Fukuoka court rules ban on dual nationality is constitutional | Hacker News Reader

Fukuoka court rules ban on dual nationality is constitutional

japantimes.co.jp

63 pointsmikhael121 comments

This ruling seems to be decent: The judge concludes that the current legislation is valid and stands up to legal challenge, but points out that the legislation may be worth reconsidering as the world has moved in the past 50 years.

The venue for changing the law is the parliament, not the courtroom.

> The venue for changing the law is the parliament, not the courtroom.

We got used to the courts doing it in America because of how dysfunctional our legislature tends to be.

I would say some are used to it, others consider it an affront.

As I understand it, the US inherited a common law tradition from England that empowers judges to effectively create laws. For example the US Criminal code sets penalties for "assault" but a long series of precedents define the actual crime:

> The term “assault” is not defined in the criminal code. Courts use common law to define the term.

https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa7d8b5e10d11daade...

> There is no indication in the statute that Congress sought to depart from the common-law definition of “simple assault” when using the phrase in § 111. The phrase is not defined in the statute, or indeed in any provision of the U.S. Code. This is the classic case of a statute importing a common-law term—with, therefore, all of its “soil.”

Amicus brief from the national association of criminal defense lawyers: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-6826/213937/202...

> Absent a statutory definition of assault, the courts have looked to the common law

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

Judges are usually bound to precedent but can reject precedent in response to novel situations, like the standard of "probable cause" that came out of car stops and searches instead of placing cars entirely in the existing public or private spheres. Policing the Open Road is a great exploration of this.

In contrast Japan (and the state of Louisiana) have a legal system derived from the civil law tradition.

IANAL so I'll defer to anyone that has corrections.

> The US inherited a common law tradition from England that empowers judges to effectively create laws.

Yes, but, in the English tradition (unwritten constitution) Parliament is supreme, and can explicitly choose to supercede any court (or previous Parliamentary) decision.

(The current state in common-law countries varies; Canada acquired a US-style Supreme Court in 1982.)

The dysfunction is a common law system thing due to precedents being legally binding unless overturned. Japan uses the civil law system where legal precedents are not magical spells that control the outcome of a court ruling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)#Diffe...

I know a couple of Japanese-American kids who grew up in the US and were forced to choose when they turned 18. There was no way they were giving up American nationality, so they sadly had to give up their Japanese nationality, which they did not want to do but was the lesser of two evils. This law is so outdated and unfortunate.

>This law is so outdated and unfortunate.

What's your thoughts on the people who have citizenship and hold passports for dozens of countries? Would you consider them "citizens" of your country?

There's nothing outdated about it. Dual/multi citizenship is the weird concept here, it's used solely to skirt laws and taxation.

Why do your friends need Japanese citizenship?

"Solely"? You didn't think this through well. Dual citizenship very often comes from being born to parents of two different nationalities under ius sanguinis, and then the two passports might even be essential for being able to regularly visit both sides of the family without having to deal with the visa issues that could arise from one of the passports being weak.

Countries with diasporas to the US or other wealthy countries often permit dual citizenship because they want some of that diaspora to return, at least to retire, and bring some of that wealth back, and letting them keep their old citizenship leaves the door open for that.

>and bring some of that wealth back

Would they do that if there wasn't monetary advantages? Absolutely nothing is stopping them sending a remittance like many of the world already do. There's significant differences between jurisdictions for company rates and capital gains, that world really opens up with a few different passports.

Having lived in quite a few countries, I don't buy it, these people pick and choose as they please while others not able to get 2,3 or 7 passports pay for those folks benefit to extract as much as possible.

I'm with the Asian countries on this one, it's a sham. Many of my friends make jokes about this stuff and illegally hold dual/tri citizenship in the west despite their own country not recognising it, getting caught for that is quite hard.

>that diaspora to return, at least to retire

Is this not an admission that it's used to take money from other countries they once put hand on heart to support in a pledge of allegiance and go retire with $2/hr maids plus an on-call chef only to return for healthcare and pension reasons in old age? That's not a hypothetical, I've seen this unashamedly happen with friends parents.

> There's nothing outdated about it. Dual/multi citizenship is the weird concept here, it's used solely to skirt laws and taxation.

This is absolute nonsense. There are many, many scenarios where people end up with dual citizenship that are entirely valid. Forcibly disenfranchising someone of their oftentimes born Right to be a citizen of a country is the Crime here.

> their oftentimes born Right

I know people with Italian citizenship simply because of their grandparent. They've never once been to Italy, can't speak the language nor have any plans to do so, they mock their own culture all the time.

Meanwhile having lived there for a year and can handle the language reasonably well after that time, my chances for naturalisation are basically nil.

"Born right" is a hilarious concept.

There's a pretty huge difference between dual nationality - which anyone could end up with purely by virtue of having parents from different countries - and "dozens" of nationalities.

Conflating these two cases and acting like the latter is the norm is such a nonsensical thing to say that it makes it clear you're arguing in bad faith, so I'm not going to respond any further to what you've said. You don't actually want to talk about this, you just want people to have your opinion.

> it makes it clear you're arguing in bad faith

You really think that people with dual nationality don't use whichever one suits them most in all sorts of matters regarding taxation, diplomatic assistance and travel?

To pretend that people won't try to gain whatever edge they can in life with the tools available is the nonsensical thing here.

A dual Malaysian/Australian citizen, which passport do you think they are using heading into LAX? Which passport do you think they will use visiting Iran?

Dual citizenship is a furphy, I'm with the Asian countries on this one. Choose a side.

They would have had to choose at 20, not 18 (in Japan, 20 is the age of majority).

Also, no one comes after you to choose. Perhaps when you renew your passport, but I do know some Japanese people who just never filled out the paperwork to select a nationality, and continued with both citizenships. Kind of Schroedinger's passport.

You're right, the ones who had to choose were turning 20. I misspoke because I didn't examine the memory closely enough.

It depends on when this happened. It's two years after you reach the age of majority, which was 20 for a long time but is now 18. Since 2022 you have until 20 to decide, down from 22 previously: https://www.moj.go.jp/EN/MINJI/minji06.html

A lot of consulates don't enforce the choice of nationality. Every time I renew my Japanese passport in the US I need to show proof of lawful residence, which is my American passport. I just get handed a brochure about choosing and it doesn't get brought up again until the next renewal.

Waiting til 20 works only if you're willing to wait to accept the benefits of US Citizenship until you are 20. My mother was in this category, and shortly after she registered to vote in the US, she received a letter stating that her Japanese citizenship was therefore revoked.

It's less of an issue since the US, Japan, and parts of Europe stopped having a military draft. That was the big obligation of citizenship. At the beginning of WWII, there were people who got draft notices from both sides. To fight for either side was treason to the other.

The whole system of citizenship is bizarre. I am a citizen of two countries, neither of which I have ever pledged fealty to. I am a citizen of Germany because I was born there and my parents were citizens at the time, and I am a citizen of the U.S. because my parents were naturalized when I was a minor. And I am keenly aware that there are millions of people who would literally risk their lives for either of those citizenships.

And then there are horror stories like this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/25/virginia-...

Next year I am going to renew my U.S. passport. For some unknown number of weeks I will be in limbo, unable to legally leave the country, at the whims of the mail and some unknown bureaucrat who may or may not decide to grant my renewal or decide that the photo I've submitted is not quite the right size or whatever. The whole system sucks big fat honking weenies.

https://archive.is/2023.11.28-214421/https://www.washingtonp...

Although as described, the story doesn't quite add up. The government is denying citizenship because his father was a diplomat at the time he was born, but he says his father only took a temporary job at the embassy, which would usually not qualify for diplomatic immunity.

One especially bizarre part of US citizenship is you can "accidentally" be a citizen without knowing and be required to pay income tax to the US regardless of where you live/work. What's more is it costs money to give up your US citizenship and you can only do it if you have no outstanding tax to pay.

Worldwide taxation is practically an operational necessity for the worldwide reserve currency issuer.

I see zero basis for such claim

The US has no moral right to ask for tax for people who haven't stepped inside its borders all year.

Of course it does if they have willingly chosen to participate in its ledger game and use its services.

> be required to pay income tax to the US regardless of where you live/work.

While technically true, you are only really required to file, and then exempt your income via the foreign earned income exemption or the foreign tax credit. This one simple trick means 95% of all Americans working abroad pay no US tax.

Apparently if one is a sole proprietor in a country that does not have the respective tax treaty with the US, one can be obliged to pay US Social Security and Medicare out of foreign income. I lack any expertise in this domain, but friends of mine who have returned to Romania (which lacks a treaty) after living in the US long enough for citizenship, have complained about having to set up a corporate structure and pay themselves via annual dividends in order to avoid this taxation.

> Apparently if one is a sole proprietor in a country that does not have the respective tax treaty with the US, one can be obliged to pay US Social Security and Medicare out of foreign income.

China lacks a treaty with the USA, which means Americans working in China pay to Chinese social security/medical and they are not transferred to the American equivalents. But ya, you pay SS/medicare on your stock dividends and even your sales to pay taxes (consequently, which you might also pay Chinese payroll taxes on).

Just clearing up some terminology: You're talking about Social Security "Totalization Agreements" [1], which are separate from tax treaties. Romania, for example, does have a tax treaty with the US [2] but not a totalization agreement.

Setting up a corporation suggests that the business should pay the worker "wages" or a "salary". [3] One key difference is that wages are considered earned income, allowing the taxpayer to use the foreign earned income exclusion, while dividends are not.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-...

[2] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/roma...

[3] https://ustax.bz/how-to-structure-your-non-u-s-business-or-p...

It also means that we Americans working* abroad are radioactive for anything financial beyond a simple bank account or mortgage. Absolutely no one in Germany wants to deal with a brokerage account for me.

Though my husband was all for adding me to his accounts, I’ve carefully kept our finances separate to prevent the nightmare scenario of a bank deciding its American customers are no longer worth the trouble and neither of us being able to get at our money, which happened to some Americans when FATCA was first introduced, and also so at least one of us can buy ETFs in an uncomplicated manner.

* As in, not wealthy enough to be well beyond having to work

> Absolutely no one in Germany wants to deal with a brokerage account for me.

I lived outside for 11 years, but in Switzerland before the crackdown on American accounts. China was no problem, even with FACTA, they just didn't care much, even for investments.

If your husband has a USA permanent resident or on an immigrant visa, the same that applies to you applies to him as well, FACTA applies to all US citizens as well as residents.

Neither is the case for him... when we were first talking about the long term, he was willing to consider living in the US for at least a few years, since he's always enjoyed his visits. Then I talked to enough acquaintances who had Green Card drama for German citizen spouses who had only ever lived in Germany that I dropped the idea.

People complain about German bureaucracy, but I've found the residence permit process to be relatively straightforward and well-documented, and reasonably priced. They were clear about what documents they needed from us and when, and even helped me out when I nearly got stuck here because I applied for a renewal a bit too close to a trip to the States.

US green card for a spouse to come over as an immigrant is also pretty easy, we didn't even need a lawyer for it, just one trip to Guangzhou.

Limit on excludable amount

  The maximum foreign earned income exclusion amount is adjusted annually for inflation. For tax year 2022, the maximum foreign earned income exclusion is the lesser of the foreign income earned or $112,000 per qualifying person. For tax year 2023, the maximum exclusion is $120,000 per person. If two individuals are married, and both work abroad and meet either the bona fide residence test or the physical presence test, each one can choose the foreign earned income exclusion. Together, they can exclude as much as $240,000 for the 2023 tax year.

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/figu...

And some German banks refuse to work with you if you have a US passport because of the taxation requirements. When I opened my last bank account I had to confirm I'm not a US citizen.

That's why Boris Johnson renounced his US citizenship.[0] He's a British politician who was their Prime Minister from 2019 to 2022 but he was actually born in New York so he was a natural born US citizen.

The US really should adopt a territorial tax system for individuals like the rest of the world but it might be reasonable to apply the system we currently use for individuals to corporations that do business in America to stop them from stashing cash overseas to dodge taxes.

[0]: https://americansoverseas.org/en/news/boris-johnson-american...

I've never had a problem with passport renewal in the USA. If you do it abroad, it is even expedited by default. It is really hard to mess up the photo, though the places that can do it reliably are increasingly small (you are better off going with an app these days and then using photo printing).

Earlier this year I had to cancel a trip to the south Pacific because, it turns out, four months is no longer enough time for an "expedited" passport renewal. Appointments for urgent-travel renewals are not available in the US no matter how many hours you spend in the State Department phone system. It has gone downhill in a big way.

Bonus lesson that I learned too late: if you're in need of an urgent passport renewal, complain to your senator; I got an appointment within a week once I did that.

I got an urgent travel appointment for my toddler about a month ago with little trouble, though I suspect it would be more difficult in the summer. We got her (first ever!) passport on the same day as the appointment, 1 week after calling to make it and 4 days before our planned trip to Canada. It's probably easier if you don't apply for your passport ahead of time because you can get your appointment up to 14 days before. I am lucky to live a few blocks from a passport center though, it's not really practical for everyone, and of course, there's no guarantee that an appointment would have been available.

And I want to renounce my current citizenship and live as a stateless person, which would be preferable compared to my current citizenship. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to do that, unless you already have some other citizenship, which I don't.

Can you share what country you want to give up citizenship from? It's hard to imagine that being stateless would be preferable in most cases.

Russia.

> For some unknown number of weeks I will be in limbo, unable to legally leave the country, at the whims of the mail and some unknown bureaucrat who may or may not decide to grant my renewal or decide that the photo I've submitted is not quite the right size or whatever.

Agreed that the system sucks and is generally antiquated. That being said, if you travel frequently and need to avoid that limbo state, you may be able to maintain a second US passport: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/have-pa...

FTA:

  the doctor did not receive a new passport; instead, he received a letter from the State Department stating that he should not have been granted citizenship at the time of his birth because his father was a diplomat with the Embassy of Iran.

> unable to legally leave the country

I am having a hard time understanding why, help me out. I’m not sure about airports, but the US doesn’t check passports on the way out at land borders, so you could walk from the US into Mexico without the US side checking, and then when the Mexican official asks you, you could just present your German passport. Of course American citizens are obliged to reenter the US on their American passport, but if you are getting the new US passport back by post, couldn’t you have a family member DHL it to wherever you are outside the US?

> you could walk from the US into Mexico

Yes, but I wouldn't be able to come back. And Mexico is the only place I could go.

So strictly speaking I overstated a bit when I said I could not leave the country. I could leave, but I would not be able to travel freely like I can now.

> unable to legally leave the country

Just a small distinction: you are free to legally leave the US at any time. The US has no exit controls[1]. They do not even monitor who leaves at all, so they have no real idea or care, about who is leaving the country. It is perfectly legal to leave the US without a US passport, or any type of passport or ID.

Now the countries that share borders with the US, may not let you enter through a legal port of entry, but the US is not stopping you from leaving.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_control#Exit_controls

This freedom should not be taken for granted, as countries accross the entire spectrum of tyranny do monitor exits - from China to the Schengen Area countries, and many in-between.

And if you want to see it taken a step further, scroll down to the exit permit system, where it would be illegal for you to leave your own country, unless you have an exit visa.

> the US is not stopping you from leaving

That's true, but it doesn't help much because I can't just leave. I have to go somewhere. No airline nor cruise ship will allow me to board an international flight or cruise without a passport, nor will Canada allow me to enter without one. That leaves Mexico. So yes, I suppose I could go to Mexico, but then I could not return.

you don't have a passport from Germany?

Why can’t you enter Canada on your German passport?

Probably, but then I couldn't come back.

This is quite the recent removal then. I recall browsing a US government website around the start of the covid pandemic where one could check your entry and exit record.

They do keep track of when you leave by commercial air or sea, and I think there are data sharing partnerships with Canada/Mexico as well. Not sure if they keep track for citizens though, since there's no immigration enforcement reason for that.

They're working on an "entry data is automatically sent to other country as exit data" system with Canada. I'm not sure they've got any decent partnership with Mexico currently, though I know they've been negotiating.

Any US citizen HAS to leave the US with their nationality. That’s the law.

U.S. citizens must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. This requirement is outlined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, specifically 22 CFR 53.1. It states that a U.S. citizen must possess a valid U.S. passport to depart from or enter the United States unless they meet certain exceptions. This law ensures that U.S. citizens are properly documented for international travel, facilitating legal entry and exit from the country.

While the law does indeed state that, there are no penalties whatsoever defined for breaking the law, so there are literally no consequences for doing so.

https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/85389/what-is-the...

It's completely unenforced. When exiting the US no American authority checks what passport you are using to leave, and when entering they are legally required to let Americans reenter the country. At worst the border guard will be cranky and give you a stern lecture about how you are supposed to use your US passport.

Right, but the only punishment for failing to comply is reprimand and delay at the entrance while trying to verify citizenship. The latest publicly available CBP Inspector's Field manual is unequivocal that if the Inspector is convinced the entrant is an American citizen they cannot stop them from entering.

The law really exists as a way to avoid delays at entry as a US citizen having a valid US passport can be processed in much faster than one who does not, and it minimizes the risk of being stuck with an immigration agent that does not belive your claims of being an American citizen due to lacking convincing records and documents.

American Citizens are not the only ones with an unequivocal right to enter. American Indians born in Canada who have are at least 50% American Indian by blood "cannot be denied admission to the United States". They are required to prove to the inspector that they meet this criteria, but if they do, they don't need a passport or anything. (But they probably needed some documents to convince the inspector of their status as a 50%+ native born in Canada.)

In Costa Rica, anyone can request information on your entrance and exits to the country. It is considered public information.

An odd thing: Canadians can enter the Turks & Caicos islands (a British Overseas Territory) without a passport. I know that because my partner discovered that her passport had expired, the night before our trip. It took some time at the immigration desk (both coming and going), but in the end she was able to travel.

What would the system be as an alternative? You are born stateless and have the ability to declare (or in harsher terms, need to audition for) citizenship to a country of your choosing? At what age?

The notion of having no state is kind of an impracticality, do we accept that as a given?

That's a great(?) dystopian movie scenario.

All pregnant women are moved to Region0. They give birth and then moved back to their place of origin right after the birth. The babies stay there and are raised for 18+5 years (pre-school, school, Uni) and then they audition for their 10 countries of choice (kKinda like the 'draft' in the NBA)

> What would the system be as an alternative? You are born stateless and have the ability to declare (or in harsher terms, need to audition for) citizenship to a country of your choosing?

That sounds like a fine plan to me. "Auditioning" could consist of military or other volunteer service.

> At what age?

18, unless you're an orphan or emancipated, in which case you can do it sooner. Before that you inherit the citizenship of your parents or legal guardians, but only until you turn 18. Then you have to choose. Most people would choose to retain the citizenship they grew up with, but it would have to be an affirmative decision. I don't think it's right to be a citizen of a country to which you have not pledged allegiance as an adult.

I think Starship Troopers explored this a bit, but I only saw the movie and never read the book.

The movie satirically pokes fun at this sort of system. The book takes it seriously.

It's effectively a legally enshrined global class system.

While I don't think it's practical to just abolish the concept overnight, I do think it's ultimately the direction we should try and move in. The freedom of movement the EU offers is a step in this direction, and something I'd like to see more of.

I strongly disagree. The citizenship is a set of mutual rights and responsibilities between the citizen and their country, and a country should be under no obligation to allow people to live there that refuse to partake in their responsibilities. Should it be easier to immigrate? Probably. But the moment a country gives up the ability to govern their membership, they cease to be sovereign.

That doesn't require passports and controlled movements.

Wherever you are today, you have to conform to all local laws regardless where you came from yesterday or go to tomorrow.

I don't see any honorable excuse not to give anyone the same rights and expect the same responsibilities.

Every problem you can state has an infinity of possible solutions, not just that one.

Dual citizenship isn't allowed in around 25 percent of countries.

Still, if you gain US citizenship, you don't technically have to do anything to revoke your citizenship in your original country, but they can revoke it for you if they have the resources.

Countries that ban dual citizenship look like that jealous friend who gets upset when you to hang out with your other friends.

Eh. It's more complex than that. Citizenship represents a kind of mutual obligation and tethering, for better and worse. While a metaphor of monogamy vs polygamy is probably too far, I'm struggling to come up with some other analogy.

I'm a dual citizen for the record, and believe in having it, but I do believe it is something to be taken seriously.

Joking aside, those countries have a very sensible policy.

While multi-citizenship may offer some benefits, it also results in numerous problems, too. We see these problems in Canada far too often, for example.

One issue is the Canadian-of-convenience problem. This involves people who have Canadian citizenship and some other citizenship, but spend all of their time outside of Canada, often for years or even decades at a time. Despite having no real ties to Canada, and despite not paying Canadian taxes, these individuals will flee back to Canada, possibly at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, if they face difficulties (such as a war breaking out) in the foreign nation where they actually live.

The opposite of that can happen, too, where foreign citizenship might be used to help somebody avoid criminal prosecution for crimes they committed in Canada.

Birth tourism is another problem.

Multiple citizenship also exposes people in Canada to a greater risk of foreign influence and foreign interference. This is especially true for politicians, and it certainly raises questions about where their loyalty may rest.

It also results in disruption in Canada due to foreign conflicts or disagreements (often ones that are happening on literally the opposite side of the world and don't otherwise involve Canada in any way) spilling over into Canada. Pretty much every international conflict leads to disruptive protests in Canada's major cities, for example. Sometimes these foreign issues can even start affecting Canadian elections.

With maybe the exception of Canadian-US dual citizenship, due to the proximity and close ties between the two nations, Canada should do away with multi-citizenship completely.

This is something I keep a reasonably close eye on, as both of my children are dual US-Japanese citizens.

Both countries require the choice when the child becomes a legal adult, but neither seeks to actively enforce it (unless there is a reason, such as pursuing a security clearance in the US).

It’s an odd area of law.

EDIT: The statement that they both require the choice was pointed out to me as incorrect. I lived in the classified world for decades, where that choice IS required and incorrectly generalized that.

> Both countries require the choice when the child becomes a legal adult,

What do you mean? The USA is perfectly happy with dual citizenship even if Japan is not.

My mistake; I lived in the classified world for so long I generalized the requirement there.

So we only have to worry about Japan, which in all honesty was the only one we were worrying about.

My children will have the same dilemma well.

What I have heard is that if you renounce your Japanese citizenship, you have to turn in your Japanese passport but if you tell Japan that you are renouncing your American citizenship there are no checks to see if it has been done...

I do not know how true it is and I would not recommend breaking the law.

There is also the matter of detection; Japan is very strict on watch entry and exit, any use of a non-Japanese passport would be noticed there but is there any way for them to see if you have a second passport beyond that?

Regarding the passport: not that I am aware of. However, if there are no other entry/exit stamps in your Japanese passport they will know you are using another countries elsewhere.

I suppose you could get your Japanese passport stamped every time you left and came back, but then the timelines might be an issue. Also, whether or not the customs official even would.

> However, if there are no other entry/exit stamps in your Japanese passport they will know you are using another countries elsewhere.

If you only ever travel between the USA and Japan, they wouldn't know anything since the USA doesn't stamp your passport anyways.

I don't know if the US would stamp a Japanese passport for that reason, probably not because they would be like you entering the US twice and generate a bunch of visa stuff.

Now suppose you flew in and out of Canada every time, using your US passport to enter and Japanese to exit....

As long as your were diligent with keeping track of it, it would look like you were in Canada to the Japanese government.

Funny story, about keeping these things straight. Going back to Japan after travel with my infant son to Guam. Wife and my son go through the Japanese immigration while I have to go through the foreign nationals line, wife had accidentally handed my my son's passport. The look on the official's face as he stared at the baby photo was great, I told him "Sorry, I didn't shave so I look a little different."

You just have to make sure you don't accidentally overstay your visa in Canada with either country since they probably check this by entry/exit dates on a specific passport.

Different topic, but I hope you enjoyed Guam. I lived there for several years and miss it quite a bit!

It and Japan were our top two locations for settling when I left the military, but life has a way of ignoring what you want and we ended up elsewhere for difficult reasons.

We did, it was only for a couple days for her brother's wedding during the winter so wasn't very crowded.

I lived in Japan for several years, love living there but don't like working there. I am back in the states on the east coast but I hope I can retire over there.

If you don't live in Japan, use your US passport to enter/exit Japan and only carry that passport with you. They might be able to see that you also have Japanese citizenship, but they won't be able to take your Japanese passport if you don't have it.

If you fly from the US to Japan and show a Japanese passport, your chances of getting caught are much higher - all they have to do is ask why you don't have a US visa stamp in your Japanese passport.

> If you fly from the US to Japan and show a Japanese passport, your chances of getting caught are much higher - all they have to do is ask why you don't have a US visa stamp in your Japanese passport.

In most countries, including the USA and and I assume Japan, it is illegal to enter or leave the country on another passport that is not that country's passport (assuming you have such a passport). So, I wouldn't risk this: you are changing what is a civil problem into a criminal problem.

> all they have to do is ask why you don't have a US visa stamp in your Japanese passport.

The USA stopped stamping passports of foreign nationals in 2022.

If a child chooses to get a USA passport, surely this means renouncing Japanese citizenship?

The USA doesn't care about your other passport, they won't make you do anything, or even know what you have to do according to the other country's laws.

I wish that worked both ways and that I didn't have to convince my bank that I'm not an American, I don't feel American or have ever been to the US just because the US has some shitty tax law.

but neither seeks to actively enforce it

That reminds me of when I was traveling in Israel, and they said next time I entered the country I needed to either register to perform military duty there, or renounce my citizenship (gotten through my father), so I decided to simply not return until I aged out of military duty.

Note that the individual in the linked article is different from your family's case because she naturalized as a US citizen.

Japan seems to enforce loss of citizenship more strictly in these cases. If your children are dual citizens from birth, different laws apply. As an example, despite Naomi Osaka publicly declaring to choose Japanese citizenship, she has not been reported to appear in the US government's "Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen to Expatriate". [1] [2]

[1] https://www.ubitennis.net/2020/12/naomi-osaka-and-a-tale-of-... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/16i22mh/dual_citizen...

Under Japanese law, only the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of laws. Therefore, a lower court cannot declare a law unconstitutional.

I first misread this as "unconstitutional", therefore deeming this newsworthy.

False alarm.

Japan's rules around citizenship and naturalization are going to have to shift given the countries shrinking population size.

Why? Shrinking population reliably leads to greater quality of life for the masses. The mass deaths of the plague catapulted the surviving Europeans into an affluent middle class. Japan has the benefit of a much more controlled population decline plus the technological sophistication to massively increase automation. Between robotics and AI they’re extremely well positioned. As things stand the next generation of Japanese are facing very pleasant lives.

Until you learn about how much it costs to take care of a long-lived aging population on the backs of a dwindling young one. The country will be subsumed into the Chinese sphere of influence to pay for their invested age pyramid before any such rise could occur.

Those costs will also be incomes from good high paying healthcare jobs for younger Japanese. A wealth transfer from the old to the young is eusocial. Remember that every expenditure is somebody else’s income!

Japan has its own central bank and the willingness to use it. Japan also has a highly advanced, productive, and diversified economy. They will have no problem paying for it themselves.

Edit: child doesn't understand the implications of Japan having its own Central Bank: "meaning that cuts or new revenue streams to support it will need to be used" is false. It's unsurprising though, because these same economic falsehoods, pervasively proclaimed, are used to present the enshittification of Western Europe and the USA as being somehow financially necessary.

Healthcare is a highly specialized and restrictive career due to the education requirements. As 90% of the population utilizes their nationalized healthcare, the cost of healthcare on the government will only increase as they age, meaning that cuts or new revenue streams to support it will need to be used.

Since many use nationalized healthcare, the wealth of the older generation does not move to the younger generation by paying for these services. There will not be a migration of wealth like you believe.

Healthcare service is one of the most "inefficient" labor productivity industry, and it's closed in the nation. Not good for the future.

Doesn't china has the same problem?

Yes, but Japan is ahead of the curve and will be weaker than them because of it sooner.

Yes, and China's problem will in fact be much worse, but it will hit several decades later.

Japan is the "oldest" country in the world, with an average age of 48yo, while the US is 38yo. A big chunk of their population is already above retirement age, but there aren't enough younger people to fill in their spots. It's gotten to the point that many companies (which used to force retirement around age 60) are now raising it to 65. And while they use to allow those who were retired to "re-apply" for their job at reduced pay, they are now being given bonuses to continue working past retirement age to maintain steady employment numbers.

The next generation of Japanese are facing very difficult lives of either 1) higher taxes in a nation with an already high cost of living, or 2) a total and complete inability to retire as they get older.

Why? Because global capital demands more grist for the mill?

they should be first notified and allowed to choose, at the very least, not automatically stripped of one. someone could wind up stateless this way, when both countries are acting the same way at the same time.

also, exit stamps? Japan is really backwards in this way.

Most developed countries stamp on the way out. The USA is an odd man out in not checking passports of outgoing people at border crossings. Even in Schengen where a computer system was rolled out that automatically flags overstays, etc., it is still common for passport control to scrutinize foreigners' stamps just in case some previous passport control didn't properly enter the movement into the computer system.

Come to think of it, the UK doesn't check passports on the way out either.

Nowadays many countries look at the passport, but don't physically stamp it. They keep their own electronic record, and don't put it where other countries can see it.

Sounds like it's far from automatic. (Well, perhaps "legally" you automatically lose it, but there's no system that actually tells Japan that one of their citizens has gotten another citizenship.)

She became a U.S. citizen in 2004.

After traveling back and forth between her home countries with both nationalities for years, she was flagged as being a dual citizen in 2017 — first at a passport office in Tokyo, where her passport was confiscated and her application rejected, and then by airport immigration officials when they realized she was exiting Japan with an American passport that had no entrance stamp.

So it took them 13 years to figure this out, and if she were actively trying to conceal her US citizenship, could probably have held both indefinitely.

Yup. Unlike some countries like China, Japan does not go out of its way to catch dual citizens and it is extremely rare for somebody to actually involuntarily lose their Jp citizenship.

How does China figure it out?

If you're a Chinese citizen, you are not allowed to leave China unless you show a Chinese passport with a valid visa for your destination.

You can still get around this by going via a third country, but then they can ask for a return ticket from that country etc. The only foolproof way to evade the system and keep citizenship in a 2nd country is to acquire permanent residence in 3rd country!

>also, exit stamps? Japan is really backwards in this way.

In 2019 I spent three months in Japan consulting for a very large and very recognizable Japanese aerospace company that was partnered with my employer.

Let's not focus on the bureaucratic nightmare my folks went through to make that happen, and the dozens upon dozens of paper forms I had to fill out daily/weekly.

Let's focus on the boxes and boxes of floppy disks they had on their supply shelves. Floppy disks that were needed, in 2019, to perform critical business functions.

Japan is spectacularly backwards in many ways.

Don't forget the fax machines and inkans (personal stamps)!

There are two ways to lose Japanese citizenship:

1) As an adult, consciously acquire another citizenship.

2) If you acquired another citizenship involuntarily as a child (eg. being born), at 21 you are required to choose one nationality. If you do nothing, you will stay Japanese on paper.

The incident happened in 2017 and automated gates were installed in major Japanese airports in 2018.

(Funnily enough the last exit stamp I got was from Gare du Nord in early 2020, as PARAFE eGates wasn't extended to US passports back then)

whats funny or interesting about that? I missed several crucial details about two different country’s automated systems that wont be the same either way

This is great news. My kids are both dual citizens of the US and Japan, born here. I know when they turn 20 they'd pick the US if forced to and that has long stressed me out. They'd be giving up so much and would probably regret it later.

I think you need to re-read the headline. The ban on dual nationality is constitutional. You probably read it as "dual nationality is constitutional".

Oh dear, yes I did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com