Is citizenship a right or a commitment to the state?
I made the following comment over at debito.org in regards to this post (it maybe take a short while before the comment is approved):
Three potentially flawed reasons for not supporting the local suffrage among permanent residents:
1. It's not what foreigners should want. They should want to real deal, citizenship. What's really needed is citizenship that is *explicitly* moot on the subject of dual or multiple citizenship. Citizenship should be construed as a right gained at some point after one has taken up residence in Japan (in regards to "foreigners."). It is absolutely *not* some kind of weird commitment to the state.
2. By granting half-measures, it gives an excuse to not grant the whole thing. Does the "foreign" community want to be ameliorated or given what it really deserves. The more partial fixes accepted, the more difficult it becomes to get what is really deserved. Fighting for this might be, ironically, counter productive to easing naturalization laws.
3. Actually, reading some of the (frivolous) arguments above, I think a lot of their thunder would be stolen by focusing on naturalization. It's a right, it's an entitlement at some point. It's not some gift bestowed upon the fortunate few by an almighty state. A few changes here and there, piecemeal to the naturalization process could potentially make a big difference, and might even be less controversial. Why this silly focus on the right to vote in local elections? It seems counter productive. I'm half suspicious this is intentional.
Opinions expressed in comment section are the opinions of the author only. Because of a spam problem comments are currently off.
What makes this issue
What makes this issue complicated is that the concept of citizenship, or should I say "nationality," is different depending on the country and its culture. In the West, nationality often is only just a way to indicate where you live or "where you're from," but in Japanese culture, bloodline and nationality are automatically assumed to come in a single package. This is why granting nationality is a big deal, and they don't want to do it so much (they probably wouldn't want to do it altogether, ideally), especially to foreigners with obvious racial differences. Fighting for easier naturalization or dual citizenship rights is essentially fighting against this belief system, and that will take lots of time and effort.
What makes this issue
Hi Graham,
I think there is some merit to what you are saying. One of the biggest problem in Japan regarding citizenship laws has been the presence of "Korean citizens" who view loss of their citizenship (in Korea) as a loss of identity. Of course, that's a very complicated issue ...
What I think is most relevant to you (and me) though, is what do you think citizenship constitutes? And when people seek to criticize your viewpoint, do you have ready responses? And do you have relevant criticisms of their alternative viewpoints?
I stand ready to defend (via argument of course) the concept that citizenship is a right and not an obligation or commitment to a state. I stand ready with arguments to criticize the alternative viewpoints. Yup, it's gonna take some time.