[quote=“cranky laowai”]Application for permanent residency must be submitted within 2 years after the applicant has legally resided in the territory of the ROC for 5 or 7 consecutive years.
[/quote]
So which is it? Does that mean that if you’ve lived here for 5 years, you have to submit the application within two years, or is that just typical misinterpreted English? (What I figure)[/b]
I’m pretty sure that elsewhere on the board there is at least one link to a translation of the Immigration Act, but I found the one that I use below on the website of the Immigration Office National Police Agency. I also found a translation of the Enforcement Rules of the Immigration Act on that website. The Agency’s homepage is at immigration.gov.tw/ . What looks like a main page for the English pages is here (there is a kind of Index on the left side of this page), and there is also an index page of some kind here.
I cannot guarantee the translations’ accuracy, and I cannot guarantee that they are up to date. The translation of the Immigration Act appears to be of the Act as it was on February 6, 2003. The translation of its Enforcement Rules appears to be as of January 3, 2001.
The pertinent Article of this translation of the Immigration Act, Article 23, reads in pertinent part as follows:
[quote]Aliens, who have legally and continuously resided in the State for seven years, or the alien spouse and/or children of a national with registered permanent residence in the Taiwan Areas who have legally and continuously resided in the State for five years or have legally resided in the State for more than ten years, during which period they have actually resided in the State for more than one hundred and eighty three days each year for five years, may apply to the Authority for permanent residence if they:
Are at the age of twenty and over;
Have a decent character;
Have considerable property, skills or talents that enable them to make a living on their own;
Have resided in the State for over 183 days each year during their legal and continuous residence in the State; and
Are beneficial to the national interests of the State.
Applications for permanent residence shall be made within two years after the completion of the required residence as stated in paragraph 1.[/quote]
(The boldface and italics were added by me. The three asterisks (* * *) indicate that I omitted some text. The entire translated Act is located here.)
From the same website, Articles 40, 41, and 42, the pertinent Articles of the translation of the Enforcement Rules of the Immigration Act, read as follows:
[quote]Article 40
Continuous legal residency refers to the period of residency completed by the holder of the Alien Resident Certificate, as stated in paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Act; the so-called continuous legal residency includes the periods of legal visit and residency. Applications for permanent residency shall be filed within two years after completing the period of residency, as stipulated in paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Act; the period of residency, completed before the Act goes into effect, shall be included.
Article 41
A decent character, as stated in subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Act, refers to the fact that, in the last five years, no offence punishable with a principal penalty of imprisonment or graver punishment has been committed, or no violation of public order and good customs determined by the BOI has been committed.
Article 42
Possessing considerable properties, skill, or talents that enable them to sustain themselves, as stated in subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Act, refers to satisfying any of the following requirements:
for the last three years, having a monthly average income twice more than the monthly average basic income promulgated by the Council of Labor Affairs of the Executive Yuan.
having movable property and real estate assessed at over NT$5,000,000; or
having others determined by the BOI.
For aliens applying for permanent residency who are the spouses or children of the ROC citizens, the amount of money stated in subparagraphs 1-2 of the preceding paragraph shall include the incomes or properties of their spouses or parents in the Taiwan Area.[/quote]
(The boldface and italics were added by me; the entire translated Enforcement Rules are located here.)
(Please note: As an aside, none of this is directed at sandman’s situation. My knowledge of ROC law and regulations and how they work is extremely inadequate, so I have no realistic idea of how individual cases might be affected by the above-quoted material, which in any case may have been mistranslated or may be otherwise inaccurate, for all I know.)
So nice to know that I have 5mil in assets. Could someone please direct me to them?
I really hope she stand her ground and refuse any special treatment, so it can go down in history as a “de jure”(?) or whatever it is called - when she gets her Residential Status.
Left on his own after Chen became president… probably lost an internal power struggle or had a difference of opinion with the Chen faction.
Left on his own after Chen became president… probably lost an internal power struggle or had a difference of opinion with the Chen faction.[/quote]
If she has to rely on the Chen faction – then I think she is “shit out of luck.” I expected to get an “Order of Taiwan” for my contributions. 
Instead I got a pink slip (after a stellar performance review) and this phrase from the Chen faction in my former department (young guy who was a good PR person, but definitely not an international intellectual). When in Rome do as the Romans. In others words: the Asian values argument. This significantly differentiates CSB from LTH in my opinion. I don’t think they (the DPP) will bend the law for her. If they do, I think there could be a lot of people who think they deserve a similar pat on the shoulder.
Left on his own after Chen became president… probably lost an internal power struggle or had a difference of opinion with the Chen faction.[/quote]
If she has to rely on the Chen faction – then I think she is “shit out of luck.” I expected to get an “Order of Taiwan” for my contributions. Instead I got a pink slip (after a stellar performance review) and this phrase from the Chen faction in my former department (young guy who was a good PR person, but definitely not an international intellectual. When in Rome do as the Romans. In others words: the Asian values argument. This significantly differentiates CSB from LTH in my opinion. I don’t think they (the DPP) will bend the law for her. If they do, I think there could be a lot of people who think they deserve a similar pat on the shoulder.[/quote]
Eggxactly, that’s why I hope she will stand up and instist her appllication will follow every nook of any legislation, regulation and local office policy, with a lot of press. Then, maybe, some of the wrinkels can be ironed out.
I wish all the best to Linda - may the justice be(come) fair!
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
An important point about the APRC needs to be emphasized.
It’s not just living in Taiwan for 5 (married) or 7 (otherwise) consecutive years. You must have held an ARC during that period of time. Furthermore, if your ARC has lapsed for even ONE DAY at any time during that 5 or 7 year period, for whatever reason (maybe you changed jobs, for example, and the paperwork didn’t get through in time), then you are INELIGIBLE for an APRC.
They used to have a 10 year rule that allowed you to apply for an APRC if you lived here (no ARC requirement) for 10 years (cumulatively) over the previous 20 years, but that rule is gone. For now, the 5 or 7 year tracks are pretty much it for 99.9% of applicants, along with all the other requirements needed to qualify.
Caveat: By the time anyone reads this, the rules may have changed again, so for the most up to date info, head to the main police station near Xi Men Ding.
She has been allowed to stay now. Got a work permit for a year, with Ministry of Interior, as translation consultant.
I was surprised and dismayed by the news that Linda Arrigo was so close to having to leave Taiwan, a country to which she has contributed so much. With her fluent Chinese and far-above-average knowledge, wisdom and wit, she is obviously a valuable asset to this country, and it would not only be a great injustice to her but also a great loss to Taiwan if she were forced to leave for such indefensible reasons.
However, it was entirely to be expected that, once her situation received publicity and came to the attention of those in high office, appropriate arrangements would be made to ensure she would be able to stay. That’s the way it always works here. And I’m glad to hear that she has now obtained her work permit and is no longer in immediate jeopardy of being told to pack her bags and leave her adopted homeland.
I recall having read, a couple of years or so ago, that she had married another Taiwanese man, which would have given her the most straightforward route that a foreigner could have to APRC and citizenship if she wished for it. I wonder if that marriage is no longer extant, or if she has deliberately chosen not to take advantage of her spousal status to secure her right to stay here permanently?
And on the subject of the APRC requirements: While it is true that the requirements are unduly onerous, I have to agree with Sandman about the Taiwan News editorial being a load of poppycock. Sandman’s explanation of the rule requiring the application to be made within two years of eligibility is exactly right. Although the Chinese wording (and “official” English translation) is ambiguous, it is officially interpreted and applied as meaning that if you have fulfilled the 5/7-year requirement in the past but that has been followed by a period of two years or more that does not accord with the criteria for eligibility (e.g., if you’ve lived outside Taiwan for more than half of each of those intervening years), then you lose your eligibility and have to start counting all over again.
And the NT$5 million in assets is an alternative to the monthly income requirement: if you prove that you have the requisite income from a stable job, then the amount of your assets is irrelevant and will not be inquired into at all. It’s only if you have no qualifying employment that you will need to present proof of having NT$5 million in assets. I consider this to be an entirely reasonable requirement, and one that is hardly likely to constitute a stumbling-block for any otherwise suitably qualified applicant for APRC status.
[quote=“Jefferson”]An important point about the APRC needs to be emphasized.
It’s not just living in Taiwan for 5 (married) or 7 (otherwise) consecutive years. You must have held an ARC during that period of time. Furthermore, if your ARC has lapsed for even ONE DAY at any time during that 5 or 7 year period, for whatever reason (maybe you changed jobs, for example, and the paperwork didn’t get through in time), then you are INELIGIBLE for an APRC.
They used to have a 10 year rule that allowed you to apply for an APRC if you lived here (no ARC requirement) for 10 years (cumulatively) over the previous 20 years, but that rule is gone. For now, the 5 or 7 year tracks are pretty much it for 99.9% of applicants, along with all the other requirements needed to qualify.
Caveat: By the time anyone reads this, the rules may have changed again, so for the most up to date info, head to the main police station near Xi Men Ding.[/quote]
This indeed how several police stations interpret the law. However, this can be and has been sucessfully appealed. Unfortunately, it appears that it has to be appealed on an individual basis.
The interpretation of the two years to apply is ambiguous and has never been tested AFAIK.
The APRC situation is a mess. It’s on the books, but it’s been harder and harder to get one. Currently, it’s pretty damn near well impossible due to the utterly ridiculouos interpretation of the consecutive residence rule. But if it wasn’t that, it would be something else. They just don’t want to give APRCs out and they use every excuse possible to avoid doing so.
She should post more. 
She should post more. [/quote]
The woman is busy. She has a life.
She should post more. [/quote]
She is playing with her cat
And that would surprise you? Check out the fact that you have to appeal this through the courts…
The simple point about things like Taiwan’s implementation of “permanent resident” legislation is that it is for show only. If the Taiwanese government actually wanted to give permanent residence on a fair and reasonable basis, it would have adopted the HK model. The problem with that is that it actually gives people permament residence. What the Taiwanese government wants is to be able to boast about how much it cares about human rights without actually giving anybody any. With this utterly useless APRC, Taiwan can stand up and say “we allow barbarians I mean foreigners to live here permanently, aren’t we great?” but make damned sure on the other hand that very few actually can.
All this crap about human rights is just for show. Any given person’s ability to enforce his “human rights” in Taiwan is directly proportional to how good his guanxi are. Very simple. Every Taiwanese person understands this perfectly. Foreigners have trouble getting it. Comrade Stalin, what would you say?
Excuse my naivet
Hey HGC it’s goo to see that you are still posting after the dust up last week. Welcome back!
Linda has some fairly interesting stuff posted here. home.kimo.com.tw/lindagailarrigo/research.html After haviing read her proposal, I’m really hoping she gets the chance to finish her book on the history of the Taiwanese democracy movement. It would be a mahor contribution. It’s a shame she doesn’t have a blog or other bully pulpit.
On the PARC issue, I believe that most of the problem lies with Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry is extremely powerful and used to getting its way. The PARC was created by the legislature, and they’ve quietly resisted its implementation. As a legacy of the bad old days, they want to maintain social control and don’t like change. Their attitudes about foreigners basically all come from Japan. I don’t think this has much to do with the DPP although I do think the DPP is guilty of talking a good game and then not doing anything.
I think the term is “Hoklo chauvinism.” Human rights? Did you read today’s Taipei Times. The two China human rights detainees were not given residency, and Chen was saying that building a “baseball field” is a major second-term accomplishment. 
Excuse me while I puke during the seventh inning stretch.
I think the term is “Hoklo chauvinism.” Human rights? Did you read today’s Taipei Times. The two China human rights detainees were not given residency, and Chen was saying that building a “baseball field” is a major second-term accomplishment. Excuse me while I puke during the seventh inning stretch.[/quote]Taiwan’s “Human Rights” made the international news yet again over this: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4153594.stm
