world

5 more Australian MPs leave parliament after court's citizenship ruling

29 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

you have to be a native to rule a country unless you are an invader.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Australia is pretty much behind. In Japan, if a person has Japanese nationality, his/her other nationalities do not prevent him/her from taking a public office.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

So why did we have the Renho kerfuffle then? Or the LDP member who was also American?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

You would think they could pass a law to change this outdated provision.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Australia is pretty much behind. In Japan, why is that Australia doesnt allow dual citizenship for politicians like Japan, yet it does allow dual citizenship for it citizens, unlike Japan, seems like Japan is the one behind.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

theeastisredToday  03:01 pm JST

She did not lose her office as a law maker, you see. The issue was an ethical question rather than legal one if she had lied to the voters about her nationality.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Dual citizenship is not allowed in Japan except for children, who have to choose one nationality when they become adults.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

In Japan, if a person has Japanese nationality, his/her other nationalities do not prevent him/her from taking a public office.

In Japan, your Japanese nationality is revoked if other nationality is not renounced.   So assuming a public office with two nationalities is technically illegal.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

tinawatanabeToday 04:04 pm JST

In Japan, your Japanese nationality is revoked if other nationality is not renounced

We all know that is incorrect. To keep Japanese nationality, one only has to "choose" Japanese nationality and promise to "make efforts" to lose other nationalities. There is no penalty for not making any efforts. Keeping other nationalities does not lead to loss of Japanese nationality.

Japanese government may revoke Japanese nationality if the double national takes a prominent public office of a foreign government or naturalizes to a third country out of the free will of the double national.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In a nation in which half the population were either born overseas or have parents who were, the dual citizenship rule has cut a swath through the national parliament.

Yeah that's a bit weird especially in a country like oz. It's ok for a guy like Matthias Cormann, a born & bred Belgian who moved to oz in his 20s, to get into politics (he renounced his Belgian citizenship when he became an aussie citizen) yet born/bred aussies who unknowingly inherited x or y citizenship from their dad, granddad etc are disqualified from parliament over dual citizenship.

I get that rules are rules but I know i'd be filthy (and embarrassed) if i got disqualified on such a technicality.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There is no penalty for not making any efforts.

Unless you're running for Japanese public office - then, it would be a big problem. Australia and Japan are both a bit silly with this. Funny enough, the only US equivalent is the president, who must be a "born American citizen," though exactly what that means remains unclear.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I strongly support allowing dual citizenship, but I'm still undecided on whether dual nationals should be allowed to serve in parliament. It's a thorny issue that only becomes more sensitive as the world becomes more globalised.

Perhaps some middle ground could be found, such as allowing natural born Australians who gained dual nationality at birth to be allowed, but barring Australians who naturalised in Australia and kept their foreign citizenship, or those who aquired a new citizenship as adults. The problem with this is it creates a 2nd class of citizenship like in America or Spain (ie. natural born citizen and naturalized citizen)

@CH3CHO

There is no penalty for not making any efforts. Keeping other nationalities does not lead to loss of Japanese nationality.

There is no penalty explicitly spelled out in the law, but this wouldn't necessarily stop a Japanese court from ruling that your purported choice of Japanese nationality was a deception/fraud and that the only logical consequence is that you are deemed to have chosen the other nationality. Good luck trying to appeal that decision.

The honest truth is that the law on this point is very unclear and has never been fully tested in the courts. Many people insist that it should be interpreted in a way that is most favourable to themselves or their children, but there is a risk that this ends up being wishful thinking.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In Japan, your Japanese nationality is revoked if other nationality is not renounced.

But it's not an automatic process in most cases. The reason that Japan can only require foreigners to make an effort to renounce their old citizenship (rather than actually succeed) is because a few countries don't allow renunciation (Morocco and Turkey are/were 2 examples). These people can legally become Japanese while still retaining their old citizenship.

In cases where a newly naturalized citizen makes insufficient effort to give up their old nationality, the authorities could claim that they acquired citizenship by deception and unilaterally revoke it.

The greyest area is children who haven't yet made the choice as adults and actively avoid doing so. In this case there is no deception so it's unclear what could be done (but the courts could always creatively interpret the law).

The least ambiguous case is where a Japanese adult acquires another nationality. They are deemed to have given up their Japanese nationality.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Funny enough, the only US equivalent is the president, who must be a "born American citizen," though exactly what that means remains unclear.

It's not unclear. So long as you don't acquire citizenship through naturalization, you are a born citizen. A "born citizen" acquires citizenship at birth by being born on U.S. territory, or by "inheriting" it from a parent who is a citizen.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Half way through this sage in Australia the issue of automatic Israeli citizenship for all Jews was brought and then quashed as "too far".

So, being a Brit by right of your parent's birth is a no no.

But being an Israeli by your religion was deemed (by the politicians, not by the court) to be acceptable.

This issue of Israeli citizenship will now boil to the surface.

It will be a real can of worms.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@tinawatanabe

In Japan, your Japanese nationality is revoked if other nationality is not renounced.  

It isn't.

Neither you nor anyone else here would be able to provide examples of where that has happened.

More importantly, no such thing is stated in the Nationality Law. Feel free to actually read it, it's a publicly available document. And it beats being in the dark about the law just because you haven't bothered to look at it. You will also learn something new about your own country. That can't be a bad thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More than one citizenship should be illegal. One cannot be loyal to more than one master.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Half way through this sage in Australia the issue of automatic Israeli citizenship for all Jews was brought and then quashed as "too far".

So, being a Brit by right of your parent's birth is a no no.

But being an Israeli by your religion was deemed (by the politicians, not by the court) to be acceptable.

There is actually no automatic Israeli citizenship for Jews in the way some people imagine. Jews do not automatically become Israeli citizens simply by virtue of being born Jewish or converting to Judaism. They merely have a fast track option to become Israeli citizens if they wish. They still need to actively take steps to apply for it and have their claim accepted.

This is quite different from countries where you are automatically regarded as a citizen at birth (whether you like it or not, or even whether the state is aware of your existence) simply based on who your parents or grandparents are.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

M3M3M3

Thanks for the clarification.

I have been misinformed.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@garymalmgren

No worries. I used to think the same thing until just a few years ago. (I had a Jewish neighbour who suddenly decided to pack up and moved to Israel during the EU refugee crisis)

But I think your larger point is still valid. If the issue is loyalty, why shouldn't we also be concerned about citizenships that are incredibly easy to get? Then again, many countries which allow you to renounce your citizenship also have a fast-track process to get it back. In my country I just have to move back for 1 year and I'm a citizen again, and I think Japan is also 1 year. It sort of defeats the purpose of renouncing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

M3M3

here's a legal standard here, and a political process as well.

The legal requirement that a candidate only have one citizenship allows the voting public to be aware of any candidates citizenship history. So, if some dude is flipping back and forth, that allows the public to decide what is, ultimately, up to them to decide.

In the US, our constitution states " No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

I've never really understood this requirement. The age (35 years old) requirement is arguably good - humans tend to calm down a lot after youth is lost -- but, again, isn't that a choice perhaps best left to the People?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5 more Australian MPs leave parliament after court's citizenship ruling

Were these 5 MPs hoping that the 117-year-old Australian constitution would suddenly become null and void after the other MPs lost their positions due to this same dual-citizenship issue?

Australia faces a series of by-elections after the High Court ruled on Wednesday

- an 11th lawmaker -

must leave parliament in a test-case decision that prompted four more lawmakers to quit amid a widening citizenship crisis.

The court found unanimously that opposition Labor Party Senator Katy Gallagher was a British citizen at the time of her election, despite her attempts to renounce it, and so ineligible to be elected to the federal parliament.

Dual citizens are blocked from national elected office under Australia's

117-year-old -

constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wipeout

Neither you nor anyone else here would be able to provide examples of where that has happened.

Some female politicien renouced American nationality when Renho's dual nationality became a scandle. If Japan is a country that allows dual nationality, it wouldn't have happened.

More importantly, no such thing is stated in the Nationality Law.

It seems the entire of the Nationality law says so.  The principle of the law says Japan does not allow dual nationality.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Some female politicien renouced American nationality when Renho's dual nationality became a scandle. If Japan is a country that allows dual nationality, it wouldn't have happened.

Japan does allow dual nationality - that's a fact. Also, it doesn't, as you claimed, automatically revoke the Japanese nationality of people with another nationality, nor is it stated anywhere in the Nationality Law that this happens.

It seems the entire of the Nationality law says so.

The hell it does. You'll have to do much better than that. The Nationality Law says many things, which is why, like any law, it is a series of numbered articles. As would be expected, some articles are relevant to dual nationality in some way, some are specifically concerned with dual nationality, and most have nothing to do with dual nationality at all, because as the Nationality Law, it covers a much wider topic, of which dual nationality is only a subset.

As I suggested before, you should try reading it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan does allow dual nationality.

only if you have some political difficulties in renouncing, says the law in effect. "Make efforts" has a significant meaning. It does not mean "You don't have to renounce".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Make efforts" has a significant meaning. It does not mean "You don't have to renounce".

It doesn't mean anything at all. It could have been written in clear, unambiguous language. Many laws are written with just that purpose in mind, and lawyers are the right people to do it.

Instead, this law chooses just about the blandest phrase imaginable, basically impossible to quantify and with no mention of penalties imposed for not "complying" with that what-does-it-mean phrase.

In a nutshell, you've massively overinterpreted a part of the Nationality Law that is (without doubt, intentionally) written in a way that both makes it unclear and fails to provide a penalty (except in a fairly exceptional circumstance that would apply to a tiny minority of dual nationals; and even then, the tone is mild and the wording far from explicit).

While your interpretation may satisfy the knee-jerk, irrational ethnocentricity that you habitually express in these threads, it doesn't mirror either the way the law is written, or the way it applies in practice.

You're just another of those people who believes that dual nationality "isn't allowed", and who is either highly confused when they come across living evidence to the contrary, or chooses the comfort-zone option of ignoring the inconvenient reality and continuing to parrot the fantasy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neither the LNP nor Labor support changes to Section 44 of the constitution which forbides dual nations serving at the federal level.

And I hope it never changes. If people can't see the obvious security implications of allowing dual nationals to serve in your national parliament, then I'd suggest you need your head read.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

 this law chooses just about the blandest phrase imaginable, basically impossible to quantify

When law is ambiguous, you have to interprete it in a way there won't be any inconsistency. 

and with no mention of penalties imposed for not "complying" with that what-does-it-mean phrase.

It says "revoked"

You're just another of those people who believes that dual nationality "isn't allowed", and who is either highly confused when they come across living evidence to the contrary, or chooses the comfort-zone option of ignoring the inconvenient reality and continuing to parrot the fantasy.

When coming across illegal foreigners, people don't report them to the authority. But it does not mean those illegal foreigners are not illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When coming across illegal foreigners, people don't report them to the authority.

Illegal foreigners? What does that even mean? It's not illegal to be a foreigner, or to have Japanese nationality, or to have dual nationality. This leaves you SOL if you wanted to report someone for simultaneously occupying those three categories. All you would achieve by "reporting" them is to demean yourself, and almost certainly embarrass yourself as well. You would not succeed in getting their Japanese nationality denied, or cause them a moment's inconvenience. Their nationality status is as safe as yours. Illegal foreigner is a term concocted out of prejudice.

When law is ambiguous, you have to interprete it in a way there won't be any inconsistency. 

No idea what you're trying to say there. It sounds completely illogical.

It says "revoked"

No it doesn't say that. You've gone from one extreme to the other: earlier with the implausible assertion that "the entire Nationality Law says so", and now to just regurgitating a single word without any context that might support it. You're in a bind, because to quote at greater length is to confirm the fallacy of your argument. So it's either one word or the whole law - er, do you need it pointed out how unconvincing that is?

Let's return to your first and erroneous statement: "In Japan, your Japanese nationality is revoked if other nationality is not renounced."

Your intention is clear: that this is an automatic procedure, and that it does happen. As I have already said, it basically never happens in practice. Which is why you haven't given and wouldn't be able to give examples, and it is also why there are thousands of dual nationals with Japanese nationality, well beyond the age of "choosing".

And I have also said that the actual wording of the law does not support your claim. "Choice of nationalities" is the group heading for articles 14 to 16. It states in quite specific terms that a person "shall" lose Japanese nationality if they fail (at the required age, and within the required period) to declare that they choose Japanese nationality: this happens only after failure to act on notification by the Minister of Justice of a requirement to declare a choice.

For people who had Japanese nationality from childhood, there is nothing about revoking their Japanese nationality if they retain a second nationality, except in this very specific context, which I quote directly from the MOJ translation (Article 16, item 2):

In the case where a Japanese national who has made the declaration of choice but still possesses a foreign nationality has voluntarily taken public office in the foreign country (excluding an office which a person not having the nationality of such country is able to take), the Minister of Justice may declare that he or she shall lose Japanese nationality if the Minister finds that taking such public office would substantially contradict his or her choice of Japanese nationality.

So your interpretation is wishful thinking. Not only is it a total misinterpretation of the law, it's doesn't even come close to reflecting what's happening in reality. Dual nationality is a fact in this country, and it isn't going to be overturned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites