Good job Omni, and your wife deserves a big thank-you too! If this change to the law passes, be sure to let us know what your drink preference is.
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.[/quote]
Exactly my point.
The reciprocity policy punishes people, not governments.
Reciprocity is supposed to be applied as a positive, not a negative. In other words, if you give us (or our people) a benefit, we’ll give you the same benefit. It shouldn’t be wielded as a principle to justify eye-for-eye retaliation. It’s 互惠主義 or 互惠原則, not 互害.
I agree generally with cranky’s comments that an APRC in Taiwan does not confer as many benefits as a green card in the U.S., but I feel the benefits of an APRC are gradually increasing. Also, on the above two points:
The APRC does not have an expiration date or period, so Taiwan drivers licenses for APRC holders are issued for the same period as for Taiwan citizens (at least mine were).
Regarding cell phones, I have had an account with FarEastone for many years and I had to put down an NT$3,000 deposit when I opened the account, being a foreigner. Last week I went into a FarEastone store and told them I now have an APRC, can I please have my deposit back. They wouldn’t give it back to me in cash unless I was cancelling my account (although I didn’t push this issue very hard), but they agreed to apply it directly to my telephone bill amounts beginning from my next bill. Once it has been used up, I can continue to use my account with them without a requirement of a deposit.
[Edit: Unhappily, I just got a call back from the customer service folks at FarEastone who told me that their higher-ups have now nixed the processing of reimbursement my deposit, so as it stands I’m still required to keep a deposit with them if I want to to keep my account.]
I also would be very happy to get citizenship here if I did not have to renounce my original citizenship to do so. I’ve certainly paid enough tax here over the years to deserve to enjoy some of the benefits, such as government mandated pension and the right to vote, that citizens get.
[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]
Good job! :bravo: 
That’s good to hear. I’d thought that APRC was for 7 years.
If things are getting better for ARC holders, I think that in general has to do with businesses getting more used to the idea of dealing with foreign residents. From what I’ve seen, the government still seems to think that the only foreigners it needs to worry about attracting or keeping are those who (1) have won a Nobel prize, (2) are CEOs a Fortune 500 companies that are setting up a regional office here, or (3) are tenured professors at Ivy-league universities. OTOH, at least in recent years I have been able to get my ARC renewed for more than one year at a time without too much trouble.
Omni: Many thanks for all your work on this. If you get a chance, in a separate thread please write up how others might go about making such official proposals to the government (assuming, of course, that we peons are allowed to do such a thing without an official invitation).
Yes, that is my impression too, but it is a welcome development nonetheless.
With pleasure, Cranky. [url=Making Suggestions to the Government re Regulatory Reforms it is.[/url][/quote]
Omni,
Once we see how the authorities respond to your petition, I and I imagine many others would be happy to help out with a signature drive to support your petition if that seems like it could help push such a proposal through.
Any news yet on this?
It’s bad news, I’m afraid. The suggestion hit a brick wall in the Ministry of the Interior. Their entrenched position is that they’re firmly against any change in the law.
At the roundtable meeting, the CEPD supported the case for changing the law, but to no avail. Those in charge at the MOI evidently don’t want bignoses becoming ROC citizens and assimilating into their society, and they know that this requirement will deter all but a tiny minority of us from applying for naturalization, so they want to keep it in place. As far as they’re concerned, it’s enough that they let us obtain the very minimal and shaky rights of so-called “permanent residency,” and there’s no compelling reason to offer anything more.
Here is their official response, which they say is consistent with the position they took on this issue when it was raised during interpellation in the Legislative Yuan:
有關 貴會函送「工商團體及各部會所提財經法規鬆綁議題」中與本司有關議題為：建議以下列兩種方式修正國籍法第9條：
(一)刪除申請歸化應提出喪失原有國籍證明。
(二)增列申請人原屬國允許我國國民不須放棄國籍即可歸化，其申請歸化亦不須提出喪失原有國籍證明之互惠規定。
本司回應意見如下：
(一)目前採行歸化者須喪失原有國籍，即採行原則上單一國籍立法例之國家有日本、韓國、菲律賓、印尼、馬來西亞、泰國、中國大陸、比利時、瑞典、沙烏地阿拉伯、新加坡、德國、奧地利、義大利等，實非少數。故各個國家之國籍政策均有考量該國國情、歷史背景及社會資源等因素，並據以研訂符合國家利益及當前實際需要之國籍法規。
(二)再者，各國國籍法歸化條件採行之標準不一，有些國家採行多項條件兼容並濟，且各國國籍法亦常有修正之情形，倘一味追求平等互惠原則，除造成查證困難，其歸化條件須隨各國之國籍政策改變而變更，更易形成因原有國家國籍法規定不同，而生差別待遇之不公平現象，實非妥適。
(三)此外，89年2月9日修正公布之國籍法第9條，增列但書規定「但能提出因非可歸責當事人事由，致無法取得該證明並經外交機關查證屬實者，不在此限」。已可解決部分國家國籍法規定不得喪失其原有國籍及因相關政策不允許其國民喪失其國籍，而無法歸化之困難。
(四)另依入國出國及移民法第25條等相關規定，針對有長期居住我國之需求而不願放棄其原有國籍者，尚有申請永久居留證之制度。
(五)基於國家忠誠、減少雙重國籍者之考量，且慮及我國地區人口密度高，為提升國民生活品質，杜防大量外移人口，實有維持原歸化條件之必要。
綜上，修正國籍法第9條涉及我國人口、移民及國籍政策，宜審慎考量，爰建議無庸再行放寬現行規定。
As you can see, their arguments against the change include:
(1) Saudi Arabia requires naturalizing foreigners to renounce their original citizenship.
(2) Our national circumstances, historical backgound, and social resources make it inappropriate for us to give foreigners the same rights and benefits that we Taiwanese enjoy in their countries.
(3) Those other countries all have different laws on this, so how can we implement reciprocity? Yes, sure, we already do it for driving licences, real estate ownership, etc., etc., but it’s bloody mafan, would require a bit of Googling, and could possibly impinge on our tea drinking and other far more important activities, so we’re bloody well not going to saddle ourselves with any such burden unless we’re absolutely forced to.
(4) We already changed the law once, a mere ten years ago, to make an exception for people who cannot renounce their original citizenship. Fer Christ’s sake, isn’t that enough?
(5) We’re already being more than generous in offering permanent residency, and those bloody foreigners don’t even have to give up their foreign passports when we grant them this oh-so-fortunate status.
(6) Our country’s too densely populated already. If we allow bignoses who have already settled in our country to obtain local citizenship, we’ll be overrun by them and it’ll cause the country to collapse.
(7) How can we raise the quality of our citizens’ lives if we allow bignoses to naturalize without giving up their original citizenship?
Pretty compelling set of arguments, eh?
Perhaps you would post the actual translations. 
Although many disagree with the nationality laws to obtain citizenship here, they are what they are. The thousands of foreigners each year that get ROC Nationality is probably proof enough to those at the MOI that the systems works.
The APRC seems to work just as well for most people. Same for the marriage based system. The problem is that all marriages end, so those who can should change to the APRC, or citizenship.
It’s a lot of work and time to get ROC Nationality, I spent nearly 2 years stateless. So it aint no easy thing to do. There were no APRC at the time when I applied so wasn’t really much choice as I wanted to stay here legally and have everything in my own name.
Was it worth it? For me Yes? That is the crux of the issue, is it really worth it that much to you?
Point number 3 is particularly persuasive.
The thing to do is to petition the US govt to cancel the citizenship of all “American citizens” who retain their Taiwanese citizenship. This will channel the correct amount of
“chi” towards change.
Love the Saudi comparison. How Saudis treat the infidel, the MOI treats the foreigner. Saudi, with its oil reserves, doesnt need to diversify. Taiwan is in a different boat IMHO.
It sounds like an entirely credible translation to me.
Jeez, Sat, is your mind so fixated on tail?
And surely you don’t need a word-for-word translation, do you? You’re Taiwanese - you must be able to read your own language all by yourself!
Jeez, Sat, is your mind so fixated on tail? And surely you don’t need a word-for-word translation, do you? You’re Taiwanese - you must be able to read your own language all by yourself![/quote]
Yes I have read it… not fluent by any means but can get by. It’s not my own language now. It’s the language of the country I live in. I studied 20 hours a week at Feng Chia. Actually thinking I should go back to do another course as I do need to improve my Chinese language skills. I don’t need enough Chinese to write policy papers or work for Academia Sinica.
Maybe we should all try Malaysia or Thailand or Japan or Singapore or somewhere else in Asia. China? AS they point out even Germany and Italy you also need to renounce along with other countries listed above. So it’s not like Taiwan is the only country with this requirement. Whereas some countries do not have the requirement to renounce your own nationality first.
They also point out that as people can apply for APRC there isn’t a need to become citizens ( duh whats that got to do with anything )
And yes they also say that Taiwans population is already too large for such a small country so they dont need too many people immigrating here.
I don’t agree with the MOI’s finding either. Thanks for taking up the issue on behalf of others though. You didnt not expect anything different thoug did you?
It’s not easy to deal with the beaurocrats in Taiwan, and there were no online sites back in the 80’s when I applied for citizenship here. Was quite a challenge.
Is it possible that the reason they must publish their reasons is so that there can be a counter-proposal addressing their concerns?
To be honest, this kind of idiotic response makes me want to get citizenship even more, just so I can wave it in the face of the asshats who made it so difficult in the first place.
[quote=“spaint”]Is it possible that the reason they must publish their reasons is so that there can be a counter-proposal addressing their concerns?
To be honest, this kind of idiotic response makes me want to get citizenship even more, just so I can wave it in the face of the asshats who made it so difficult in the first place.[/quote]
Good then go ahead and do it. You have nothing to lose and much to gain as UK Nationals can resume their nationality anyways.