[quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“bismarck”]I didn’t check the Chinese, but I think you’ll find that the highlighted “National” in your quote would indeed refer to Taiwanese citizens only in the Chinese version.[/quote] I’m not at all sure of myself on this point, and I’m not sure it’s important, but the word in the Chinese version of the Employment Services Act is 國民, which according to Google’s translation machine, babelfish, and the online version of Dr. Eye, means “national.” Both Google’s translation machine and babelfish translate 公民 as “citizen,” and the online Dr. Eye (dreye.com) translates it as both “citizen” and “national.”
To give an example of the distinction between “national” and “citizen,” here’s a December 2009 Taipei Times article about nationals who are not citizens: taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003459973[/quote]
This is what everyone who becomes a naturalized Taiwanese citizen goes through. After you renounce and get your TARC you are a National with a passport for one year (unless you leave the country). After your one year “waiting” period you get issued with an ID card and become a citizen. As the law refers to 國民 I would think that means, “at least” a national.
As the OP is born in St. Louis, and is here on an ARC he/she is a foreigner and not protected by that clause.
[quote=“bismarck”]. . . the OP is born in St. Louis. . . .[/quote] I must have missed that. I remember reading on the thread that the poster for-a-samosa said that he/she was born in St. Louis, but I don’t remember reading that the OP, marshmallow21, was born in the United States. I thought that the OP characterized himself/herself as Canadian-born, or at least that the teacher in his/her hypothetical was Canadian-born.
Also, I thought that ROC law used “the law of blood” (jus sanguinis) rather than “the law of soil” (jus soli) as a factor in determining citizenship (I think there are exceptions to that in the ROC Nationality Act, though, or other factors which might explain for-a-samosa’s situation). Maybe I’m wrong about the whole thing, though.
Anyway, I gotta go teach a class. Y’all take care.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“bismarck”]. . . the OP is born in St. Louis. . . .[/quote] I must have missed that. I remember reading on the thread that the poster for-a-samosa said that he/she was born in St. Louis, but I don’t remember reading that the OP, marshmallow21, was born in the United States. I thought that the OP characterized himself/herself as Canadian-born, or at least that the teacher in his/her hypothetical was Canadian-born.
Also, I thought that ROC law used “the law of blood” (jus sanguinis) rather than “the law of soil” (jus soli) as a factor in determining citizenship (I think there are exceptions to that in the ROC Nationality Act, though, or other factors which might explain for-a-samosa’s situation). Maybe I’m wrong about the whole thing, though.
Anyway, I gotta go teach a class. Y’all take care.[/quote]
He explains his situation in his last post.
I think you can get citizenship based on factors other than birth (then again, it’s not just ethnically based, as anyone who meet the necessary requirements can become citizens). However, whatever the law says on gaining citizenship, that isn’t his current status. So that law still doesn’t cover him as he is legally a foreigner, just like any other Joe English Teacher from the US, Canada, UK, SA, Aus or NZ.
And at any school you’ll find some people with lower or higher hourly salaries than their colleagues. I know a US female teacher who started at GVO with NT$500/hr even though they wanted to offer her much less as is their usual MO. If someone else accepted and signed a contract with a starting salary at a much lower rate they really have no case. They’re adults, able to sign contracts and enter agreements and no gun was held to their heads.
As many previous posters said, the best solution is to find a school that is willing to recognise your experience and qualifications and move.
[quote=“bismarck”][quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“bismarck”]. . . the OP is born in St. Louis. . . .[/quote] I must have missed that. I remember reading on the thread that the poster for-a-samosa said that he/she was born in St. Louis, but I don’t remember reading that the OP, marshmallow21, was born in the United States. I thought that the OP characterized himself/herself as Canadian-born, or at least that the teacher in his/her hypothetical was Canadian-born.
Also, I thought that ROC law used “the law of blood” (jus sanguinis) rather than “the law of soil” (jus soli) as a factor in determining citizenship (I think there are exceptions to that in the ROC Nationality Act, though, or other factors which might explain for-a-samosa’s situation). Maybe I’m wrong about the whole thing, though.
Anyway, I gotta go teach a class. Y’all take care.[/quote]
He explains his situation in his last post.[/quote]
I’m getting powerfully confused. I thought the OP was born in Canada, or at least was referring to someone who was.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]The OP has never stated if he was born in Canada or not, in fact he dropped out of the conversation after two short posts…
for-a-mosa is not the OP.[/quote]
I’m aware that for-a-samosa is not the OP.
As for the OP, as I said, whether he is a Canadian-born Chinese or not, at the least he referred to a Canadian-born Chinese, whether real or hypothetical. The issue raised was whether the law I cited might apply to a Canadian-born Chinese. Since the law refers to national origin and appearance, it seemed to me that the law could very well refer to such a person.
I’m starting to believe that I’m not confused at all.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]The OP has never stated if he was born in Canada or not, in fact he dropped out of the conversation after two short posts…
for-a-mosa is not the OP.[/quote]
My bad.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“headhonchoII”]The OP has never stated if he was born in Canada or not, in fact he dropped out of the conversation after two short posts…
for-a-mosa is not the OP.[/quote]
I’m aware that for-a-samosa is not the OP.
As for the OP, as I said, whether he is a Canadian-born Chinese or not, at the least he referred to a Canadian-born Chinese, whether real or hypothetical. The issue raised was whether the law I cited might apply to a Canadian-born Chinese. Since the law refers to national origin and appearance, it seemed to me that the law could very well refer to such a person.
I’m starting to believe that I’m not confused at all.[/quote]
Where Taiwanese law refers to “national” or “citizen” it means a person who is a Taiwanese national or Taiwanese citizen. Someone born elsewhere, regardless of parentage who doesn’t hold Taiwanese household registration, a TARC or ID card does not fall under such a law.
The confusion over the OP and For-a-samosa was my fault. Sorry.
I’m not sure. Here’s an example of why (just an example, not proof–the language of a law sometimes doesn’t mean exactly what it says, or it may be qualified or even neutralized or partially neutralized by legal language elsewhere): [quote]A person shall have the nationality of the Republic of China under any of the conditions provided by the following subparagraphs:
1.His/Her father or mother was a national of the Republic of China when he/she was born.[/quote]–Article 2, Nationality Act law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawA … e=D0030001
No problem, no problem at all. You did have me worried for a while there about the extent of the deterioration of my brain, and now I’m just happy to find out I ain’t got full-blown Alzheimer’s just yet.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”]I’m not sure. Here’s an example of why (just an example, not proof–the language of a law sometimes doesn’t mean exactly what it says, or it may be qualified or even neutralized or partially neutralized by legal language elsewhere): [quote]A person shall have the nationality of the Republic of China under any of the conditions provided by the following subparagraphs:
1.His/Her father or mother was a national of the Republic of China when he/she was born.[/quote]–Article 2, Nationality Act law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawA … e=D0030001.[/quote]
Nationality Act was different when the OP would have been born. Even my son who was born in Taiwan to an ROC Mother does not have ROC Nationality.
[quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“Charlie Jack”]I’m not sure. Here’s an example of why (just an example, not proof–the language of a law sometimes doesn’t mean exactly what it says, or it may be qualified or even neutralized or partially neutralized by legal language elsewhere): [quote]A person shall have the nationality of the Republic of China under any of the conditions provided by the following subparagraphs:
1.His/Her father or mother was a national of the Republic of China when he/she was born.[/quote]–Article 2, Nationality Act law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawA … e=D0030001.[/quote]
Nationality Act was different when the OP would have been born. Even my son who was born in Taiwan to an ROC Mother does not have ROC Nationality.
Rules change.[/quote]
OK, I was hoping an old hand would settle the issue. Thanks.
So bismarck, you were right. No offense, bismarck, but I was hoping someone like Satellite TV or Poagao or tommy525 would weigh in on the issue.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“Charlie Jack”]I’m not sure. Here’s an example of why (just an example, not proof–the language of a law sometimes doesn’t mean exactly what it says, or it may be qualified or even neutralized or partially neutralized by legal language elsewhere): [quote]A person shall have the nationality of the Republic of China under any of the conditions provided by the following subparagraphs:
1.His/Her father or mother was a national of the Republic of China when he/she was born.[/quote]–Article 2, Nationality Act law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawA … e=D0030001.[/quote]
Nationality Act was different when the OP would have been born. Even my son who was born in Taiwan to an ROC Mother does not have ROC Nationality.
Rules change.[/quote]
OK, I was hoping an old hand would settle the issue. Thanks.
So bismarck, you were right. No offense, bismarck, but I was hoping someone like Satellite TV or Poagao or tommy525 would weigh in on the issue.[/quote]
Hmmm…
Not sure how to take that.
There was a post in which Satellite TV attested to your knowledge and a post in which I took note of it and apologized to you, but those were Temped as chit-chat (maybe this chit-chat post’ll be Temped, too). So I repeat my apology.
I want to know why personal trainers on gear get more clients. Seriously though, there are a lot of fake C/ABC’s and Taiwanese can’t tell the difference.
Wow… Well, I don’t want to partake in the “victim mentality”, but I can see where some of you are coming from. But my “white face” is not what has won the day for me while seeking employment in Taiwan, and if I were relying upon that, I’d have to come to terms with harsh realities sooner or later, because the reality is that people want value for their money, and over time, opportunities to get easy money for having the mere appearance of value will dry up and, unless you have lived a double life of gaining valuable skills and knowledge while at the same time doing the “fake” thing as a full-time job, then you will be S.O.L. at some point in the future, and you never know when that point will come. But, when that point comes you will be feeling it as a rather permenant sort of present that just won’t go away, I imagine. So look, don’t envy anyone, because in the grand scheme of things, everybody does get what’s coming to them, you can put that in your cosmic karmic bank. And don’t sit on your laurels, especially if they’re fake… Not only are you setting yourself up for failure, but whether you know it or not, you are undermining your self-esteem (assuming you have any: can’t assume that sort of thing with people I’ve noticed). In any event, you can look at it in another way, too. For every deficit you think you have relative to someone, they’ve probably got one relative to you, or else relative to someone else, while that someone else has one relative to you (kind of like an Escheristic triangle, if you know what I’m referring to). This will probably hold whether any of the involved parties knows about such things, takes advantage of those things, or regardless of the angle you take on it. Reality has a way of broadly-speaking being quite fair, and has a way of putting the onus of your happiness and sadness upon you, your decisions, your attitude, your viewpoint.
If people wanted value for their money half the buxibans in Taiwan would already be shut down.
Furthermore when will Taiwanese ever realize that just following everyone else in Taiwan will never help your kid get ahead. Sending kids to more classes is just creating a more average society and students do not even learn to do homework themselves.
