Nice discovery newhere! I’ve visited the blog before, but didn’t have the energy so far to read through all blog comments. The one big question I would like to find an answer though is this: If I don’t need an active HHR (by going option AF384), what kind of document to I provide for the 戶口名簿?
(To recap: For AF384 it says [for children of married parents]: 父或母在臺設有戶籍並 辦妥結婚登記之國民身分證或戶 口名簿正、影本(驗正本、收影 本).)
I also found these interesting places:
Here the OP talks a little bit about the difference between AF353 and AF384 (mostly concerning the work permit), but he briefly also mentions that his parents already passed away, and that he needed to go route AF384 for the TARC (being older than 20).
The other document I’ve found is:
This is the procedure that NWOHRs under the age of 20 can go through to get citizenship directly (they can skip TARCs as we know). Notice that one of the documents one needs to provide is “5.依親對象之在台戶籍謄本或獲內政部移民署核發之外國人居留證明書、[…],” and then they clearly state (2nd column) what to do when you parents have an active HHR and what do without an active HHR:
Unfortunately, the government websites seem to be void of precise 說明s on what documents TARC applicants with no active HHR shall supply.
But all of this got me a little bit thinking, and I decided to revisit all resources that we have found so far. You can follow along how I interpret each and every requirement, but take all of this with a good amount of skepticism (I’m still waiting for the MOI call):
First of all, I’ll set up some terms:
- “National” shall mean all persons who have an ROC passport, including the NWOHR passport.
- “Citizen”/“Citizenship” shall mean having an ID card, a 身分證. This also implies having an ID in your ROC passport, and thus separating you between those with NWOHR passport and those with an “ID passport.”
- We prove “being a national” by some kind of connection to the ROC or, alternatively (!), to “the ROC as currently represented on the island of Taiwan.”
- From now on when I speak about you or us “being nationals,” I largely mean that we all have already proven to be nationals (even if newhere is currently lacking an NWOHR passport—it’s just a matter of time).
I don’t want to go into politics here, but if you look a little bit into the history of the ROC passport, you can find out that theoretically, many people are able to prove some kind of connection to the ROC (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_without_household_registration).
Let’s assume that the current ROC government [on Taiwan] will not arbitrarily grant citizenship to NWOHRs. This is why I said that you can alternatively prove relationship to the “Taiwan ROC,” and this is ultimately done by proving that you once had an ancestor that lived on the island of Taiwan, ROC. This also implies that your ancestor has had an HHR in Taiwan for some time in the past. It is those people [NWOHRs with ancestors in Taiwan] that are eligible to acquire citizenship—in other words, I just divided NWOHRs into 2 groups: Those that are eligible for citizenship and those who aren’t. And this depends on you having lineal relationship to someone who lives/lived in Taiwan. We should all fall into the has-a-relationship category.
So how does the government grant citizenship to these NWOHRs? The method differs between those under 20 years and those older than 20 years:
For those under 20 years, it should be easy—follow the process largely described in my link above: https://www.boca.gov.tw/cp-9-182-eb0b7-1.html
The document explains what to do with or without active HHR, and we even have proof on Forumosa that people under 20 acquired citizenship with deceased parents. So the “active HHR” part is largely irrelevant for applicants younger than 20.
But we are older than 20, so what should we do? We cannot acquire citizenship directly, but need to go the TARC -> stay 1 year -> citizenship route. Let’s take a look again at the 誰可以辦 for a TARC here: https://www.immigration.gov.tw/5385/7244/7250/7281/居留/36160/
(I call these option #1 and option #2 from now on, but note that there are labeled (一) and (三) in the document.)
As tando correctly pointed out, option #1 doesn’t say anything about having an HHR at the time of birth. It only matters to know someone [a direct relative] with an active HHR now. Take a look at the wording again:
This 現在 is missing in option #2 where it only states: 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民.
Let’s assume for now that option #2 does indeed not acquire current HHR—this is the “happy path,” the situation which would all makes us happy. It would make sense for me because the way I interpret these 2 options is that they are complementary to each other—option #1 is strict on the HHR part, but relaxed about the relationship part (you can use your parents’ or grandparents’). Option #2 on the other hand is strict on the relationship part (you must be born to a citizen), but relaxed on the HHR part.
Combining these 2 would mean that basically everyone who can prove relationship to a citizen can apply for a TARC. Assuming best intentions, the ROC would be interested in NWOHRs that are related to citizens to become full citizens too, wouldn’t it? The government only wants to keep those people out who are nationals, but aren’t related to citizens [on Taiwan] (remember that I divided NWOHRs into 2 groups).
Moving on, let’s take a look at the required documents that you need to provide if you are eligible. Do note that on the application form, you need to fill out the “reason” why you apply for the TARC. For now let’s solely focus on reason AF353 and AF384 (https://www.immigration.gov.tw/media/42540/相關證明文件一覽表.pdf):
For AF353, it says “有直系血親在臺灣地區設有戶籍者.” Interestingly, the 現在 is missing here, but we know that for this 身分, you definitely need to have an active HHR, because it also goes on to painstakingly explain that the supplied proof of HHR must be recent. i.e. “臺灣地區親屬之國民身分證或 戶口名簿正、影本(驗正本、收 影本)或三個月內全戶戶籍謄本 及足資證明親屬關係文件.”
Moving down to AF384 where it states: “居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民在國外出生之子
女,年齡在二十歲以上.” Looking at the 2nd column, all it says is (for married parents): “父或母在臺設有戶籍並 辦妥結婚登記之國民身分證或戶 口名簿正、影本(驗正本、收影 本).”
Paying close attention, there’s no mention of the degree of recency of the “身分證 or 戶口名簿.” More specifically, AF353 talks about “身分證 OR 戶口名簿 OR a 3-months-young 戶籍謄本,” while AF384 only mentions “身分證 OR 戶口名簿.” One could deduce from this that the age of 戶口名簿 is irrelevant, but how can you get this 戶口名簿 anyway if you parents don’t have an active HHR? The way I see it is that you need to prove your parents’ HHR of some time in the past, and the grand question is whether a 除戶藤本 does that. The other guy told me that while a 戶籍謄本 expires, a 戶口名簿 proves once and for all that you have or had an HHR, but the problem is that citizens who left Taiwan (e.g. our mother) cannot go to some office and get their 戶口名簿; they can only get a 除戶藤本 [this needs to be validated].
Alright, so all of this text to prove that the “happy path” might be possible. Let’s assume now that I am wrong; let’s assume that for option #2 you also need an active HHR. This poses the following questions, however:
- Why is not having an active HHR allowed for applicants under the age of 20? It’s clearly laid out there. I could imagine some governments punishing “late applicants,” but let’s assume the government has good intentions.
- Why have option #2 at all? If you have an active HHR, you always fulfill option #1’s requirements, and can apply via reason AF353. The only difference is the “older than 20” part, but if you are younger than 20, you can skip the TARC application altogether.
- Why is the “相關證明文件舉例” between AF353 and AF384 so different? Why doesn’t AF384 mention the 3-months-young 戶籍謄本?
… To be continued if I can think of anything else.
There’s one last thing that kinda undermines my reasoning: As described in newhere’s linked blog and the blog I linked, you are eligible for an “easy” work permit if you apply via reason AF353. If you use reason AF384, it’s harder. But why should it be harder if you need an active HHR for AF384 as well? This would only make sense if you state that “work permit implies HHR,” and then differentiate between active HHR applicants and inactive HHR applicants:
- AF353 applicants can prove current HHR, so the government can also easily give them a work permit.
- AF384 do not have current HHR [do not live at a place with someone else’s active HHR], so cannot get a work permit by themselves.
If going option #2 -> reason AF384 really requires active HHR, it’s illogical that AF384 applicants have a harder time getting a work permit.
Well, that it’s for now, hope I didn’t bore you to death. While by this reasoning I begin to believe that AF384 applicants do not need an active HHR, the big question is whether this reasoning is also backed up by the law. And by the confusion that all of this causes, it would be best to find some written proof or clearly laid out procedure (like for the citizenship applicants younger than 20) to show to governmert workers in case they do not know how to handle this.
Some additional food for thought: Going back to 身分 AF353, I did mention that it lacks the 現在 part. If we split the application process into requirements for “誰可以辦” and the 身分 requirements, I wonder how this case would turn out:
- Applicant X is born to nationals but doesn’t have a current HHR. So he fulfills 誰可以辦 requirement #2.
- For the 身分 part, he could (?) still go reason AF353 because it only says “has direct lineal relationship to a national with HHR” (but this sentence lacks the 現在) and for the documents, “身分證 OR 戶口名簿 OR 3-month-young 戶籍謄本” is required. So he simply hands over a 戶口名簿 (like we would do for AF384), and then additionally hands over “足資證明親屬關係文件” (also specific to AF353 only).