Supreme Court rules marriage requirement for nationality unconstitutional

Wednesday 04th June, 04:13 PM JST

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

Latest 15 of 24 Total Comments Show All

borscht at 08:08 PM JST - 4th June

Stonecoldsoba,

You have to finish that sentence which ends..."‘the disadvantage created by such discriminative treatment cannot easily be overlooked,’’

thereby saying that it is discriminatory (bad) to require Japanese nationality in order to get those basic human rights.
Taka313 at 08:10 PM JST - 4th June

In light of the fact that obtaining nationality is essential in order for basic human rights to be guaranteed in Japan, ‘‘the disadvantage created by such discriminative treatment cannot easily be overlooked,’’ they said.

It's hard to get overly excited about this considering the above statement. One step down; a metric butt-ton to go.

Taka
kenchan at 09:25 PM JST - 4th June

It just shows how insular and crazy the Japanese still were 20 years ago...anyways keep it up Japan!
presto345 at 10:25 PM JST - 4th June

The law hasn't changed yet. That is up to lawmakers, and this could take years to get drafted

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has ruled, and lower courts would not want to disagree, even if the existing laws haven't been revised. They would likely been liable for all costs of litigation in cases brought before them.
Dubya at 10:52 PM JST - 4th June

Horrible. An entirably reasonable law thrown away just to be like the rest of the world. A step backward.
presto345 at 10:55 PM JST - 4th June

Horrible. An entirably reasonable law thrown away just to be like the rest of the world. A step backward.

Could you please elaborate?
usaexpat at 11:06 PM JST - 4th June

Good thing indeed although Japan's citizenship rights already made more sense than in my home country. A child born to a Japanese citizen anywhere in the world is granted citizenship whereas in America as long as you're born on US soil you are a citizen which is quite different (hence the large number of citizen children of illegal immigrants). I think this makes the Japanese system even better and applaud this move for fairness and equal protection under the law.
smithinjapan at 11:19 PM JST - 4th June

A small... small... step. When are children who are simply born and raised here going to have the option of Japanese nationality? Now THAT would be a step for the better.

I hope this doesn't get appealed, but knowing the past...
AntonChua at 12:32 AM JST - 5th June

I'm a Filipino and I applaud the Japanese Supreme Court for recognizing the rights of Japanese-Filipino children. Gambatte!
KitsuneYoukai at 01:10 AM JST - 5th June

That's great! This will acknowledge any child born in Japan to one foreign parent and one Japanese parent. Finally, the tides are turning towards new social changes. It's most certainly a good start.
OssanULTRA at 02:17 AM JST - 5th June

This is indeed a step forward for Japan. Now if they would work on accepting Dual Nationality they could really move into the 21st century.
VOR at 02:58 AM JST - 5th June

A little crack in the armor of the Japanese male but....

This ruling does not appear to protect offspring of Japanese Males mothered by non Japanese females. In cases were paternity is denied or unestablished, the mother and child have no protections under Japanese law. Those that are in Japan illegally are rounded up and deported with no due process.
some14some at 06:51 AM JST - 5th June

J-population goes up by 10 that is the only significance, no better than 'marriage of convenience'.
Sparkjack at 03:46 PM JST - 9th June
1. It's a step in the right direction. Japan's society is wrestling with a lot right now. Every good step, is good.
2. The US does not give basic human rights to non-citizens. If you think this then you're confusing founding principles with current law.
3. Dual nationality is not really advocated/sponsored by a lot of nations, so being behind the curve here is actually just being with the majority. If we can get through this next century without a world war nationality in general will seem rather quaint indeed.
4. Giving citizenship to people born somewhere is ripe for abuse, it hurts cultures, encourages disporia, and results in a rather benign form of social poison for everyone involved. Now being the third generation of someone living in the country and not having citizen ship, that is rather weird.
VOR at 08:40 PM JST - 11th June

The US does not give basic human rights to non-citizens. If you think this then you're confusing founding principles with current law.

I don't know about that. My wife is a non citizen and she has never been treated unfairly. Care to explain what basic human rights are and which ones are not available to non-citizens?