier in the US. She loves more opportunities and can be herself.

So if you are a parent reading this, don't worry about it. It will all be okay if you keep quiet and never let your child enter Japan on anything but a Japanese passport.

Yes, DirkT, I believe you are right for now. But governments are increasingly in the habit of snitching on their own citizens to other governments over all kinds of things - I have no doubts the comprehensive fingerprints I once had to provide in Australia (not for any crime, I hasten to add) were shared with plenty of other "allies" - as the net tightens around us all. Better if our kids had full rights. They are likely a superior future than anything the moribund government has in mind for Japan.

Excellent..

Just one nationality..

GO JAPAN!!!!...

Brave woman. Here is a bangumi on the subject with her and Patrick Harlan.

https://abema.tv/video/episode/89-66_s99_p4972

Another one of Japan's outdated laws. A country that is whining about a declining population, and proudly shows off Japanese Nobel Prize winners who have naturalized to another natuonality as "Japanese" needs to face the 21st century. Every reason that the J-gives to maintain the current single-nationality law is out of touch with reality. There is no rational reason why Japan should not or can not adopt dual nationality with specific reciprocating nations of their choice.

Laws must be applied in an equal and impartial manner. With this principle stated, I would draw people’s attention to the United States, where having dual citizenship is permitted. While examples like Yuri Kondo or those eight people residing in Europe may not give one pause on the issue of dual citizenship, I do worry about politicians holding dual citizenship, as some do in the United States, and the conflicts of interest that may arise from this situation. I do not appear to be alone ( https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/240572-when-dual-citizenship-becomes-conflict-of-interest/ ). In February of this year the “Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act” was introduced in the United States, but it does not seem likely to pass. It is a weak act at any rate and does not fully address the issue ( https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr946/summary ). This is one example of concerns that come with dual citizenship. So while holding dual citizenship may be a convenience for some, nation states themselves may see a real potential for problems. Japan evidently does not wish to encounter such problems.

Article 11 states explicitly that if you get gaikoku nationality, you automatically lose your nippon nationality. So, I don't understand the purpose of these court cases. If these people don't like the law, why don't they petition for a constitutional amendment. As it stands, the Kyushu officials' actions were perfectly constitutional.

Just to clarify, the "Article 11" referred to is not Article 11 of the Constitution, but rather Article 11 of the Nationality Act, which is a piece of normal legislation. So the purpose of this court case is to test whether that piece of legislation complies with the Constitution.

The article doesn't mention it, but likely they were challenging it based on whether it complied with Article 13 (general provision on right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and more relevantly Article 22 of the Constitution which explicitly states that the freedom to divest oneself of your nationality is inviolate.

With respect to the latter, if the Constitution grants citizens an inviolate right to divest themselves of nationality it does raise a reasonable question of whether the state automatically divesting you is a violation of that right.

Japanese courts almost always side with the government in cases like this anyway so it might have been a futile effort, but the question seems a reasonable one to put before them nonetheless.

It really depends on what you think citizenship. Some people think Citizenship is just another qualification - the more you can get the merrier.

But if you think of Citizenship as, for example, defining and deciding what your Highest Allegiance is, then there can be only one.

Some people think you can have two best friends, but I'm not one of them - one of those two must be lower on the rankings.

From that point of view, the law's position is only taking this stance. Some countries have degraded their citizenship to be "just a qualification", and Japan hasn't taken that path.

It really depends on what you think citizenship. Some people think Citizenship is just another qualification - the more you can get the merrier.

This is a mischaracterization of what dual nationality means to most people who have it.

My kids were born with dual nationality since my wife is Japanese and I'm not. Their two nationalities are not just some trivial thing they've collected as a hobby, its a reflection of their shared heritage and personal identity.

Forcing them to give one of those up is just pointless and cruel.

as the judge created selfishly the definition of the word "rational" by himself, the case was already lost.

now she has to prove that the judgment is irrational.... the circus continues...

Ah, "Article 11 stipulates that Japanese citizens automatically lose their nationality upon acquiring a foreign one."

So a foreigner who has a Japanese passport will NOT lose their country's nationality and passport and can be dual passport holders.

This needs to be tested in courts.

As many experts on the matter stated in the past, the best solution the the Dual - Nationality issue is to treat the citizens of these nations in the same manner.

So If Americans or any other nationalities living in Japan or other nations are denied Dual - Nationality then the same MUST apply to these nations citizens living in the U.S. This was put up for debates in congress in the past and it could be debated again in the future.

Fair Game.

Work on Changing the constitution and stop going to courts, it's pointless.

Work on Changing the constitution and stop going to courts, it's pointless.

To change the constitution you need to get a 2/3 majority in each house of the Diet and a majority vote in a nationwide referendum.

If you think getting one judge to change their mind is pointless, good luck trying to get 2/3 of the old folks in the Diet and more than half of the public to do so.....

JindToday  11:02 am JST

Ah, "Article 11 stipulates that Japanese citizens automatically lose their nationality upon acquiring a foreign one."

So a foreigner who has a Japanese passport will NOT lose their country's nationality and passport and can be dual passport holders.

This needs to be tested in courts.

There is nothing to test. Japan demands any holder of a J-passport to renounce the other passport. The catch is that the "other passport" can only be returned to the issuing country. The J-govt has no authority to take that other passport away from you. So you can claim that you will renounce it. And that's it.

If one really wanted to renounce that other passport, they's have to go to their consulate and go through the whole hassle of renounciong citizenship. But in many cases, since they already recognize dual nationality, they don't care. Hence the whole "grey zone" and many silent dual passport holders.

Kazuaki ShimazakiToday  10:30 am JST

Some people think you can have two best friends, but I'm not one of them - one of those two must be lower on the rankings.

This is an example of the simplistic rigid thinking that the J-gov uses.

You can have one or more best friends. One friend can be you best friend for certain circumstances, another for different circumstances. And so on.

I think 20 is too young to figure out which citizenship to retain. At least they should raise the age to 28 or something.

These "halfs" have parents of two different nationalities and sometimes the parents divorce or one parent passes away and the other moves back to their original country. When they get old, perhaps the kids might go back to that country and help out.

If this happened in reverse and they returned to Japan, the child would have to be sponsored if they no longer have Japanese citizenship. What if the parent were not mentally with it as in Alzheimers or in a coma or can't travel with the child to immigration it would make this difficult. Sure they could enter on a tourist visa, but if they were here long term, they would need to work.

We all know how immigration can be a pain. There are a multitude of situations where dual citizenships are almost a must. Having current roots set in 2 countries is difficult.

seeing all these comments about how japan should have 1 nationality is really stupid. My son is British/Japanese and I feel bad for him having to one day choose one nationality because its basically canceling out his other side. the rest of the world allows duel nationality and there is no problem. All these people commenting about ONE NATIONALITY are obviously old and stuck in the past.

It's striking that a country which bases citizenship on bloodlines rather than place of birth could pass a law removing said citizenship based on where the Japanese citizen lives and works. (Note that children born in Japan to foreign parents cannot receive Japanese citizenship.)

As stated above, Article 11 is not an article to the Constitution of Japan but to a regular law. It seems very twisted to me that a law out of alignment with the Constitution's guarantee of rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness can stand up in court. At the very limit, tbe law should say that while residing overseas with permanent residence in another country, the Japanese passport should not be used -- but then should be reissued at such time the native-born Japanese citizen returns to Japan (to take care of an elderly parent, to retire, etc.). But even that should not pass challenge in court because again, Japan's nationality is granted based on bloodline (and correct registration of birth through Japan's consulates overseas) at birth.

My conclusion is that the Japanese court system is very weak. Rather than pursuing a constitutional amendment, I think a push to remove political corruption, I mean the judges' deference to political party in power over Constitution, is needed.

Allow dual citizenship and collect the taxes on their foreign income over a certain amount like most countries do. Man I should really sign up for the LDP

MarkToday 11:02 am JST

So If Americans or any other nationalities living in Japan or other nations are denied Dual - Nationality then the same MUST apply to these nations citizens living in the U.S. This was put up for debates in congress in the past and it could be debated again in the future.

Not so fast. As I said, countries treat what's "citizenship" differently. The US is free to see it as a qualification.

Also, the American citizenship is objectively worth less than the Japanese. In theory at least, you can be the Prime Minister once you've naturalized and become a Japanese citizen. But you are manifestly blocked by law from being President unless you are a native (not just a naturalized citizen). This is kind of thing that sometimes happens when you turn your citizenship into a qualification - you need to protect yourself by having "first-class" and "second-class" citizenships.

I support multiple passports. But many countries do not allow them. I can have a dual nationality but a third country requires I give up the other two. But I don't know how strict they are in enforcing that law.

I suggest there are many international children born here who have two passports under the radar. Japan has the authority to cancel the Japanese nationality but I know of no cases.

Japanese moving to another country like the US and obtaining citizenship are theoretically supposed to surrender their Japanese one.

@rainydayToday 10:35 am JST

My kids were born with dual nationality since my wife is Japanese and I'm not. Their two nationalities are not just some trivial thing they've collected as a hobby, its a reflection of their shared heritage and personal identity.

Well, they should ask their "personal identity" what their first allegiance is. It is selfish to say they shouldn't have to take a stand, because the citizenship in itself is not trivial - it comes with privileges, which are given based on trust.

For example, you are given a right to vote as a citizen, on the idea that your number 1 allegiance is to this country - you might vote for the good of yourself, or you might vote for the good of the State, but never for the good of another State. And this factor is magnified if your kids are allowed into an important office.

If your kids can't even state clearly that your #1 allegiance is to Japan, why should Japan entrust them with rights? For that matter, I can argue it's not necessarily fair to the other state to give your kids a citizenship if all they are ever going to be is #2 - though of course some states treat their citizenship as a qualification and in that case at least they know what they are getting into - a bunch of people voting in their elections with them being only #2, or even #3.

@OssanAmericaToday 11:58 am JST

You can have one or more best friends. One friend can be you best friend for certain circumstances, another for different circumstances. And so on.

First, that seems to be a very dry and utilitarian way to have friends (just as the argument of dual nationality treats those citizenships in an utilitarian way). Second, in this case your best friend will be the one that's more useful 51% of the time, or the "certain circumstances" are the critical ones in your life - it's never really going to be equal, and one guy will still be ahead.

I am born with 2 nationalities, but left where I was born at about 7 months old and have been back there, I was born in Singapore to German parents and they moved back home then. I have not checked to see if I still have dual nationalities because honestly, I do not care. Japan's law about this tho seems very out dated and I can not see a valid reason behind it.

Kazuaki Shimazaki

Today 01:14 pm JST

For example, you are given a right to vote as a citizen, on the idea that your number 1 allegiance is to this country - you might vote for the good of yourself, or you might vote for the good of the State, but never for the good of another State.

That argument seems to be based on the assumption that you will be able to vote for a candidate who is acting in the interests of another state. Isn't that just a bit hypothetical.

Well, they should ask their "personal identity" what their first allegiance is.

Why?

 It is selfish to say they shouldn't have to take a stand

No it isn't. People like yourself who aren't dual nationals are the selfish ones, forcing kids into these hard choices for no reason other than the fact that you don't have to make them.

 because the citizenship in itself is not trivial - it comes with privileges, which are given based on trust.

No, if you are born to a Japanese parent then citizenship is given to you on that basis and not on trust. "Trust" might be a requirement for naturalizing, but the vast majority of Japanese citizens today were given that status simply because their parents were Japanese, not because they were trustworthy.

Nor, should I say, is there any reason to regard dual nationals as untrustworthy solely on that basis, unless you are a paranoid ultra nationalist.

For example, you are given a right to vote as a citizen, on the idea that your number 1 allegiance is to this country - you might vote for the good of yourself, or you might vote for the good of the State, but never for the good of another State.

This is just stupid paranoia talking - no election outcome has ever been swayed by dual nationals in Japan voting for the good of some other country.

If your kids can't even state clearly that your #1 allegiance is to Japan, why should Japan entrust them with rights? 

This is just stupid. Japanese citizens aren't entrusted with rights based on their allegiance, read the flipping constitution:

"The people shall not be prevented from enjoying any of the fundamental human rights. These fundamental human rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be conferred upon the people of this and future generations as eternal and inviolate rights."

Doesn't say anything in there about rights being given out based solely on allegiance to the state.

I can accept that there are certain narrow circumstances in which having two nationalities would pose a problem. Perhaps we don't want the holders of important political offices to be dual nationals, and maybe members of the military and things like that. You don't need to go to the lengths of banning dual nationality altogether to deal with that. Just ban dual nationals from holding those positions. You don't need to prevent hair dressers, bus drivers or whatever from being a dual national because them holding another passport is completely harmless.

rainyday Today 03:14 pm JST

Perhaps we don't want the holders of important political offices to be dual nationals, and maybe members of the military and things like that. You don't need to go to the lengths of banning dual nationality altogether to deal with that. Just ban dual nationals from holding those positions.

Members of the military are drawn from the society at large. To say that person X can enlist because they have one nationality but person Y cannot because they have dual nationality would most likely be challenged as discrimination based on national origins. Not permitting dual citizenship provides an equitable standard.

rainydayToday  03:14 pm JST

"If your kids can't even state clearly that your #1 allegiance is to Japan, why should Japan entrust them with rights? "

This is just stupid. Japanese citizens aren't entrusted with rights based on their allegiance, read the flipping constitution:

Indeed. The whole "allegiance" thing should only apply to public servants anyway. Besides I don't see what's stopping Japanese citizens from deciding that their "allegiance" lies with another country.

Members of the military are drawn from the society at large. To say that person X can enlist because they have one nationality but person Y cannot because they have dual nationality would most likely be challenged as discrimination based on national origins. Not permitting dual citizenship provides an equitable standard.

So what you are arguing is that the best way of not discriminating against a certain group is to eliminate that group?

Not sure that I buy that.

jeffyToday  03:27 pm JST

Members of the military are drawn from the society at large. To say that person X can enlist because they have one nationality but person Y cannot because they have dual nationality would most likely be challenged as discrimination based on national origins. Not permitting dual citizenship provides an equitable standard.

Just on those grounds? No one should have dual nationality because one or two soldiers might feel more loyal to another country? What if the other country is a firm ally? What if they don't compromise military operations in any way because they don't break any laws? It sounds like much less of a problem than some of the stuff that JSDF members have actually got up to.

@rainyday Today 03:14 pm JST

No, if you are born to a Japanese parent then citizenship is given to you on that basis and not on trust. "Trust" might be a requirement for naturalizing, but the vast majority of Japanese citizens today were given that status simply because their parents were Japanese, not because they were trustworthy.

In the case that you have all-Japanese parents and no right of citizenship elsewhere, there's in theory, no competition for your State allegiance. That gives them confidence (if you don't like the word trust) that they will come first.

If you are born to one Japanese parent but the other is foreign, then there's a potential right of citizenship elsewhere. You do realize in that case Japanese law does require you to take a stand - it's not enforced that tightly I grant you, but the requirement is there. And that's because the probability that another State will come out ahead in the allegiance race has increased from "close to zero" to "about 50 percent". That's a huge increase.

"The people shall not be prevented from enjoying any of the fundamental human rights. These fundamental human rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be conferred upon the people of this and future generations as eternal and inviolate rights."

A well known criticism for the Japanese Constitution is that while the English, not legally binding translation says "people", the Japanese, binding Constitution itself says "kokumin" - and Article 11 is one of those places. There are some rights that are for "people" in general.

Just ban dual nationals from holding those positions. You don't need to prevent hair dressers, bus drivers or whatever from being a dual national because them holding another passport is completely harmless.

And here you get back to a point I've already made - if you degrade your citizenship to be a mere qualification, allowing people who think of your country as "second-best' to hold it, you often end up having to make first class and second class citizens and are back to where you started.

@Simon FostonToday 03:48 pm JST

No one should have dual nationality because one or two soldiers might feel more loyal to another country?

Why assume it is one or two. If you have two choices and you haven't settled on one, simple calculation suggests both choices have 50% chance. The starting point is thus FIFTY percent chance another country is actually ahead. Ouch. Except once they are your citizens, you are supposed to give them a fair break and not be "prejudicial" or "discriminate", so you have to pretend they aren't risks.

Kazuaki ShimazakiToday  01:14 pm JST

@OssanAmericaToday 11:58 am JST

You can have one or more best friends. One friend can be you best friend for certain circumstances, another for different circumstances. And so on.

First, that seems to be a very dry and utilitarian way to have friends (just as the argument of dual nationality treats those citizenships in an utilitarian way). Second, in this case your best friend will be the one that's more useful 51% of the time, or the "certain circumstances" are the critical ones in your life - it's never really going to be equal, and one guy will still be ahead.

No more or less "dry" than your rigidly ranking best friends as first, second, etc. Honestly, I haven't heard your method of establishing a "best friend" since high school. And those were gone by the time college was over.

None of your "best friends" are going to be ahead or behind because the circumstances for each will be different. Therefore they can not be compared by rank.

Kazuaki ShimazakiToday  04:46 pm JST

@Simon FostonToday 03:48 pm JST No one should have dual nationality because one or two soldiers might feel more loyal to another country?

Why assume it is one or two.

Well, why not. The whole notion seems pretty abstract to me.

In the case that you have all-Japanese parents and no right of citizenship elsewhere, there's in theory, no competition for your State allegiance. That gives them confidence (if you don't like the word trust) that they will come first.

Citizenship isn’t based on confidence either. The law is quite clear about that.

And this idea that children born to parents from two countries should by definition be viewed with suspicion by the state as you are suggesting is not just insulting but also stupid.

You do realize in that case Japanese law does require you to take a stand - it's not enforced that tightly I grant you, but the requirement is there. 

Er yes that is literally the exact rule that was the subject of the court decision contained in this very article.

A well known criticism for the Japanese Constitution is that while the English, not legally binding translation says "people", the Japanese, binding Constitution itself says "kokumin" - and Article 11 is one of those places. There are some rights that are for "people" in general.

Yes, I know. We aren’t talking about the rights of foreigners here, we are talking about the rights of Japanese nationals here so that point is irrelevant in this context.

And here you get back to a point I've already made - if you degrade your citizenship to be a mere qualification, allowing people who think of your country as "second-best' to hold it, you often end up having to make first class and second class citizens and are back to where you started.

This idea that you need to strip Japanese citizens of their nationality just because the mere possibility exists that they might think Japan is their second favorite country is frankly stupid on its face.

ainydayDec. 7  09:45 pm JST.

This idea that you need to strip Japanese citizens of their nationality just because the mere possibility exists that they might think Japan is their second favorite country is frankly stupid on its face.

Well precisely. Imagine legislating based on assumptions about people's sentiments. It's like saying women should be banned from full-time work because their first, ahem- "allegiance" may be to their kids.

@OssanAmericaDec. 7 06:08 pm JST

I agree to the extent that all your friends may be useful to you in different ways. But the probability you don't actually have a best is negligible, because the different ways in which they are useful have different degrees of worth to you. I think it is shirking the issue to not take a decision, and it is not even fair to your friends. If I'm your good friend, I can accept that I'm only your second (or even third) best friend rather than the very best. I would know if it came down to a direct conflict with first best friend you'd side with him, but I can still rely on you for things that don't involve that conflict. At least it is preferable than me eating your Kool-Aid about not having best and seconds and then finding out on that day that you do, after all, and I'm second.

@rainydayDec. 7 09:45 pm JST

Citizenship isn’t based on confidence either. The law is quite clear about that.

Look one inch below that facade and search for the underlying reasons. Why is it based on blood? When you get down to it, it's Because of the trust / confidence factor.

Yes, I know. We aren’t talking about the rights of foreigners here, we are talking about the rights of Japanese nationals here so that point is irrelevant in this context.

It means that who gets to be and not be a Japanese national becomes very important if there is a distinction in what rights each category gets.

This idea that you need to strip Japanese citizens of their nationality just because the mere possibility exists that they might think Japan is their second favorite country is frankly stupid on its face.

It's not a "mere possibility" when simple calculation suggests it's "half". If a job requires loyalty, a 50% probability you won't get it is NOT an acceptable risk.

Kazuaki ShimazakiToday  12:54 pm JST

@OssanAmericaDec. 7 06:08 pm JST

Look one inch below that facade and search for the underlying reasons. Why is it based on blood? When you get down to it, it's Because of the trust / confidence factor.

Ever heard of the Cambridge Five?

Kazuaki ShimazakiToday  12:54 pm JST

*@OssanAmerica**Dec. 7 06:08 pm JST*

I agree to the extent that all your friends may be useful to you in different ways. But the probability you don't actually have a best is negligible, because the different ways in which they are useful have different degrees of worth to you.

People in general do not assign "best friend" labels based solely on usefulness or worth. Maybe you do.

OssanAmericaToday  06:21 pm JST

*Kazuaki ShimazakiToday  12:54 pm JST *@OssanAmerica**Dec. 7 06:08 pm JST "I agree to the extent that all your friends may be useful to you in different ways. But the probability you don't actually have a best is negligible, because the different ways in which they are useful have different degrees of worth to you."

People in general do not assign "best friend" labels based solely on usefulness or worth. Maybe you do.

Seems very much in keeping with LDP ideas for constitutional revision that citizens should have duties rather than rights.

StefanDec. 7  07:05 am JST

I’m happy to my foreign passport and my Japanese permanent residency. There is no point to have Japanese passport because there is no political party to vote for.

Same with me.

Other countries - more than 50 of them - do not allow dual citizenship either. It's not only Japan.

After more than 40 years living in Japan, I am holding my EU passport and Japanese permanent residency. I never had any problem about that. I can do in Japan almost all what I like (no working restrictions, can own my house, can leave Japan and come back anytime) and should really any emergency situation coming up I can anytime leave and stay in all EU countries.

A list from internet about countries which in general do not allow dual citizenship:

(there are exception, for children or for spouses if one of them has a different nationality)

Afghanistan,Iran,Maldives,San Marino,Andorra,Japan,

Marshall Islands,Sao Tome and Principe,Austria,Kazakhstan,Mauritania, Saudi Arabia

Azerbaijan, Kiribati,Micronesia,Singapore,Bahrain,North Korea,

Monaco,Slovakia,China,Kuwait, Mongolia,Suriname,

Djibouti,Laos,Mozambique,Swaziland,Eritrea,Lesotho,

Myanmar, Burma,Tanzania,Estonia,Liberia, Nepal, Togo,

Ethiopia, Libya,Netherlands,Ukraine,Georgia,Liechtenstein,

Norway,United Arab Emirates,Guinea,Malaysia, Oman, Uzbekistan,

Guyana,Montenegro,Palau,Vanuatu,India,Madagascar,

Qatar,Indonesia, Malawi,Rwanda.