Travel Guide for Stateless People(taejun.substack.com) |
Travel Guide for Stateless People(taejun.substack.com) |
I am legally stateless, as my grandparents came to Japan before WWII and became stateless after it
https://shorturl.at/MX9MK (PDF)
Basically, Koreans who were in Japan before the Korean war and did not wish to become South Korean became stateless, since Korea was no longer a Japanese colony and Japan does not recognize the North. Only around 23,000 out of some 500,000 still remain stateless, since these days it's quite straightforward for them to become Japanese or South Korean if they so wish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%8Dsen-seki
And I'm a bit curious about why the author has not done so, although the fact that they attended the North Korean-supported Tokyo Korean High School, complete with portraits of the Kims in each room etc, suggests at least his parents were DPRK supporters.
Update: The author expounds on the topic at length here: https://taejun.substack.com/p/founders-peak-speech-script
A few quotes:
"However, until recently, there was a rule requiring us to change the pronunciation of our name to the Japanese reading of the Chinese characters. .. Even though the rules have relaxed somewhat now, I have lived with this identity for so long that I’m not inclined to alter it for now."
"Remaining stateless has become a constant reminder for me to stay mindful of those who are underprivileged. It also works as a promotion for the 10 million stateless people worldwide, living with uncertain legal status and limited protections. If I had not been born stateless, I would not be as serious about equality of opportunity as I am today." "
In Japan, generally speaking, you're not allowed to change your own name. You have to ask a judge for permission and have a valid reason. I personally, having not grown up in Japan, find it very odd that the state enforces what your name is, perhaps even under protest.
I can imagine a lot of philosophical reasons why someone might not wish to jump through hoops to simply exist and receive the same treatment as everyone else.
In the OP’s case:
> Another question I often hear is: “Why don’t you just acquire Japanese citizenship?” Yes, it is an option. However, until recently, there was a rule requiring us to change the pronunciation of our name to the Japanese reading of the Chinese characters.
> For example, Masayoshi Son, the founder of SoftBank. He once held the same status as mine. His original name was Son Jeong-ui, which is how you would pronounce those Chinese characters in Korean. When he naturalized, he became Masayoshi Son.
> For me, Taejun Shin would become “Yasutoshi Shin.” Taejun Shin, Yasutoshi Shin. Hmm, not.
> So, I decided not to change it. Even though the rules have relaxed somewhat now, I have lived with this identity for so long that I’m not inclined to alter it for now.
Also, for what it's worth, Chosen-seki in Japan are "special permanent residents" that can do basically anything a Japanese citizen can except vote. The travel restrictions for being stateless are not imposed on them by Japan, but by other countries, who generally view the stateless as extremely high risk for overstaying and/or claiming asylum.
Therefore, to me it feels a strange hill to die on. Even if one had to have their "legal name" be pronounced X, I'm not sure what exactly changes. 1) how you want to refer to yourself will still be how you refer to yourself 2) If the characters are pronounced differently in Japan than elsewhere, won't regular Japanese people already "mispronounce it". (my only guess is that there's some form of characvter mapping going on with different pronounciations for the different character sets?)
There is reform under discussion to grant PR and/or citizenship to a majority of them - https://thailand.un.org/en/285279-unhcr-supports-thailand-ma...
Entire families live and die stateless. Alien travel documents exist in some circumstances (as referenced by this guide) but are a very obscure thing, hard to obtain and the process may be arbitrary, airline staff and border immigration officers are frequently not familiar with them, etc.
This is usually not a status that anyone holds voluntarily; they are displaced at some point and the government which controls the territory they are displaced into does not want to enfranchise them, or even their descendants.
All told globally there are 4-5 million stateless people.
From an interview with the author: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/09/young-global-leaders...
[1] https://bosniaherzegovina.un.org/en/234262-live-without-nati...
But the US is, of course, a fairly unique case here. Most people become stateless due to state persecution (famously many Jews were stripped of their German citizenship by the 1935 Nuremberg laws, and many Kurds were denied Syrian citizenship under Assad) or by falling through weird administrative cracks (for example, see the cases of Mehran Karimi Nasseri [3] and Shamima Begum [4]). There are also cases (e.g. many Druze in Israel and the occupied Golan Heights) who refuse to accept citizenship they are offered on political grounds,[5] who would be considered de facto stateless if they do not have another recognised citizenship (though I'm not sure how Israeli citizenship works; the US considers you a citizen with worldwide tax obligations whether you accept it or not).
The interim solution is to get a 1954 Convention Travel Document[6] from one of the signatory states, which functions like a passport (and taxes in most countries are levied based on residence, rather than citizenship, so you'll still be paying them already). For a permanent solution, you'd need to go through the normal naturalisation process to become a citizen of a new country.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness#United_States
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-bum-without-a-country-0000...
[2] https://dollarvigilante.com/2015/07/20/interview-with-glen-r...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehran_Karimi_Nasseri#Life_in_...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum#Citizenship
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze_in_Israel#Status_of_Druz...
As a result the parents can get citizenship, but don't want to, as authorities don't bother them much, but their now adult child is technically a citizen, but doesn't have paperwork to prove their status.
I'm not entirely sure how that works out and which citizenship someone living in Gaza or the Westbank would fall under. In any case I can't imagine that a Palestinian passport holds much value.
Could it be that getting a South Korean passport will mean losing the special status and residence in Japan?
[1]: https://taejun.substack.com/p/founders-peak-speech-script
Unrestricted jus soli (extending nationality unconditionally to those born in the territory of the state, regardless of ancestry) is largely an American (as in "of the Americas", not merely "of the United States of America", though the latter is a significant reason why it is true of the former) thing, though there are a few countries outside of the Americas who do it as well.
Some more countries have restricted jus soli, extended to those born in the territory of the state only if the government judges them to be ineligible for nationality by the law of any other state, or perhaps only if the parents are actually stateless, as a way to mitigate statelessness. (And states who have adopted a rule of this type for this purpose may have done so after the UN Convention on stateless persons in 1954, and may not have applied it retroactively.)
I do find it quite unusual that he would not be allowed to naturalize after living all his life here and being married to a Japanese citizen, so perhaps there are other exceptional circumstances. Or perhaps his statelessness isn't something he is actively trying to resolve, having found ways to work around it when he needs to travel and do other things.
I know someone who tried to start the naturalization process but was instantly shot down for his Japanese skill (he speaks Japanese well). I know others who have lived in Japan for decades but cannot apply for permanent residency because they only receive short visas, making them ineligible.
Immigration officers have ultimate discretion and will not explain themselves to applicants. I assume this is by design so that particular 'standards' can be subtly applied without being reflected in statistics or receiving any criticism.
Practically, there is no point for the state to deny you citizenship if you went to school there and can do some kind of a job and pay taxes, because they can't even deport you to a country of origin if you are stateless and born there.
Technically even the US has the jurisdiction qualifier, which the orange clown wants to abuse.