🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KENJI.92Sep16103559@kappore.tom.astem.or.jp> kenji@tom.astem.or.jp (Kenji Rikitake) writes:

   In article <ISHIKAWA.92Sep14230936@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp> ishikawa@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp (Chiaki Ishikawa) writes:
    |Correct me if I am wrong, but I think U.S.A. is in the minority in
    |that the country gives a baby born in U.S.A. automatic nationality (or
    |was it citizenship). I believe there are more countries in the world
    |who don't have this practice especially in the Old World (including
    |Japan). It looks to me that U.S.A. and some countries in the New World
    |wanted to have as much as population as possible by giving favorable
    |treatment to babies born even on an airplane flying over the U.S. air
    |space!

   So which are you supporting, the New World or the Old World?

I was NOT supporting either. I just tried to put in my 2 yen worth of thought.

   I do supoort the New World because the way of doing things in the Old
   World irritates me and would probably be against my philosophy.

In many instances of every day life, I DO prefer the practices in
North America. Here I am talking about the North America only. Sorry I
don't know much about Central or South America. And even then
Westernized North American practices, that is. The local native
American tribes must have developed sophisticated and complex social
code of behavior which, I believe, many young native Americans find
too complex and outdated sometimes.

   A few comments:

   Being a minority does not necessarily mean being a wrong thing.

Of course, it doesn't. I didn't put any moral judgement in my original
comment (if that is what you read in my comment, you were reading too
much between the lines :-)

   What are you going to choose as an alternative if reciprocity on a
   relationship between two countries is not respectable anymore?

Heh?

Actually, I had to read this question a few times to understand the meaning.

If you mean that the giving of citizenship to a country ought to be
reciprocated, I am not sure know if I agree on this matter completely.
I have never thought about that. I do think, though, that there is (or
was) this paternal bent in Japanese law that a child born out of
Japanese father and foreign mother has it easier to obtain the
nationality than the baby born of Japanese mother and foreign father,
and I don't like this practice: AGAIN, correct me wrong if the
situation has changed in the last several years.

In general, I DO think that most of the services/rights/etc. given to
a visiting citzen from a foreign country to the other country ought to
be reciprocated in the country where the citizen is coming from.  This
is I would like to see in principle. [But, frankly, I have never
thought about giving citizenship.]

   I am not personally accusing you, but I see some lack of logical
   reasoning in your above comment.

If you read the original posting, you would find I didn't put any
logical reasoning in my above comment :-) I didn't mean to put any
value judgement there.

Actually, I just tried out to point out to Dave (in Kyoto, I think),
that obtaining dual nationality may not be as common as it stands.  I
am not saying that obtaining dual nationality per se is a bad thing or
that U.S.A. is being too generous (:-)) doing that or anything.

I saw later posting of Dave asking if Brazillian couple visiting
foreign country where a baby born their can obtain the citizenship
(say in U.S.A.) can let the child keep its dual citizenship, that is,
if Brazillian law would allow it or not.  I am curious about it, too.
There are practical considerations about dual citizenship we have to
think about: who do you pay taxes to, obtain pension plan or medical
care/social security, from, etc. I would like to know how these
practical problems are handled by countries who allow dual citizenship.

If I can keep a dual citizenship of, say, both Sweden and Monaco, and
enjoy the tax laws of Monaco, and receive the social services of
Sweden, I would be a happy man :-) This is the type of things that
governments probably worry about.

Now, if we want to discuss the original(?) question of Dave about why
he thinks that Koreans are superficially more concerned about giving
up their names than about giving up their nationality, maybe we should
consider what I heard when I was a kid.

I heard when foreigners wanted to obtain Japanese nationality (and
have to give up their original nationality whether they like to do so
or not, or whether it is right thing or not is not the matter here),
some clerks at the government office where the paperwork was handled
suggested that their names be also "Japanized". Don't ask me why! 

Maybe the old clerks back in the old days had this ethno-centrism
ingrained in their souls, or they were genuinely interested in making
the life of foreigners easier since non-kanji or Japanese names were
often difficult to register in government papers, etc.. 

[I am thinking of other government peddling in the naming business.
This is NOT only to foreginers, mind you. I don't know how it goes
these days, but I heard that some characters outside the official(?)
list of characters won't be recognized as legit in birth registration. 

Although I think the concern for unusual or not widely recognized
character is a valid one and maybe a good idea in a sense although
some people would vehemently oppose me, I don't know if anybody
succeeded in giving babies an usual names with unusual characters
these days.  Again, I may be mistaken here.  But, don't expect to
register something like Elaine Midori ... .... Sugiyama, ... being
their christian name, paternal grandfather's name, etc. here. I wish I
could see the face of a clerk when somebody fills in the application
with these names at a local Japanese office. I had friends in Canada
who had about 4 or 5 middle names coming from the both sides of the
families.  Of course, if a Canadian couple lives here and has a baby,
the correct way to go to Canadian consulate and hand in the
application.]