No. My point is that the PRC has been asking for and complaining about this for over 20 years. Is the TRA still US law?
It hasn’t already and it would take quite a lot.
Wrong.
The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation entered into force November 30, 1948. 63 Stat. 1299; TIAS 1871; 6 Bevans 761; 25 UNTS 69. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Taiwan Relations Act, Pub. L. 96-8, 93 Stat, 14, and Executive Order 12143, 44 F.R. 37191, this treaty was concluded with the Taiwan authorities prior to January 1, 1979 and is administered on a nongovernmental basis by the American Institute in Taiwan.
Did you know that Pres. Bush was the first and only US President to mention the TRA in discussions while visiting China?
Bush’s recent statements of concern re CSB’s referendum also indicated concern that the US has for any attempt by China to unilaterally change the status quo (in a nonpeaceful manner).
I don’t see any basis for the belief that the US is ready to “put Taiwan on the table”.
How about five to ten years from now. Everyday the PRC position grows stronger and the ROC position weakens.
A Recirpication of Status agreement would not offer any more or less protection for the goverment of the ROC. It would however ensure that ROC citizens in the US are given the same rights and respect that American citzens are extened here on Taiwan. Even if the island were overrun by the PRC.
It also would not have to be agreed to by both goverments for it to be effective. An act passed by the US congress or the Republic of China legislature alone would be sufficient.
My humble apologies to foreign gun owners in the US. It seems anybody can buy a gun. fairness.com/resources/one?resource_id=3846
Obviously there are some areas where an oversight commitee would be needed.
Well, not just any foreigner – but any legal foreigner with a hundred and fifty bucks (semiautos are a little pricey) who isn’t a drug addict, dishonorably-discharged vet, etc. Basically the same sort of American citizen who can buy one.
Oh, and s/he can’t go to Wal-Mart – Wal-Mart quit stocking handguns years ago, the wankers. Sports Authority still has them, though.
BTW, why the emphasis on “a semi automatic weapon”?? Hey, just because they’re wimpier than fully automatic weapons doesn’t mean they’re useless. Semiautos need love too.
(Hey, did y’all see the news about the Texan who just tried to cross into Canada last night with a hand grenade in her car’s glove compartment? No shit, I can’t make up things that good. She shut down the Blaine crossing for an hour before they decided that she meant no harm and let her go. )
The United States is the richest country in the world, with a stable political situation, longstanding democratic politics, plenty of room for immigrants, secure enough to go rampaging around the world as we see fit, etc…
Taiwan is… well to cut this short, basically not any of those things.
You have to cut them a little slack. This is not an island off California.
Not to say you or anyone else hasn’t but I haven’t had any problems to speak of since I’ve been here. maybe I’ll regret saying that one day but I doubt it. some annoyances and unfair seeming situations along the way but nothing i’ve felt the need to really complain about considering.
Let’s keep it that way. Those problems you seem to be able to avaoid will come up sooner or later. Buy a house, open your own business, get divorced, get a Taiwanese passport, maintaining legal custody of your own children or even just trying to stay on the right side of the law can often prove difficult for Americans on Taiwan.
A Reciprocation of Status agreement would attempt to strike a balance in equality for both Taiwanese and Americans.
Where do you get this idea of a “Reciprocation of Status” agreement from? With what other nations has the United States made such an agreement? As far as I know, both the U.S. and the ROC don’t make a habit of making unnecessary agreements that compromise their sovereignty and restrict their ability to implement immigration policies that are in their interests.
Let’s keep it that way. Those problems you seem to be able to avaoid will come up sooner or later. Buy a house, open your own business, get divorced, get a Taiwanese passport, maintaining legal custody of your own children or even just trying to stay on the right side of the law can often prove difficult for Americans on Taiwan.[/quote]
Oh my! let’s just say i’m not going to be losing any sleep over it.
It’s an obviously impractible “solution” to the fact that you’re talking about different countries with very different circumstances and customs.
Of course Taiwan and the US are different. Democracy never existed in any Chinese culture until a few years ago. The very concept of inalienable human rights for all still does not exist in Taiwan. That doesn’t mean we should not try. If not for ourselves than for our children.
Of course Taiwan and the US are different. Democracy never existed in any Chinese culture until a few years ago. The very concept of inalienable human rights for all still does not exist in Taiwan. That doesn’t mean we should not try. If not for ourselves than for our children.[/quote]
By all means. I just don’t see the idea of “reciprocity” doing any good here. But good luck to you with it!
I see your point about it not doing any good. The distinct lack of rule of law tends to undermine any progress made in the way of human rights on Taiwan. That is where this proposal would be most effective. Any action or inaction from one side would be reciprocated by action or inaction on the other.
Implementation and consistency would play as much of a role as would the actual laws and regulations themselves.
[quote=“tigerman”]
The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation entered into force November 30, 1948. 63 Stat. 1299; TIAS 1871; 6 Bevans 761; 25 UNTS 69. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Taiwan Relations Act, Pub. L. 96-8, 93 Stat, 14, and Executive Order 12143, 44 F.R. 37191, this treaty was concluded with the Taiwan authorities prior to January 1, 1979 and is administered on a nongovernmental basis by the American Institute in Taiwan.[/quote]
I have argued Article XIV of this Treaty in Taipei High Administrative Court several times. However, neither the MOI nor the MOFA respect its provisions ----
The first clause of Article XIV specifically says "The nationals of each High Contracting Party shall be exempt from compulsory military or naval training or service under the jurisdiction of the other High Contracting Party, and shall also be exempt from all contributions in money or in kind imposed in lieu thereof. "
The judge didn’t give it any weight either.
The cases involved the rights of dual national USA-Taiwan citizens to be exempt from military service in Taiwan.
So . . . . . while I respect the intent of this entire thread . . . . . . it seems to me that the Taiwanese authorities don’t respect their treaty obligations anyway . . . . . . so what’s the point???
By the way . . . . . I notice in this thread that you use the terminology “Republic of China” or “Republic of China on Taiwan”.
But please be advised that the United States does not recognize the name “Republic of China” after January 1, 1979. That is clearly stated in the Taiwan Relations Act.
The government of Taiwan is simply referred to as the “Taiwan governing authorities” to denote a non-sovereign entity. Based on this formulation, which is part of the Taiwan Relations Act, I think perhaps Overseas Americans in Taiwan will need to slightly revise their original proposal.
[quote]By the way . . . . . I notice in this thread that you use the terminology “Republic of China” or “Republic of China on Taiwan”.
But please be advised that the United States does not recognize the name “Republic of China” after January 1, 1979. That is clearly stated in the Taiwan Relations Act.
The government of Taiwan is simply referred to as the “Taiwan governing authorities” to denote a non-sovereign entity. Based on this formulation, which is part of the Taiwan Relations Act, I think perhaps Overseas Americans in Taiwan will need to slightly revise their original proposal.
But, best of luck anyway.
[/quote]
I may be mistaken but usually such issues are edited after the negotiations between all parties.
[quote]Boomer wrote:
It was hoped that a law like the one mentioned above would allow for American and Taiwanese to seek accommodation in other jurisdictions.
Could you explain exactly what this sentence is supposed to mean? I can’t quite figure it out. Thanks in advance.[/quote]
It means that in cases where the local authorities on either side choose to ignore previous commitments or agreements a reciprocation by the other side would be possible under this proposal.
In regard to the “Republic of China” terminology issue –
I personally think that you will have trouble getting any US officials to agree to negotiate on this basis.
According to the Taiwan Relations Act, the “Republic of China” nomenclature is not recognized by the USA after January 1, 1979. The USA also has a “One China Policy”. The “One China” spoken of there is the People’s Republic of China.
Taiwan is just a territory where the “Taiwan governing authorities” have effective territorial control. They don’t have sovereignty over “Formosa and the Pescadores” (as these areas were referred to in previous international law documents.)
While I am not trying to be argumentative, I do believe that you have to get the premises straight in order to proceed. Your goals are certainly worthwhile, and I wouldn’t want to see them derailed because of some basic procedural or terminological issues such as these. I believe that you have to get all these matters carefully straightened out as a prerequisite to moving forward . . . . .
Plot Outline: Elle Woods heads to Washington D.C. to join the staff of a congresswoman in order to pass a bill to ban animal testing.
Perhaps this is good food for thought for the agenda in this thread!
We get someone to go to Washington, D.C. to work with the Congresspersons to promote this agenda!
Plot Outline: Noted human rights activist xxxxx heads to Washington D.C. to join the staff of a congressman in order to pass a bill to obtain reciprocal rights for US citizens in Taiwan. However, events quickly get out of hand when the leaders of the Taiwan Caucus introduce amendments to the Immigration and National Act to classify Taiwan as a US outlying possession. The US President and Secretary of Defense respond by agreeing to assume full responsibility for Taiwan’s defensive needs, and station two aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait. The US President issues an Executive Order suspending Taiwanese mandatory military conscription laws. The Internal Revenue Services issues a ruling that US citizens domiciled in the Taiwan cession are not liable for US federal income taxes on Taiwan source income, due to Taiwan’s independent customs territory status.
The US President issues a further Executive Order suspending the restrictions of the Employment Services Act for US citizens in Taiwan, and granting a general amnesty for visa overstays. The Ministry of Education responds by rescinding its ban on teaching English in kindergartens. “ROC” becomes an official abbreviation for “Regional Operations Center.”
[quote]In regard to the “Republic of China” terminology issue –
[/quote]
Thank you very much for that info Marky. It was also suggested by a lawyer in the United States so I have revised the proposal and posted the outline on the OAIT sight. overseasamericans.tripod.com/ove … /id20.html
No shit, I can’t make up things that good. She shut down the Blaine crossing for an hour before they decided that she meant no harm and let her go.