Hi I’m a dual citizen of Taiwan and USA, Left Taiwan when I was 16, I’m thinking about going back to Taiwan for this summer just to visit my relatives for the first time in 6 years, I’m 22 right now. Due to conscription problem I’m very concern about getting restrain from leaving Taiwan once I got there. I’m thinking about using the US passport to go back and enter via visa-exempt entry, will I be allow to use visa-exempt entry? I do know that landing visa form requires chinese name to be fill out and my us passport has both my english name and my chinese name, so I’m trying avoid filling out any form that requires any info, I’m thinking about getting my name change first before I go back, is that a good idea? Is there any way for them to find out who I am if I use US passport and different name? I’m also concern that they could find out by my last name and birthday? could that happen? Is there any paper work that needs to be fill out for visa-exempt entry? How is visa-exempt works? Do you guys think that is the safest way for me to visit Taiwan without getting any trouble? Please help me. thank you all
So long as you’re staying for less than four months you should be OK on your ROC passport. If you stay more than 4 months they might pressgang you and you’ll be counting those mantou.
Thanks for the reply…so you are suggesting that I should use my ROC passport instead of US? But I my ROC passport had expired already, and they don’t let me extend it. Should I use the expired passport? What happens if I use the US one instead?
By law any holder of a Taiwan passport is considered as having used that passport ot enter Taiwan, even if they didn’t. So it doesn’t really matter.
Brian
That’s weird. Are you allow to leave Taiwan when you’re 16.
Unless it was for immigration purposes. Which obviously you did.
The only problem arises is when your visa entry information ends up with the police registration. I don’t think you’re planning to go to the police to tell them you just came back to country and updating your local registration information.
I know lots of ROC guys that go back to Taiwan for summer breaks with no problems.
But they immigrated usually before 12.
I would contact the Taiwan Ambassey stateside to get clarification.
yes I left the country when I was 16 and it was for the purpose of immigration and yet I did sign some type of document stated that I have to go back for the military. but the dilemma for me now is that I’m US citizen already and I got job in US as well and there is no way and no reason for me to serve in military for 2 years, I just wanna come back and visit my elderly grandmom. I know there is something about VISA-EXEMPT ENTRY for people holding foreign passport, but I don’t know how exactly it’ll works and will it help in my situation. Will they find out who I am by looking at my US passport? I’m ready to go back this summer and I have prepare a document that certify me as a University student in case they stop me from leaving the country. I do know the military law in ROC allows students to finish their school before age of 24, will that help me?
kaokao,
What did you sign? Do you still have a copy. Can you get a copy?
Since none of my male USA/ROC dual citizen friends are aware of ever signing anything to say we would go back and serve. We all left at a younger age.
Yes I’m aware of the visa exemption for us dual citizen holders.
And like I said it is only because we know our residency information has either expired in Taiwan (after 2 years living abroad) or we were never issued a residency ID card to begin with. Basically the police have no proof we are ROC citizens living on the island. They cannot find us, and therefore cannot draft us.
I’ve never heard of customs enforcing drafing laws (I’ve never heard of a guy detained and drafted at CKS airport). It is usually only the police that can do that after you stay in Taiwan more than 4 months and they realise you had a residency ID and were never in the military.
But you signed something. You best find out what that is and ask the embassy do they plan to enforce whatever it is you signed, while entering on a USA passport.
Either that or go with your first plan of legally changing your name in the USA and reapplying for your USA passport.
That is impossible. Extending a passport is a basic human right. Doesn’t President Chen talk about human rights all the time???
How about your constitutional rights under the ROC Constitution?? You seem to assume that you don’t have any!!! Wake up.
kaokao,
You have prove that you are a University student at a Institution that the ROC government recognizes.
You should get in writing from the Taiwan embassy to confirm they recognize the School you are attending as a Institution of higher learning that will exempt you from military service till 24.
That will basically ensure even if you are stopped at customs there is no reason to hold you in ROC.
Falcon…since when is a passport (or extending a passport) a basic human right?
- In Anglo-Saxon law the right to travel was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta (June 15, 1215). The Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 included (1) Freedom of Debate, (2) Freedom of Movement, (3) Prohibition of Bills of Attainder, and show how deeply engrained in American history this freedom of movement is.
- Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of the American heritage.
- Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 ; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 . “Our nation,” wrote Chafee, “has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” (See Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, by Zechariah Chafee, Jr., University or Kansas Press, Lawrence, 1956.)
- In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1948) at 499 -500, the United States Surpeme Court stated that: “Although the Court has not assumed to define `liberty’ with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective.”
- According to the precedent in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), and subsequent INS interpretations, the right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which a citizen, or other person owing allegiance to the United States, cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
** In summary, not granting or extending a passport is a violation of a basic human right recognized by all civilized countries. **
Hartzell’s analysis is right on the mark.
Let’s face it, we would all be a lot better off if the USA just took over Taiwan. Then the ROC could stop playing the game of running the country – a task which it is clearly incapable of conducting in a proper, coherent, and effective fashion.
Hartzell I am not familar with your formal training as a lawyer but I do think we are talking about two different things. I said ‘since when is a passport (or extending a passport) a basic human right?’
You reply was…basically ‘In summary, not granting or extending a passport is a violation of a basic human right recognized by all civilized countries.’
However, in your sources that you provide there is no mention of issuing a passport. Now you may call me dimwitted or nitpicking but isn’t this what the law is all about - facts.
Anyway, let’s break it down:
#1 nothing wrong in that background information
#2 being a part of a heritage is not exactly a very compelling argument.
#3 “Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 ; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 . “Our nation,” wrote Chafee, “has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” (See Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, by Zechariah Chafee, Jr., University or Kansas Press, Lawrence, 1956.)” I assume those first observations are yours…so let’s just to what Chaffee says, “…outside areas of plainly harmful conduct …” So who determines ‘plainly harmful conduct?
#4 In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1948) at 499 -500, the United States Surpeme Court stated that: "Although the Court has not assumed to define `liberty’ with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective." One example, persons with top secret security clearance are restricted from traveling abroad without government permission.
#5 According to the precedent in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), and subsequent INS interpretations, the right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which a citizen, or other person owing allegiance to the United States, cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Sorry I don’t have access to all this information, but where was this citizen traveling? And I do beleive there are (and have been) many travel restrictions for Americans - even with passports. The right to travel within the U.S. is totally different from the right to travel abroad.
Although I don’t have it in my back pocket right now, I do believe the U.S. passport has stamped on it somewhere that it is the property of the U.S. government and must be surrendered upon demand.
And, as usual, I am confused by your constant comparison of U.S. law and Taiwan law (and the references you have made to german law), I am no lawyer but the laws of the United States don’t have any bearing on Taiwanese law does it. And although Taiwanese was based on German law, I would imagine that at some point the Taiwanese government stopped referring to german law and starting making their own laws.
Just my thoughts…I will try to take some time to see if I can look up someone of your references but just as there is no basic human right to possess a driver’s license, I doubt if there is one to a possess a passport.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
And as we all should know, Taiwan is not a member of the UN.
Well please feel free to correct me if I am wrong…but Taiwan is not stopping KaoKao from coming back. He just doesn’t want to be troubled with military service if he does. There is a difference.
As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13: it sounds great and Taiwan is not a member of the U.N. but lets ignore that and look at Israel - hasn’t it been a member country since 1948?..but isn’t Israel also refusing to issue a passport to Vanunu because the government thinks he is a security threat?
And more on the Declaration…Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Guess this doesn’t apply to the United States, who joined the U.N. in 1945?
Also a quick look at the U.S. State Department page will show that although it is customary for the U.S. to grant a passport to anyone who applies it is still not a right and can be refused to certain people or in certain situation. Also the State Department does restrict travel to certain countries and has in the past definitely prosecuted individuals for violating those restriction…definitely in contridication to Article 13.
Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a wonderful thing in theory, in reality each U.N. member state violates it on a regular basis. I wish all honored it but unfortunately that’s not the case.
I don’t think that any of the issues that Vannyel has brought up amount to violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United States.
But I think that many people complain about military service in Taiwan because it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because the current Constitution of Taiwan is the “Republic of China Constitution”. However, by what rationale are the current native inhabitants of Taiwan considered to be “Republic of China citizens”???
You will note that the original ROC Nationality Law was promulgated in Feb. 1929, when Taiwan was still part of Japan. The next revision to the ROC Nationality Law was in Feb. 2000 . . . . . and you have to remember that Taiwan was considered “Japanese territory” until April 28, 1952 . . . . . so we can clearly see that there is no basis in the ROC Nationality Law for saying that the native inhabitants of Taiwan are ROC citizens . . . .
Jimmy…
How can you say that Israel denying a citizen the right to leave the country is not a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Or that U.S. contractors (and soldiers) beating humilating and just generally torturing people not a violation of Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
But to look at your point now, how is it that military service in Taiwan is unconstitutional?
You say "because the current Constitution of Taiwan is the “Republic of China Constitution”.
Well Jimmy I beleive if you check the official name of Taiwan you will find that it is still the Republic of China.
So the rationale is actually quite simple…the government of the Republic of China is in control of the island called Taiwan and has been for many years. After 1952, it can clearly be seen that any person born after 1952 is a ROC citizen, those before well perhaps it is questionable. This is pretty much like the war of independance in the United States…before the war those in the colonies were all considered British citizens, after they were considered Americans. Simple.
Now some would go to great lengths with hypothetical arguments but for the layman it is quite plain and simple. Discussing treaties, theories, and other non-existant issues doesn’t change the fact that the visa on your passport (I assume) is pretty much the same as the one on mine…issued by the Republic of China…If you will take a moment to glance at your ARC (once again, assuming you have one) it says Republic of China (in Chinese) on the top line of text…so whether you (and some others) think the government here is legal or not doesn’t change the fact that they are in power and are very real.
Israelis can and do leave Israel any time they want to.
Incorrect. Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign government by the United Nations or most of the world community. Hence the government in Taiwan is only a fiction . . . . . . YOUR EYES CAN DECEIVE YOU!!!
Sorry Jimmy but you need to leave the comic books… Vanunu is being denied a passport and the right to leave Israel…
As for my eyes deceiving me…what is on your ARC? What is on your passport…what did the stamp…mine says ROC which if I remember correctly is the Republic of China…say what you will…but you are here by the graces of the Republic of China and on other entity…the U.N. is a nice idea but even the U.S. doesn’t recognize some of it’s mandates. It doesn’t take U.N. recognition for a place to exist. It exist because it is.
Who is Vanunu? How did he get into this discussion?