Rumoured Changes to Naturalization Legislation

Legal Visa & Residency
41

So what you are suggesting is that Taiwan have a discminatory policy and exculde those countries who dont allow dual nationality. It has to be one policy for all, which is what they have now. SO changing the policy to allow anybody to apply for ROC Nationality without renouncing their own nationality first seems to be favoured request.[/quote]

But under the current provisions of Article 9, a person whose country does not allow him to renounce his citizenship is allowed to naturalize as an ROC citizen without needing to furnish proof of loss of original citizenship. Thus, he can be a dual citizen from the outset. This means that the law is applied very differently depending on which country the applicant comes from, which is fundamentally inequitable.

Using reciprocity as the basis for determining whether or not to require renunciation is quite a reasonable proposition. Reciprocity is a fundamental principle of international relations. Taiwan already applies it in many situations: for example, it recognizes the driver’s licences of countries or states that recognize Taiwan’s driver’s licences; and it allows foreigners to own real estate here if their home country or state allows ROC citizens to own real estate there.

So if those with decision-making power in this matter are not prepared to drop the renunciation requirement altogether, at the very least they should shift the basis of its applicability to one of reciprocity. That’s why I’ve offered two alternatives for amendment of the law in my suggestion.[/quote]
Exactly! :bravo:

42

Yes reciprocity, so which 2 cities are Japan going to nuke in the USA?

Bilateral relations are one thing where yes reciprocity is used, for double taxation issues, etc.

Anyways you guys push on as it doesn’t affect me at all. Would be nice if they dropped the renunciation altogether. Receiprocity would require the officials of this country to be able to work out the citizenship laws of over 160 nations. Good luck with that. So you would accept the ROC’s right to refuse granting nationality to a person whose own country would not grant nationality to an ROC national?

43

Belgium doesn’t require you to drop your nationality if you get Belgian nationality, it’s up to your original country’s laws to decide if you lose it or not.

Until 2007 a Belgian citizen getting a second nationality would lose it’s Belgian. Now, law changed, you can decide to give up on it voluntarily. But you can not get it back automatically, you have to fill a request at the courts of justice.

My wife got it easily, she didn’t even have to be in Belgium … or having lived in Belgium either.

44

Yes many countries have been like this for decades, but more than half the world countries do not allow dual nationality.

Taiwan does. Australia used to grant citizenship by marriage even without having resided there, but due to the high number of marriage scams for visa’s and citizenship the rules were changed.

45

But thats what long term people are before obtaining citizenship.[/quote]
You are misunderstanding what I wrote. There are people who would likely stay permanently if they knew that they had greater basic guarantees than Taiwan offers. But they don’t, so they’re not permanent residents, which in most cases is Taiwan’s loss. Also, since Taiwan has a category generally known as “permanent residency” the use of the term “permanent residents” is problematic, what with many people not having permanent residency still intending to reside here permanently. (Me, for example.)

Having that choice is a nice thing.

Also, having permanent residency (green card) in the United States offers an experience much closer to that which U.S. citizens in the U.S. have than what foreigners in Taiwan with an ARC or so-called permanent residency experience in Taiwan. For example:

credit cards
[ul][li]in the U.S. with a green card: no problem[/li]
[li]in Taiwan with an ARC or PARC: troublesome to impossible to acquire on one’s own[/li][/ul]

drivers license, library card, etc.
[ul][li]in the U.S. with a green card: valid for just as long as a U.S. citizen would get[/li]
[li]in Taiwan with an ARC or PARC: valid no longer than the date that ID would need to be renewed (A good example of how even “permanent” residents can be treated like visitors not to be trusted.)[/li][/ul]

cell phone
[ul][li]in the U.S. with a green card: no problem[/li]
[li]in Taiwan with an ARC or PARC: Oh, don’t get ironlady started on this one.[/li][/ul]

ID no.
[ul][li]in the U.S. with a green card: a Social Security number is a Social Security number – one size fits all[/li]
[li]in Taiwan with an ARC or PARC: number in a different style than citizens have, which leads to the rejection of the number by lots of software, causing all manner of petty inconveniences[/li][/ul]

free speech
[ul][li]in the U.S. with a green card: free speech[/li]
[li]in Taiwan with an ARC or PARC: Whatever the government decides to allow or reject at any given moment. “Sorry, is the stated purpose of your visa ‘volunteering at *****’ or ‘protesting against ******’? No? Then you are in violation and could be deported. You may wish to reconsider your actions.”[/li][/ul]

Etc., etc.

I’d start the process of applying for ROC citizenship today if it weren’t for the renunciation requirement. But please don’t think this is just about “convenience.” It isn’t – at least not for me.

46

Cranky has it right. I’d also go for a dual if it was offered w/out renouncing the USA.

Frankly his list is on the short-side as to what is available to ‘foreigners’ in the USA.
Speaking from personal knowledge illegals can and do have access to:
library cards
credit cards
DL’s in some states
cell phones - both ‘7-Eleven’ Trac Fones (which are darn handy) and, with jumping thru the right hoops, a ‘regular’ cell phone
personal bank accounts w/no co-signer
health-care cards with no questions asked
free translators at all Gov’t offices
“push# for language of your requirement” in all state, federal and most local governmental offices/services
free legal services

The list of what is provided is seemingly endless.

And this is without any renunciation of prior citizenship. Heck, in most places its not legal to even ask if they are legal citizens or not… :loco:

Think Taiwan is gonna match that reciprocally?

47

I’m interested. When China finally reclaims Taiwan, are the “foreigners” that have “Taiwanese citizenship” going to automatically become PRC citizens? Hmm. :ponder:

48

Most places like where? Please advise… certainly not in Australia or the UK or in HK or Germany or other advanced countries…

49

No Jimmy, we already are PRC Citizens, we are just domiciled in the province of Taiwan.

Thats why I have to stand in the PRC Citizens queue when going in and out of China. Anyways it’s a lot faster in Pudong airport to not be stuck in teh foreingers queue which can take an hour or more to get though.

50

I think that was reciprocity for Pearl Harbor.

Anyway, working out the citizenship laws of 160 countries - or those who you have a rep office in - isn’t so hard. You just get a law firm to do it.

I think reciprocity is the way to go.

51

I think that was reciprocity for Pearl Harbor.

Anyway, working out the citizenship laws of 160 countries - or those who you have a rep office in - isn’t so hard. You just get a law firm to do it.

I think reciprocity is the way to go.

52

They shouldn’t count their chickens…

As SatTV pointed out, the PRC already considers naturalized citizens as PRC citizens. Besides which, if you’ve already renounced, there’s no way back (except for certain countries like SA, Aus, UK etc and each has it’s own criteria. Saffas need to be born Saffas, or you can’t get it back.)

53

Reciprocity: Government A adopts a policy that affects not Government B, but the people of Government B (and vice versa).

“You raised visa fees on our people; we’re going to raise visa fees on your people.”

Too much like “You killed my brother. So I’m going to kill your brother!”

54

Diplomatic reciprocity is an often practiced concept internationally. Not unfair in most cases.

But it does tend to get warped in its interpretation though. For example. UK gives Taiwanesers 180 day visa free and Taiwan gives UK-ers 90 days (extendable in theory by another 90 days). Not quite the same is it?

55

[quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]Heck, in most places its not legal to even ask if they are legal citizens or not… :loco: [/quote]Most places like where? Please advise… certainly not in Australia or the UK or in HK or Germany or other advanced countries…[/quote]Sat TV -
It was a reference to certain cities in the USA in which the city gov’t which have passed laws/ordinances specifying that the LEOs of the city are not allowed in inquire as to the ‘legality/illegality’ status of people they detain for suspected code violations or questioning.
Most prominently this is a factor in what are called “sanctuary cities.”

This is, however, in direct contravention of Federal laws and has been working its way through the US legal system. In most instances it has been overturned upon rulings at lower levels.
Left-wing legal arrogance by libs in positions of power.

56

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]Heck, in most places its not legal to even ask if they are legal citizens or not… :loco: [/quote]Most places like where? Please advise… certainly not in Australia or the UK or in HK or Germany or other advanced countries…[/quote]Sat TV -

It was a reference to certain cities in the USA in which the city gov’t which have passed laws/ordinances specifying that the LEOs of the city are not allowed in inquire as to the ‘legality/illegality’ status of people they detain for suspected code violations or questioning. Most prominently this is a factor in what are called “sanctuary cities.”

This is, however, in direct contravention of Federal laws and has been working its way through the US legal system. In most instances it has been overturned upon rulings at lower levels. left-wing legal arrogance by libs in positions of power.[/quote]

Well we can ignore this as it has nothing to do with Taiwan or citizenship here. SO when you say most places now it turns out to be afew cities in the USA. “Most places” Very misleading to say that when it is not so

57

Reciprocity: Government A adopts a policy that affects not Government B, but the people of Government B (and vice versa). “You raised visa fees on our people; we’re going to raise visa fees on your people.”[/quote]

Yes but you should hear how the Americans are screaming over the visa fee the PRC charges them for visa’s to China. They are only following the US governments policy of charging PRC Citizensfor US visa’s.

58

The CEPD has summarized my suggestion in appropriate form and submitted it to the MOJ for the next stage of the reform process. The MOJ will review the suggestion, write up their response, and send it back to the CEPD. If they disagree with the suggestion, they must explain why.

If they come out strongly against it, then it’s dead in the water and there’s no possibility of the law being amended within the near future. If they strongly endorse it, it’ll have a very good chance of going through (after conferral and coordination with the other ministries and commissions concerned). If they take a midway position, e.g. that it’s desirable in principle but hard to achieve consensus on, then it will all depend on how the CEPD pushes it and how other agencies respond.

59

[quote=“Omniloquacious”]The CEPD has summarized my suggestion in appropriate form and submitted it to the MOJ for the next stage of the reform process. The MOJ will review the suggestion, write up their response, and send it back to the CEPD. If they disagree with the suggestion, they must explain why.

If they come out strongly against it, then it’s dead in the water and there’s no possibility of the law being amended within the near future. If they strongly endorse it, it’ll have a very good chance of going through (after conferral and coordination with the other ministries and commissions concerned). If they take a midway position, e.g. that it’s desirable in principle but hard to achieve consensus on, then it will all depend on how the CEPD pushes it and how other agencies respond.[/quote]Thank you. :bravo:

60

[quote=“Northcoast Surfer”][quote=“Omniloquacious”]The CEPD has summarized my suggestion in appropriate form and submitted it to the MOJ for the next stage of the reform process. The MOJ will review the suggestion, write up their response, and send it back to the CEPD. If they disagree with the suggestion, they must explain why.

If they come out strongly against it, then it’s dead in the water and there’s no possibility of the law being amended within the near future. If they strongly endorse it, it’ll have a very good chance of going through (after conferral and coordination with the other ministries and commissions concerned). If they take a midway position, e.g. that it’s desirable in principle but hard to achieve consensus on, then it will all depend on how the CEPD pushes it and how other agencies respond.[/quote]Thank you. :bravo:[/quote]

well done - there’ll be 20,000 foreigners with their fingers crossed across the island methinks