I just heard, but have no idea if this is true… that foreigners are NOT allowed to participate in public protests…? Is this true ??? If so, what are the consequences…?
Well, it is not illegal, but it can be interpreted as not in compliance with the reason stated on your ARC. So an administrator has the right to make that completely open and arbitrary decision in which case you could be kicked out of country.
Rarely if ever done anymore as the gov is anxious not to look like authoritarian nutbars.
I just looked at my ARC. Nowhere does taking a dump have anything to do with my reason for being here, so I guess, in theory, some retarded admin person could kick me out of the country for takin a crap?
5000 years of culture
More like 50 years of authoritarian.
Feiren explained it once very well. Most of us used to think it was illegal but he said it is actual just an administrative decision. Some say it hails from the days when the gov wanted to be able to expel foreigners whenever they wanted.
Damn foreigners back in the day just didn’t appreciate Chiang Ching Kuo like they do today.
1 Like
As long as you don’t get up on stage at a political rally or do something silly to offend a big corporation like Formosa Plastics, you should be OK. Union activity and getting up on stage at a political event before an election are the only things I have heard of that have gotten people deported and that only rarely. Marching in at gay pride, no nukes, or attending a DPP rally are all fine and highly recommended as a way to see a different side of Taiwan.
I wouldn’t get too involved in what’s going on down in Miaoli (Dapu) though. You will find that authoritarianism is alive and well in some of Taiwan’s smaller places. Taidong was a big problem for many years for similar reasons although I think foreigners on this board participated in the recent protests against the hotel in Shanyuan without any problems.
I was asked probing questions at a small protest last year. The woman did it very subtly, by cozying up and just chatting with me, and when I caught on that she had an agenda she wouldn’t tell me what organization she worked for. (Almost certainly either CLA or Immigration).
After chatting a while she finally admitted that she was there to give cease and desists to any participating foreigners because it’s illegal. I was in the clear because I was actually there to do a report on the protest, but I wonder what would have happened if I were trying to take part. As I recall she mentioned something about deportation in passing, but I might be wrong about that part.
All a bit George Orwell.Shame, I had Taiwan listed as a Democracy. 
Everyone who replied mentioned ARC’s… what about people who have JFRV or APRC’s… would the same apply…???
Incorrect, it is in fact illegal and any decision resulting from breaking the law is not at all arbitrary.
Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Assembly and Parade Act states that a person who is not a national of the Republic of China may not join any assembly governed by the above mentioned law. The last few articles also list the possible fines and punishments for breaking this law. Obviously deportation is not listed, yet fines and/or imprisonment beyond a certain threshold leads to residency cancellation under the Immigration Act. You can read the Assembly and Parade Act on the Ministry of Justice Website: law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.a … e=D0080058
This law is largely derived from Article 14 of the ROC constitution:
Note that where it reads “the people” in the constitution, non-citizens are not included. Quite on the contrary: non-nationals are excluded from political participation and articulation as Article 2 reads:
This provision and its strict interpretation pertaining to foreigners joining protests is quite similar to the Constitution of the French Republic or the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. I can understand and to a certain point sympathize with long timers who feel they should have the right to join protests, but then again the situation in Taiwan is neither unique nor oppressive. All one needs to do is become a citizen. If that comes with too many sacrifices, then weigh your options and decide if political participation is worth it or not. Long timers here should fulfill the formal requirements.
And for those who care to know more: the ROC constitution comes from a time where a constitution was supposed to formalize the relationship between citizen and state. So any smart ass pointing out that according to Article 19 of the constitution it is only the duty of ROC nationals (=the people) to pay taxes, better consults the relevant laws (income tax act, land tax act, …) which mention “individuals in the ROC” rather than citizens.
JFRV is just a purpose of residence an ARC is based on. APRC holders are foreign nationals just like ARC holders. Hence the Assembly and Parade Act as well as the Immigration Act applies to them. The question is however, whether security forces will bother you if you hold JFRV or APRC or rather detain the language student wearing shorts, flip flops who came to the protest with his pro-DPP girlfriend and is sipping from a can of beer. (I admit this is an ugly stereotype, but this is just to put JFRV/APRC into perspective from the police’ pov)
1 Like
Given hsinhai that you have never made an accurate post in the past, I am hesitant to believe you are making one now. However, it is fairly well reasoned and possibly correct. Good for you little grasshopper. 
On the other hand, this act also makes it illegal for anyone under 20 to attend so good luck with that. It’s obvious this is a highly flawed act and I doubt in most cases the prosecution would accept a case of a foreigner being charged with violating it as grounds for deportation. You’d have to be shown to have deliberately attended for the purpose of subverting social order or damaging society. A hard sell in any fair system.
I agree and there probably is some sort of hierarchy:
(1) JFRV / APRC married to ROC citizen
(2) APRC
(3) ARC, work
(4) ARC, study
(5) tourist
(1) being the least probable to be bothered.
Wasn’t there a case of a German activist who tried to enter Taiwan for the purpose of joining a protest? As I remember he was refused entry and sent back to Germany. He is category 5 so unless one is in category 1, better watch out. But eventually only citizenship can protect you.
I completely agree with you and joining certain protests will probably not do any harm. But it’s all up to judicial and administrative interpretation. Is being a foreigner enough since you’re not supposed to participate in politics anyways? Does it depend on the protest? I wouldn’t want to find out.
I believe it’s important that people on Forumosa understand that according to the law it is illegal for a foreigner (=anyone without ROC nationality. ARC or APRC have nothing to do with this) to join any kind of protest - enforcement and consequences may vary though.
But isn’t that the same with teaching in kindergarten? Countless people earn a decent amount of money with it regardless of the law and have never been caught while a few get nabbed. So in terms of enforcement the law this is very much like joining a protest. What matters is that there is a law against it and people should be aware of it before they possibly break it.
where does it say they cannot participate in the protest?
By your logic, all those people bringing their kids to the protest are also illegal, because people under 20 should not be in the protest.
so non-citizens are not people, thanks for that explanation, supreme court justice hsinhai78
The Assembly and Parade Act is one of those idiotic law that KMT passed to help China. It’s an unjust law, that’s worth overthrowing.
There’s rights (權) and there’s duty (義務). Duty only applies to citizens. Rights breaks down into born given rights, and rights of citizens, in the case of freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly, they are the most basic born given rights, it applies to ALL frigging people. Unless you are taking law lessons from some kind of authoritarian interpretation that I am not aware of.
I am sorry, but you are incorrect.
Article 10:
Foreigners do not have freedom of residence or change of residence per se. A foreigner who is denied an ARC may not claim Article 10 as his constitutional right.
Article 15:
Are foreigners permitted to work unconditionally? No, in most cases - unlike citizens - they require work permits. Can foreigners own any kind of property? Neither.
Article 18:
Foreigners do not have the right to hold public offices. To hold public offices, i.e. being a police officer or a legislator one must be a citizen.
Hence foreigners are not per se included in the term “the people” and your post is void.
1 Like
I don’t think that is quite right. Foreigners do have freedom or residence including the right to change their residence, but they are required to register their residence. So this freedom is limited but that doesn’t mean it is denied. Taiwanese people also register their address through the household registration system, so I think the limitation of this freedom is applied more or less equally.
Personally I dislike this system but that is probably because I come from the US where we do not do this. Still the government keeps tabs on us in other nefarious ways.
Freedom of residence is not about deciding whether you prefer Xinyi or Daan District.
Freedom of residence means being able to settle inside the legal territory of the ROC at all. Hence foreigners have no freedom of residence in the ROC, but need to apply for permission to reside in the ROC. The government can enact laws that severely limit foreigners’ ability to reside in the ROC. Read the Immigration Act for these limitations.
that says people have the freedom to move around. Unless legal foreigners have to live in a government designate area, otherwise what you say does not apply.
by the way, if someone is already denied ARC, he/she is in the country illegally. you are mixing up cause with result.
where do you get these stuff? is that what they teach about ROC constitution in PRC or something?
https://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/p03_01.asp?expno=454
憲法第十條規定人民有居住及遷徙之自由，旨在保障人民有自由設定住居所、遷徙、旅行，包括出境或入境之權利。
The law is set up so you can live where you want within legal limits, just in case instead of living in a house you decide to live in the middle of the freeway or something.
Your previously argument is false because someone without legal ARC is already in the country illegally, thus his/her rights of entering and leaving the country is limited (as in crazy person living in the middle of the freeway).
Someone with a valid VISA or ARC have all his basic rights guaranteed by the constitution, including the freedom of assembly.
if you bothered to read what law experts say, you wouldn’t even give your 3 examples.
As posted before, born rights such as freedom of speech/assembly/religion, right of legal proceedings, right of property and so on are protected for all. Participating in politics (as in forming a party, or running for office), holding a public position, working rights are citizen rights. It means people who are not yet a 公民 (kids, legal foreigners) are also unable to participate in politics (as in forming a party, or running for office), hold a public position, work. Yet they are still guaranteed basic freedoms.
See above
See above
[quote=“hansioux”]if you bothered to read what law experts say, you wouldn’t even give your 3 examples.
As posted before, born rights such as freedom of speech/assembly/religion, right of legal proceedings, right of property and so on are protected for all. Participating in politics (as in forming a party, or running for office), holding a public position, working rights are citizen rights. It means people who are not yet a 公民 (kids, legal foreigners) are also unable to participate in politics (as in forming a party, or running for office), hold a public position, work. Yet they are still guaranteed basic freedoms.
[/quote]
What you posted in Chinese are opinions in a paper hosted on the website of Tunghai University.
I read the paper and here are my issues with it and your interpretations:
(1) “born rights” and “natural law” come from Ancient Western philosophy. How can a Greek or Roman concept be universal? Especially considering that it was not until the mid-20th century that a group of countries agreed these rights are important enough to write them down in the UN Charter?
(2) The author of the paper changes his definition of “the people” at various points. Yet in codified law, a term cannot be ambiguous. We either have to agree that “the people” refers to all human beings or only to ROC nationals. The former will lead to interesting results as conscription of foreigners in Taiwan.
(3) The author of the paper argues correctly that human rights exist for everyone. Yet is that really a constitutional guarantee? Most protections in the ROC constitution only apply to “the people”. Yet what are “the people”? If foreigners are “the people”, be prepared to serve in the army!
(4) You define 公民 to be a local Taiwanese over 20 years of age. Where do you get that definition from? You make the same mistake as the author of the Tunghai paper and use a different definition of what “the people” includes for each article of the constitution, so please decide and stick with it:
“The People” =
(a) every human being
(b) ROC nationals
(c) ROC nationals over the age of 20
Now replace “the people” with “every human” being and see how it doesn’t make sense at all. Foreigners voting or being conscripted? Not really mainstream for an otherwise generic constitution.
Besides, you will see that whenever necessary to be inclusive of foreigners, ROC law uses terms as “individual” or “any person”.
A paper hosted on the faculty page of a social sciences teacher at Tunghai University is not necessarily your best source for constitutional exegesis and interpretation by the way. What is a “law expert” anyways? One either studied law at law school or not.
And while I support your opinion that everyone has basic rights, I am realistic enough to see that the ROC constitution does not guarantee these rights to non-citizens.