Massive Misinfo: Getting facts right about Japan naturalization's not easy— for The Economist

This is the actual photo The Economist uses with its article (seen only when embedded into a Facebook post)

An accompanying article for an editorial opinion encouraging Open Immigration for Japan by the Economist (found in both the online and print editions), entitled "Japanese naturalization | Inspector's Knock: Getting a passport is not easy", dated August 20th, 2016, contains 227 words and 13 sentences (237 words and 14 sentences if you count the title) if we count sentences linked by semicolons as one. If we regard each sentence as a statement claim of fact, I counted:

Not great journalism

• Only four of its thirteen claims (31%) are "true". ☺
• Two of its claims (15%) are "half truths", or truths, but with significant caveats and clarifications needed.
• Seven of its thirteen claims (54%) — over half — are outright "false". ☹

I normally avoid including articles in full in posts to honor copyrights, but the article is so short and there is so much that is false, so in order to describe and correct what is not true and factually problematic with the article I have to literally reference every single sentence of a very short article. That falls under "Fair Use" by most journalistic standards.

---

◯　To become a Japanese citizen, a foreigner must display “good conduct”, among other things.

Verdict: TRUE

Current and former members
(including Aleph and other spinoffs)
can't naturalize

There is also an additional, separate requirement that requires that candidates have no close ties or involvement with people or groups associated with terrorism, organized crime, or other organizations with goals of violent and / or illegal overthrow of the State of Japan. This includes the Yakuza as well as other foreign organized crime (Mafia, Triads, etc.). It also includes overseas (Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) and domestic (Aum Shinrikyo, Japanese Red Army, etc.) terrorist groups. Those who fought against the Empire of Japan in World War Two — or any earlier war, are exempt as this was an act against the Meiji government and its constitution, not the current State of Japan government and the modern Japanese Constitution. Also, this restriction against certain groups does not include those from certain religions (such as Islam), as Japan has freedom of religion guaranteed by its Constitution.

This article is making it seem as if checking the conduct (in other words, obeying legal rules and laws) is a bad thing. Almost all countries, even those that give away their nationality to anybody with money, have a good conduct or character requirement — even if they don't check carefully, as some countries such as the United Kingdom have been guilty of not doing:

British citizenship is being granted to people who did not meet “good character” requirements because the Home Office is not scrutini[z]ing British nationality applications appropriately, according to a watchdog report.

The Republic of Ireland is another country whose nationalization rules require "good character" and conduct.

☓　The rules do not specify what that means, and make no mention of living [和風 {wafū}] (Japanese-style).

Verdict: FALSE

Not sure if this counts as
"living Japanese style"

The definition of "good conduct" is defined in the handouts and literature they pass out when you apply, and it is explained orally the moment you inquire or in one of your initial appointments: it simply means no infractions of the law (either in Japan or overseas) that could be considered a felony and an insignificant amount or less of minor penalties and infractions. It doesn't even necessarily mean you have paid your bills (unless your non-payment is serious enough to warrant prosecution). Japan is not the only country to use a phrase similar to "good conduct" term in legalese with respect to naturalization requirements: the United Kingdom also uses it. Dr. Scott Blinder explains in "Naturalisation as a British Citizen: Concepts and Trends":

5% of [U.K.] citizenship applications were rejected in 2014. The majority of refusals since 2002 have been because of failure to meet either the residence or the 'good character' requirements. English language requirements and the Life in the UK test account for a small percentage of rejected naturali[z]ation applications, but may deter additional potential applicants.

There is no mention of living 和風 {wafū} (Japanese style) because it never has been a requirement.

☓　But for one candidate, at least, it involved officials looking in his fridge and inspecting his children’s toys to see if he was Japanese enough (he was).

Verdict: FALSE

Koreans in Korea have special
dedicated fridges for kimchi!

This is a famous legend on the internet. The tale began spreading on the internet in the late nineties, and was used to reinforce the myth that Koreans are prevented from acquiring Japanese nationality or that it was extremely difficult for them to do so. The myth is that they inspect the refrigerator to see if there's proper 納豆 {nattō} (Japanese fermented soybeans) and not Korean 김치 {gimchi} (kimch'i; fermented / pickled vegetables) or other Korean food in it.

The myth always mentions the mythical "one candidate (at least)" anecdote, yet in the decades of naturalization in the State of Japan, not a single confirmed and verifiable case of Korean Refrigerator/Toy Inspections® has been found. The candidate is always unnamed, and the storyteller, when asked for their source, can usually only muster a "friend of a friend" or "something I read on a racial activism website, mailing list, or blog."

Thanks to this site causing others to reach out to me via email and share their experiences, I have personally conversed with over 300 naturalized Japanese people of various nationalities, ethnicities, and races; I have met over three dozen of them in person (for coffee or lunch or more). That probably makes me the one person who knows more naturalized Japanese people in the world than anybody else other than Japanese immigration and other government officials who deal with Japanese nationality as part of their job. They are very diverse people, who have naturalized from the mid seventies to today and vary in age from their twenties to their eighties, and share their naturalization stories and experiences with me. Of this wealth of direct anthropological data, not a single one (even Koreans and Chinese) said their refrigerator or their children's toys & books were inspected.

The real reason they do home inspections (if they do them at all) is to spot check to see if what you state about your living situation on paper matches what the auditor sees in real world (with respect to being able to demonstrate that one is earning a living, which is one of the legal requirements for naturalization). This is no different from what an auditor sometimes does for tax declaration verification or asset verification when applying for a complex loan.

☓　Bureaucratic discretion is the main reason why it is hard to get Japanese nationality.

Verdict: FALSE

The only "fitting in" that is required
is to take an written oath to obey the Japanese Constitution
and all Japanese laws

Based on a decades long streak of naturalization approval rates exceeding 90% (often exceeding 95%), it is fair to conclude that it is not hard to get Japanese nationality at all. Its requirements are not very different from many western countries (such as Germany). If a candidate is rejected, both an official reason is given in the written 不許可通知書 {fukyoka tsūchi-sho} (Notice of Rejection), authorized by both the 法務大臣 {hōmu daijin} (Minister of Justice) and 法務局長 {hōmukyoku-chō} (Chief of the local Legal Bureau). This notice will always refer to one or more of the six general requirements as spelled out by the Japanese nationality law. The process from start-to-finish is documented as a flow chart in the documentation you receive.

Additionally, your case worker (相談員 {sōdan'in}) from the local Nationality Section of the Legal Bureau (法務局国籍課 {hōmukyoku kokuseki-ka}) that helped you explain one's personalized requirements as well as prepare and submit your application, will explain the result in detail.

Japanese judicial scriveners (司法書士 {shihō shoshi}), who are licensed and often work at law firms specializing in acquiring nationality, say that the vast majority of the very few cases (percentage wise) that are rejected are due to legal transgressions and there is little question or doubt that arbitrary discretion was involved.

Most countries, under the principles of national sovereignty, reserve the right to use plenary powers (meaning, keeping the courts out of it and delegating final authority to immigration) regarding who becomes naturalized and who does not. For example, the Republic of Ireland makes this very clear in their written naturalization policy, seen in the Irish government's Naturalization and Immigration Service website:

Applications are decided by the Minister for Justice and Equality, who has absolute discretion, even where the applicant meets certain conditions set out in the legislation, whether or not to grant naturali[z]ation.

◯　The [Japanese 法務省 {hōmushō} (Ministry of Justice)], which handles the process, says officials may visit applicants’ homes and talk to their [neighbors].

Verdict: TRUE

used via the CC-BY-2.0 license

This is true (and it didn't even mention that one's workplace may also be inspected or visited), but it's not for the reason this article insinuates. It's not to confirm if you're liked by your neighbors or coworkers. Nor are visits done to confirm if whether you live in a "Japanese style" — as the previous text implied. Visits are done simply to confirm that what one has claimed on their paper application (their address, their assets, income, and expenses, etc.) is not too out of sync with what is seen in real life. This is no different from inspections of other sorts (such as structured loan applications, income tax declarations) done both in Japan and in other countries.

For example, if you say your expenses are on par with your earnings and part of your expenses are reduced because you share rent with roommates or family members, yet the inspector can find no evidence of anybody else living there, that will raise a yellow flag thanks to the physical inspection.

Often times there is no inspection for a naturalization that occurs in big urban cities (such as Tokyo or Osaka) because of the case worker's workload. Additionally, the inspection may not always be of the home's interior. The inspector may just look at the outside of the dwelling and confirm its worth or existence without even informing the candidate that they are visiting.

△　It does not help that wannabe Watanabes must renounce any other passport: Japan does not allow dual nationality.

Verdict: ½ TRUTH

Actually, Americans relinquish
U.S. citizenship when they
change nationality.

Japan actually does allow multiple nationalities in the case of minors, natural born Japanese born before 1985, involuntary acquisition, and the inability to get rid of one's other nationalities.

The disallowing of additional nationalities is actually the norm for most countries of the world. However, Japan is not entirely inflexible on this matter of additional nationalities as this statement would have you believe. If a country does not allow you to give up a citizenship (which is actually a UN Human Rights Article #15 Violation), Japan will allow you to naturalize anyway providing you take an oath to never use a non-Japanese nationality.

The requirement that one must give up your other nationalities does not affect over 90% of the applicants for Japanese nationality, because their original nationalities (PRC/ROC, Singapore, ROK, etc.) do not permit their citizens to voluntarily acquire additional nationalities anyway; the other country makes them give up their citizenship. And of non-Asian countries, Americans are the most numerous among Japanese naturalization candidates. Because of America's tax laws such as FATCA and FBAR which make Americans and American LPRs legally obligated to file and/or pay U.S. income tax regardless of where they physically reside in the world, more and more Americans that acquire Japanese nationality are not complaining about giving up the nationality which ties them to this lifelong U.S. Constitutional duty.

☓　And applicants must have lived in Japan for a minimum of ten years. Other requirements—speaking Japanese, holding sufficient assets—are similar to those in many countries, but still daunting.

Verdict: FALSE

used via the CC0-1.0 license

The amount of time that one must be physically and continuously present in Japan (defined as no more than 100 straight days out of the country per year and no more than 150 total days per year out of the country) to qualify for naturalization is nowhere near ten years!

The maximum amount of time one must be legally and continuously present is five (5) years for normal naturalization. However, many applicants who are married to Japanese and or have Japanese family will qualify for what is called "simplified naturalization" (簡易帰化 {kan'i kika}). If you qualify for simplified naturalization, the amount of time you need to spend in Japan drops to three (3) years — or even just ONE (1) year! Personally, because I had been married to a Japanese national for almost a decade, I only needed to show and prove one year of residency in Japan.

The only explanation I can come up with for The Economist's egregious mistake here is perhaps the writer(s) of this article confused the requirements for Japanese permanent resident status and the requirements for nationality; Japan only lets people acquire Permanent Resident Status (永住者資格 {eijūsha shikaku}) in less than 10 years (minimum of five years) if they meet certain qualifications regarding desirability.

There are two more additional half-mistakes in the short sentence:

1. Surprisingly, being able to speak Japanese is not actually a requirement! The actual requirement is:

   Being able to make a living through his/her own assets or abilities, or through those of a spouse or of another relative who is making a living.

   This requirement naturally assumes the ability to communicate and understand enough Japanese that you could work in a menial job in Japan if need be to avoid becoming destitute. It is a de facto requirement for most, though, unless you can prove that your assets are such that you would never need to work or interact with Japanese people for the rest of your life — meaning you're rich.
   
   Even then, the Japanese language requirements are very modest — you do not have to sound native nor even be fluent. The guidelines ask for a reading/writing ability equivalent to a Japanese primary school 3rd grader. Many foreigners in Japan can achieve this level of Japanese mastery with just a couple years or less of diligent study. Whether or not a case worker decides to test an applicant's Japanese ability is a judgement call: if the applicant can communicate with the case worker with little difficulty or misunderstanding and fill out simple forms in front of them (i.e. write your home address in Japanese characters), the case worker won't bother to formally test your Japanese ability. I, and many naturalized people I have met and spoken with, were never quizzed regarding our abilities.
2. That same holding of sufficient assets (and abilities) requirement, mentioned in the previous list item, is waived for those who have the status of Special Permanent Resident (特別永住者 {tokubetsu eijūsha}). These people are usually (but not always) Koreans and Chinese who are descendants of pre-WWⅡ Imperial subjects who lost their Japanese nationality due to their homelands gaining independence from Japan after the Pacific War. Thus, the only thing stopping a SPR from becoming legally Japanese is neither poverty nor skills nor language: only a criminal record prevents them from acquiring Japanese nationality.

☓　Small wonder that so few people naturali[z]e.

Verdict: FALSE
Of the close to 190 nation-states in the world, you can count the countries that people actually want to acquire nationality to with just your two hands. And of those, about half are outliers when it comes to the magnitude of their numbers:

used via the CC0-1.0 license

1. United States
2. Russia
3. Canada
4. Britian
5. France
6. Germany
7. Australia
8. Spain
9. ⋮
14. Japan

After the top ten, the naturalization rate for most countries are fairly close to each other in terms of magnitude: five digit numbers instead of six or sometimes seven digit numbers of new nationals per year. Japan is usually in the top fifteen of the countries in the world when it comes to acquiring citizenship via naturalization. Japan is more popular than Austria, Ireland, Denmark, and South Korea when it comes to naturalization.

The article implies that it is the difficulty and arbitrariness of Japan's naturalization procedures that cause it to have low numbers (compared to new world countries such as America and Canada). But when you examine the statistics, there are many countries with near identical, or even easier procedures, than Japan — yet they attract and accept less.

☓　[In 2015] the government received just 12,442 applications, which take 18 months or so to process; it granted citizenship to 9,469 people, compared with almost 730,000 in America.

Verdict: FALSE

There are lies, damned lies
and statistics.

"Eighteen months", "over a year", and "years" are lengths of times often attributed (by non-verified internet sources) to the length of time it takes for a Japanese naturalization application to be processed and approved. Sometimes this is an honest misunderstanding and confusion arising from misunderstanding how long the individual took to gather and prepare and submit the paperwork with how long the government takes to process the formally submitted packet of paperwork. How long it takes to prepare the paperwork obviously depends on the individual, where they're from, and the complexities of their family and business and assets — as well as the motivation and diligence level of the applicant and the difficulty of obtaining that paperwork.

However, Japan's Ministry of Justice does not give time frames, averages or limits in its written documentation regarding how long the process will take because it can vary considerably depending on the individual and the complexity of their application. The case worker, however, will probably give you a rough guess, and sometimes will proactively or reactively keep you updated during the approval process regarding progress.

Of the around three hundred naturalized people (of different sexes, nationalities, races, and backgrounds) I have personally communicated with over the past six years of running this site, it appears that the average amount of time one has to wait after formally submitting the application is: 6~9 months. My application took four months. Donald Keene, a world famous octogenarian scholar with endless honors to his name, took even less time than that.

The other numbers are technically correct but are an example of misleading statistics. Of course America's absolute number of approvals are going to be higher because of reasons explained in the previous item relating to the ease of economic opportunity (relating to "the international language" of English which enables employment with little investment needed in foreign language training and assimilation). However, is Japan turning naturalization applicants away more than other countries?

• Japan's approval rate has been above 90% for decades. In many years, it is above 95%. In 2009, Japan had a 99% acceptance rate.
• Depending on the year, Japan beats the United Kingdom (5% rejection in 2014) in the rate of acceptance.
• Japan also usually beats the United States when it comes to approved naturalization applications as well. According to the USCIS, in the first quarter of 2016:
  • The U.S. denied naturalization to 11.1% of civilian applicants
  • The U.S. denied naturalization to 5.4% of military applicants

The available data suggests "no".

△　But that at least suggests most applicants are successful.

Verdict: ½ TRUTH
Rather than "suggests most", a more appropriate phrase would be "shows that almost all" applicants — that is, people that actually formally apply and submit an application — are successful. While its impossible to accurately measure how many would-be applicants abandon the process before they submit or even start the process, judicial scriveners and immigration consultants within Japan have stated in print that among their clients:

Source: 日本国籍取得ガイド／帰化申請マニュアル／完全版

• about one in four (~25%) Special Permanent Residents abandon their attempt to use a professional service to naturalize
• about one in three (~33.3%) regular foreign residents abandon their attempt to use a professional service to naturalize
• about one in five to six (~15.5%) overall abandon their attempt using a professional service right before the final formal submission

Nobody knows if these people then attempt to resume their application without paying for an adviser. Many people require no professional assistance (which can be expensive) to complete and submit their applications.

◯　Koreans and Chinese make up the vast bulk of them.

Verdict: TRUE

The majority of Japanese immigrants

This is very true. However, one should also note that the number of Koreans who naturalize has dropped considerably. Chinese now outnumber Koreans in Japan, and Regular Permanent Residents now outnumber Special Permanent Residents (and on a side note, Filipinos now outnumber Brazilians). Naturalization rates for Koreans peaked in 2003 and have been dropping ever since.

The reason for this decline is the combination of:

• The natural decline in population of Koreans in Japan (which is similar to the natural decline of population of Japanese in Japan) due to a low birthrate
• The change in the nationality law that allowed for inheritance of Japanese nationality from the mother as well as the father and intermarriage. The children/parents of these intermarriages are choosing Japanese nationality over Korean nationality
• Political events surrounding Korea and Japan in 2002 — North Korea formally admitting it abducted Japanese children from its territory — led to a peak spike of 朝鮮籍 {Chōsen-seki} ([non-South] Korean pseudo-nationality) changing their nationality to Japanese

In short, the Special Permanent Resident population, and the Koreans connected to this legal status, are in a voluntary population decline.

☓　New citizens are no longer obliged to adopt a Japanese-sounding name.

Verdict: FALSE
Every person that becomes Japanese must convert their name to a combination of Japanese syllabet and / or Japanese sinograms; Arabic, Cyrillic, Thai, and Latin letters (A, B, C… etc.) are not permitted on the 戸籍 {koseki} (Japanese family unit register). This is no different from other countries. For practical reasons, you can't create legal documents in the United States, for example, in anything other than alphabet. Not even diacritics are allowed.

What people do is transliterate their name from their native language and writing system to a different writing system, based on either how it sounds and/or meaning.

However, this will almost always be an approximation due to the lack of identical vowels and consonants in every language. Thus, a person who becomes legally Japanese will have a "Japanese sounding-name" because it must be written using a Japanese script. There is an exception to this rule for Japanese passports, but that's because the name on a Japanese passport must be in a simple 26 letter alphabet no longer than 39 total characters. That name is for foreign international use only. It is not for domestic use in Japan.

孫正義 {SON Masayoshi}
né 손정의 {SON Jeong-ui}
aka 安本正義 {YASUMOTO Masayoshi}

What the article writer is intending to imply here refers to yet another urban myth that has never been proven: that ethnic Koreans were forced to completely abandon names connected to or adapted from Korean culture and history in order to naturalize — such as 金 {GIM} (Kim, Ghim, Kym, Keem …) or 朴 {BAK} (Pak, Park, Bahk, Pahk …) — and adopt completely different names that were associated with Japanese culture and history, such as 鈴木 {SUZUKI} or 田中 {TANAKA}.

Billionaire CEO (and one of the richest men in Japan in the late 20th and early 21st century) of Softbank, Masayoshi SON, a born-in-Japan Korean national who naturalized to Japanese in 1990, according to the biography "Aiming High / A Biography of Masayoshi Son" (「志高く　孫正義正伝」 {"Kokorozashi takaku / SON Masayoshi seiden"}) by 井上篤夫 {INOUE Atsuo}, claimed that his case workers tried to oblige him to keep his registered alias (通称 {tsūshō}), 安本 {YASUMOTO}, that his family chose for their Special Permanent Resident Cards:

The Ministry of Justice did not accept him. "Son" was not a Japanese surname. It was unprecedented. If he wanted to be naturalized as a Japanese citizen, he had to assume a Japanese name. Son came up with a plan. In Korea, husbands and wives have different surnames, so his wife remained "Ohno." Therefore, his wife, a Japanese citizen, went to court to change her name from "Ohno" to "Son." Son visited the Ministry of Justice and once again asked if there were any Japanese nationals named "Son." If there were precedence, the name would be accepted.

The officer replied,

"There's one. It's your wife."

Thus, a Japanese named Masayoshi Son came to be.

"I finally got citizenship!"

As he returned to his office, Son showed the naturalization documents to his employees with a big smile on his face.

While this is an amusing anecdote (this authorized biography is full of stories about Son outwitting rivals and opponents in bureaucracy and government), the dialog doesn't pass scrutiny under close examination: the Ministry of Justice Legal Affairs Bureau or Nationality Section was not able to check the names of the entire nation in 1990: family/name records, etc. were not digitally centralized and on B4 paper, and were distributed across the nation. Additionally, the case worker would already have access to the applicant's family genealogy and names: such a line of questioning/dialog would be redundant.

There are many documented examples of foreigners nationalizing, of Korean ethnicity as well as other ethnicities, and choosing a family name and/or a given name of non-Japanese origin: not just during Masayoshi Son's era (the late eighties and early nineties), but also prior to the 1985 nationality law revision. There are even naturalization examples from the Meiji era that use non-traditional Japanese family and given names! Thus, it can be proven that there was no systematic rule or requirement stating that a "precedent" of a preexisting Japanese name needed to exist in order for a non-Japanese to naturalize.

Judicial scriveners and others familiar with the inner workings of the departments in charge of naturalization attribute the urban myth to a misunderstanding of case worker's intentions. Japanese government workers in charge of names, thinking of the future and children, in the past have often given guidance and advice to those choosing names so as to best avoid discrimination. It is because of this that the alias system for foreigner registration exists. Japanese alias registration was not intended to give people of Western origin a way to convert their name to カタカナ {katakana} (Japanese syllabet) or 漢字 {kanji} (Japanese sinograms), but rather a way for people who, from a phenotype perspective, appear Japanese, to have a name that also appeared Japanese — to avoid standing out. Japanese case workers have, for example, refused to register names for babies, such as 『悪魔』 {"Akuma"} ("Devil"), that they thought would subject the child to discrimination, teasing, bullying, or torment.

These days, case workers are trained to no longer advise naturalization candidates when their chosen name might not be ideal unless the candidate asks to avoid accusations of discrimination and suppression of freedom of expression. If a candidate with English name "Gary", for example, chooses ゲリ {Geri} as their name, the case worker may not inform them that the name sounds like 下痢 {geri} (diarrhea). The candidate must assume responsibility for their own choices, even if they're not good.

◯　And there is no fee to apply, in contrast with a charge of $595 in America, [2,500₣ in Switzerland] and £1,236 in Britain [in 2016].

Verdict: TRUE

Free. Really.

At least the article ends on a true note. The cost to submit a naturalization application, unlike the cost to submit an application to be a permanent resident, is ¥0. Additionally, unlike other countries, not many people need professional assistance to prepare their application, so the cost is quite low. However, you will probably still have to pay (small) fees and sums to collect and prepare the paperwork necessary to support your application. And some countries, such as the United States, can charge very high fees to relinquish their citizenship, which is necessary for Japanese naturalization.

One final overall nitpick: the article and title constantly refer to acquiring a passport as a euphemism for acquiring nationality/citizenship. However, in most countries, you do not receive a passport automatically when you naturalize. Most Japanese nationals (and American citizens) do not even have a passport. And a passport is not proof of nationality inside Japan: one's 戸籍 {koseki} (Japanese family register) is. In some edge cases, it is even possible to receive a passport/travel document from a country that you are not a citizen/national of.

The Economist is far from the only publication to do this, though. It does illustrate an attitude towards acquiring nationality which is not the the sole purpose of nationality. To some internationalists and elite well-to-do people that believe in neo-liberalism, nationality is simply a nuisance license that prevents globalization and hinders the wealthy jet-set from free consumption of the world's resources, and hinders economic migration. To them, the number one purpose of nationality is one's passport, and nationality can be measured by how useful their passport is for travel.

Obviously, the economic benefits one receives from a nationality cannot be denied. However, it's important to remember that a nation-state is not just a service provider, with its nationality being a license to use those services. It's something deeper: sovereignty is not for sale, and one's nationality is a tie to a state's government and laws. As per the Social Contract, this means not just privileges and rights, but also responsibilities and duties. These duties are connected to the passport holder even when they are not in that nation's territory.