ROC Nationality -- reciprocity?

Legal Dual Nationality
1

As part of my continuing research into foreigners’ legal rights here, I contacted the local Household Registration Bureau (HRB) in my location of residence in Taipei in early 2001 and asked how to obtain an exemption from the requirement that one who naturalizes as an ROC citizen must first produce documentary proof of having renounced original nationality (in my case USA nationality).

The HRB said that they had never heard of such a thing, but in any event any allowance for an “exemption” would have to come from the Ministry of the Interior (MOI). On June 6, 2001, I did make formal application for such an exemption with the MOI, and that was denied. I filed an administrative appeal with the MOI and lost. I then filed a lawsuit against the MOI in the Taipei High Administrative Court.

I have received notice from the Court that the first hearing on this case will be held on the afternoon of November 19, 2002.

Over the past months, I have filed two fairly lengthy legal briefs (written in Chinese) with the Court, noting the unfairness of this law (i.e. Article 9 of the Nationality Law), and the damage which a foreigner like myself suffers thereby. However, I would be interested in additional comments from the foreign community, as to how I should present the entire matter to the judge. I have an official letter from TECRO in the USA saying that ROC citizens who naturalize in the USA are not required to produce any formal paperwork proving renunciation of ROC nationality. So, of course what I am asking for at the most basic level is mutual reciprocity.

What other rationale should I bring up?

(I would note that my legal training in Taiwan has been quite the opposite of what most “lawyers” receive. Their approach is typically centered on how to deal with the existing legal structure to get things done. My approach has been focused on how to challenge, modify, and overturn the existing legal structure in order to get things done. Using this type of active approach, I have obtained a number of breakthroughs over the years, and hope for more in the future.)

Note: Serious comments and analysis of this topic are appreciated. Wise-cracks, heckling, and other unconstructive commentary are not welcome, and will be removed.

2

[quote=“Hartzell”]So, of course what I am asking for at the most basic level is mutual reciprocity. What other rationale should I bring up? I would note that my legal training in Taiwan has been quite the opposite of what most “lawyers” receive.

Note: Serious comments and analysis of this topic are appreciated. Wise-cracks, heckling, and other unconstructive commentary are not welcome, and will be removed.[/quote]

In other words, only people who agree with you may post! How about people who find it ridiculous that some Westerners feel they are above having to renounce their original citizenship to obtain a piddly little ROC passport? What makes countries like the US so special? International reciprocity is a farce; if we implemented that, all laws of all nations would have to be the same. Why not just admit that you don’t have the guts or the dedication to Taiwan to try living here without your little blue ticket out of here if China makes any moves? It’s bad enough so many Taiwanese are trying to leave; people like you are just making the problem worse. Oh, and how ironic that a pseudo lawyer like yourself would put “lawyers” in quotes.
Since I don’t agree with you, I suppose this makes this an “unconstructive post”, though.

3

No it just makes you an idiot. If you actually knew anything about Taiwanese nationality law, you would know that the current regulations are drafted with the idea that the foreign nationality can be resumed after renunciation once Taiwanese citizenship has been gained. This is true for many countries. But don’t let an understanding of the facts or law get in the way of your vitriol. Vent that spleen. I am all for reciprocity in spleen venting - let it all out. Excellent. Feel better ?

4

Oh, yes, of course, I forgot that a basic requirement for posting on Segue is that you worship the ground Hartzell walks on. Calling me an idiot is such a wonderfully persuasive argument. Maybe you should be a “lawyer” too.

5

Has the karma thing been hacked or what?

6

Indeed ! I’l raise you four years at law school followed by working for the China Practice Group of the second biggest law firm in the world. And you ?

Anyway, this will all be deleted shortly and we can get back to the issue in hand.

7

Have you made your briefs public? Since the immigration and nationality law does not provide for an exemption, what are your grounds for requesting an exemption? Isn’t the mutual reciprocity principle more of an administrative principle? That is, if the law gives the administrative agency discretion in say allowing foreigners to buy property, the administrative agency should allow foreigners to buy property if the foreigner comes from a country where Taiwanese are also allowed to buy property. What makes you think that this principle can be invoked to override the explicit requirement in the law that foreigners renounce their original nationality before becoming ROC citizens?

I do hope you get the exemption. I’m just wondering how you respond to these questions.

8

Me? I’m not a lawyer at all, and unlike Hartzell I don’t purport to be one. If it takes four years at law school to come up with “Yer an idiot” as an argument, then I think I can do without it as well.

9

Because people from advanced countries like the US are above ROC law, of course. Why do you think Hartzell wants to separate classifications of foreigners into “expatriates from western nations” and “little brown brother construction workers from Southeast Asia”? It’s ok to require the latter to renounce their original citizenship, of course (many do, by the way) but how DARE anyone ask that of someone from a country that’s actually worth something! The gall! I mean, it’s just Taiwan, after all.

10

Lu:

Where has Hartzell said that he wants to classify foreigners into two groups? I think if you knew more about Hartzell’s work you would find that he has worked hard on behalf of foreigners from Southeast Asia.

Hartzell and the rest of us are simply asking for fair treatment. Taiwanese don’t have to give up their citizenship to become US citizens. Why should the tiny number of US citizens who want Taiwan citizenship have to give up their original citizenship?

No one here thinks that they are above Taiwan law. But when Taiwan passes unfair laws, I think that as taxpayers we are perfectly within our rights to challenge those laws in court or work toward changing those laws.

11

[quote=“Feiren”]Where has Hartzell said that he wants to classify foreigners into two groups?

Why should the tiny number of US citizens who want Taiwan citizenship have to give up their original citizenship?[/quote]

I can’t find the thread; it might have been deleted because it was too embarrassing. I do recall it was the first time I saw Lesbrianna post, I think.

Why shouldn’t they have to give up their original citizenship just like everyone else? Just because the US doesn’t enforce its policy on the same matter? Should US citizens from Montana be able to drive at any speed they feel reasonable during daytime hours instead of the posted speed limit? Citizenship of this nation or any other is not a human right guaranteed to anyone who wants it, it’s a privilege. If you truly loved Taiwan, wanted to make this your home, you’d be willing to make the sacrifice the law requires.

12

Hartzell specifically requested only constructive posts because he would like comments about “How to get dual nationality” rather than “Should we get dual nationality”.

I suggest that Lu Hao-tung start a different thread entitled “Why do westerners in Taiwan want dual nationality?” or something similar.

13

Well, yes. That would be a good reason. Although Taiwan’s immigration law and policy certainly is a matter for Taiwan and there is no legal reason that I can think of to force Taiwan to treat foreign citizens on a basis of reciprocity, neither can I think of any reason why Taiwan shouldn’t treat foreign citizens with reciprocity. It would be a nice thing to do.

Not an applicable analogy.

Yes. That is correct.

If you have two children, can you not love them both equally?

Anyway, I think it will be interesting to learn the rational behind the policy of requiring a naturalized citizen to forsake his original citizenship while permitting Taiwanese to retain their Taiwan citizenship when acquiring citizenship in other nations.

And finally, if a Taiwanese person “truly loved Taiwan”, why should he or she not be required to forfeit his or her Taiwan citizenship upon acquiring foreign citizenship?

Curious to see your reply.

14

[quote=“tigerman”]It would be a nice thing to do.

Not an applicable analogy.

If you have two children, can you not love them both equally?

If a Taiwanese person “truly loved Taiwan”, why should he or she not be required to forfeit his or her Taiwan citizenship upon acquiring foreign citizenship?[/quote]

That should be “truly loved America” or truly loved [insert country name here]", right? I don’t have a problem with that, and I think that is the case with some countries. If any law should be changed, it’s the one that automatically grants all Chinese people, no matter where they were born and raised, automatic ROC nationality. However, that’s not what I’m arguing about here.

The children analogy is not an applicable analogy, unless you’re in mainland China. And “it would be a nice thing to do” is probably not the best argument either. The Montana speeding limit is, however, appropriate, as it is something Taiwanese are allowed to do in the US but not something Taiwan reciprocates on. My point is, international reciprocity is a farce some people use to try to gain advantages in certain areas while ignoring all of the disadvantages it might create is followed through, which is, of course, impossible as each country has its own laws according to its own circumstances.

Oh, and thanks for taking away the extra karma. Hmm, I wonder which moderator did that?

15

No. I meant it as I wrote it. Please read again and reply:

If, as you argue, true love of Taiwan requires undivided devotion and willingness to sacrifice an other citizenship, then you must be saying that those who love Taiwan can not hold passports from other nations. If this is what you believe, then why is it OK for Taiwanese to obtain citizenship in, say the US, while retaining their original Taiwanese citizenship?

Not meant necessarily to be an argument, merely an observational comment.

Not certain I agree that it is a “farce”. However, I agree that total reciprocity can be a double edged sword. But if true reciprocity is granted, why would the disadvantages that might be created be ignored… in fact, how could they be ignored?

16

I think that reciprocity in matters of citizenship law is probably good politics (in Taiwan at least) but it is very bad law. I think that the argument that foreigners should not have to renounce their original citizenship should be based on the principle that it is oppressive and unreasonable.

The debate is often set in terms of

17

[quote=“Hartzell”]As part of my continuing research into foreigners’ legal rights here, I contacted the local Household Registration Bureau (HRB) in my location of residence in Taipei in early 2001 and asked how to obtain an exemption from the requirement that one who naturalizes as an ROC citizen must first produce documentary proof of having renounced original nationality (in my case USA nationality).
[/quote]

What makes you deserving of an exemption to a law as written? Is there a mechanism in the law for exemptions? Can you elaborate on this?

I think many distinguished jurists have remarked on how the law is not fair. In any event, what damages have you suffered? You go into court you need to show damages. What are they?

For those of us curious to know, and with all due respect, what legal training are you referring to? Are you member of the R.O.C. bar? A graduate of a law department of a Taiwan university? Member of a bar somewhere else (e.g., a U.S. state)?

You may also want to try being a tad more modest about your accomplishments.

That sounds an awful much like what’s happened on the Glossika forum, where there is a question as to whether the legitimate moderators have removed posts that did not agree with their point of view. Are you afraid that you will lose face if someone makes a strong argument to counter your argument? Just like many Taiwanese. You’d make a great citizen.

18

Well-argued post Aierlanren. Mutual reciprocity is probably not going to work in Richard’s appeal. The grounds of the discussion need to be shifted, and the patent unjustness of the current law sounds like a good place to start.

19

Why would foreigners complain, apart from the trivial reason that they want something which they’re not getting? First, Richard has brought up the issue of unequal treatment. Taiwan’s policies stand in sharp contrast to the policies of many Western countries which welcome ROC citizens, even while the ROC turns away their citizens. But reciprocity is a diplomatic matter, not a requirement under ROC law.

Then there is the issue of unequal treatment. Dual nationality is permitted (legally? or just quietly tolerated as a matter of administrative policy?) for those whose first nationality is ROC, but not for those aspiring to be naturalized into ROC citizenship. But for the government to treat different classes of people differently (and they are different–ROC citizens versus foreign applicants), or arbitrarily impose practical barriers to some but not all forms of dual nationality, is not illegal either. At most it’s a moral argument.

Richard’s appeal seems to focus on the issue of whether he has proved that (according to a provision in the naturalization law) irreparable harm would occur to him if he were required to abandon his previous nationality. Presumably it will be easy to show why he probably needs his original nationality. The difficulty will be convincing the judge that he really needs ROC citizenship, that just getting by on a residency visa isn’t good enough. That unfortunately seems to be a matter of personal judgment. (Is Richard seriously harmed by being made to pick on nationality, or is he only being denied a special benefit?)

Now why would the benighted Chinese be so petty in the first place? That depends on what level of decision-making we look at. I can’t speak to the motivations of individual judges, politicians, or civil servants, but at the level of identity groups, most people seek to reside in a territory controlled by people like themselves. Few of us are capable of rationally and dispassionately considering such issues as nationalism, ethnic identity, and local control.

At the national level at which immigration policy occurs, Western countries mostly abandoned this approach in the 1960’s, partly because Americans, Australians, etc. had lost their sense of themselves as a united society viz. other groups. By comparison, Japan and Korea continue to have a clear sense of national identity, even though their societies are hardly as monolithic as sometimes claimed. (Look up “burakumin”–the people,not the band.) Taiwan’s situation is murkier, since there is great ambiguity and disagreement as to what identity groups are primary. (“Taiwanese” vs. “Chinese”, for example.)

Obviously the naturalization of a few hundred (or thousand?) Western-born ROC citizens like Richard is unlikely to lead to the marginalization of the peoples already here, or have much effect on anything. I imagine that the resistance is based partly on irrational suspicion, partly on a rational reluctance to set a potentially dangerous precedent, and out of laziness to change the existing system. Contrary forces could include Richard’s personal connections, and the prospect of embarrassment and/or more work for the government if his appeal is denied.

By the way, people keep dropping the information that ethnic “Chinese” get a better deal than non-“Chinese” for immigration. I keep hearing this, but have never been able to find a legal source, or even a clear example that isn’t just hearsay (except where “Chinese” is defined more narrowly to mean “ROC citizens,” which is different from an ethnic designation.) Does anybody have any concrete information about this?

Let’s say there are three citizens of Guatemala, none of which have ever lived here, or had a household registration. One is an ethnic Chinese, one is Italian, and one is decended from aboriginal people now within China’s (or even Taiwan’s!) borders. Are all three given equal treatment by ROC immigration? Are any of them eligible for an ROC passport? I keep hearing “yes” to the first guy, but can’t get any reliable information on it.

20

Interesting point.

I can’t see where an R.O.C. judge cares if the irreperable harm is that Richard has to drop his U.S. citizenship. That is certainly not the R.O.C. judge’s concern. I don’t think that the judge is going to say, “Our naturalization law, by making you renounce your other citizenship, is causing you an irreperable harm, thus, I rule that you are granted an exemption.”

Isn’t the main issue here going to be whether or not the law is consitutional? If the provisions of the law do not violate the R.O.C. constituion, and the process by which it was passed did not violate the R.O.C. constitution, or some applicable procedural laws/regulations, isn’t that the end of the discussion?