I think the reason why they are using passports as a proxy is because technically, the ROC does not recognize PRC nationality (e.g. all PRC citizens from HK or otherwise are not viewed as foreigners). Interesting as a hypothetical thought exercise, though – my best guess is that if they don’t know, they won’t be able to enforce it. Of course, if the NIA finds out eventually, I’m sure that would be grounds for revocation of that status, should they choose to do so.
I think the reason why they are using passports as a proxy is because technically, the ROC does not recognize PRC nationality (e.g. all PRC citizens from HK or otherwise are not viewed as foreigners).
Yes, I agree that this is likely the reason for some of the ambiguous language used in parts of the Taiwanese law, but I’m not sure I understand why it would be applicable here. As Tando pointed out in the TECO-HK link, Taiwan uses the term 外國國籍 in other places, because although they might have ambiguous feelings on how to refer to PRC/HK/Macau “nationalities,” they don’t (and I would think, shouldn’t) have any issues referring to foreign nationalities.
By that logic, it seems that in the form that they ask HKers to sign, Taiwan could’ve phrased it as something along the lines of “you confirm that other than your HK passport/BNO passport, you do not hold any other foreign passports or nationalities.” The omission of the word “nationality” on the form could be a simple oversight, but it seems hard to surmise that’s it’s really what they’re getting at without understanding the drafter’s legislative intent. It’s also notable that the form doesn’t talk about renunciation of 外國國籍 at all or require proof of it, either.
Like the hypothetical with the HKer whose Canadian passport expired and is no longer a valid travel document – she can attest to this form truthfully and accurately if the interpretation of 未持有 is “does not hold” (as contrasted with “has never held”), right? I just don’t understand how even if Taiwan is aware that she holds an expired Canadian passport and Canadian nationality, that it would matter for the attestations required for this form, because it doesn’t ask about her 外國國籍. Maybe you’re right that it’s what they meant when they drafted the form, but it’s just bizarre that 外國國籍 is not mentioned at all. This is probably a theoretical and uncommon scenario, but for whoever is unlucky enough to come across this and decides the challenge any subsequent revocation, it might be up to the courts to decide.
三、在香港或澳門出生者。香港澳門居民係指具有香港或澳門永久居留資格，且 未持有外國護照（不含 BNO）或雖持有葡萄牙護照但係於葡萄牙結束治理前於澳門取得者。
It seems it is OK you hold BNO as far as you don’t have a passport at least if you were born in HK.
Quick question (I’m the OP; Thanks for all the replies and comments in the thread!)
My family has decided to make the move if the following is possible since the I want to make sure I interpret the phrase “physically present in Taiwan” correctly.
It would be extremely difficult for me, with my current professional obligations, for me to do the 1 year in Taiwan, straight up. However, if I’m able to commute between Taiwan and the United States/Canada, once a month for a week outside of Taiwan (12 weeks out of the year, 84 days) and spend the remaining 280’ish days in Taiwan, I could satisfy the requirement “physically present in Taiwan” requirement for HHR in 2 years.
Is my interpretation correct? Thanks in advance.
in that case., you need 2 years.