The question to fight or flee is a personal one, but I can see your argument that those who choose to agitate or work for Taiwan Independence should stay around to fight when the going gets tough no matter what passport they hold.
On the other hand is the right to be a refugee. It’s hard to force people to stay when the bullets start flying or force them to be resistance fighters no matter where they come from.
I think the best right is the freedom of choice, so foreigners have the right and can choose to speak out on issues that affect them and take their chances as well.
quote:Originally posted by hexuan:
Logic dictates that if the reasoning is valid that a Taiwanese citizen holding a foreign passport who lives in Taiwan should not be allowed to influence Taiwanese affairs, then an American citizen holding a foreign passport living in America should, by the same token, not be allowed to influence American domestic policy.
Exactly…which is why dual nationality sucks. One is neither fish nor fowl.
“I believe that a person should have a say in the running of the country where he lives and pays his taxes insofar as it affects him personally or as part of a group to which he belongs, and the denial of his basic human rights is a matter which he should be able to bring to the attention of the government of his country of residence as well as the government of his country of citizenship”
Thanks more like it. No taxation without representation.
Neither fish nor fowl?
Maybe one can be both fish and foul and be an international activist. Think locally and act globally.
quote[quote]I'm against multi-citizenship. Everyone should only have one passport. You should be loyal to one country and work to improve that country, not have a spare getaway country when things get dangerous. [/quote]
Dr. Sun Yat-sen had a US passport and used it frequently when things got too dangerous for him.
Should we ban him from influencing the political spectrum?
V’s very ultra-nationalistic positions are very uncivilized in this day and age, actually quite dangerous to aliens when absolute power is left unchecked, and flat out unrealistic in the global realities that over 10% of the US population are dual nationals, and who truly knows about Taiwan? The civil rights of the Chinese aliens living in the USA were actually originally totally denied until their inhumane treatments forced the US to grant them some reasonable equal protections in the later 1800’s.
Without any civil rights, V’s ulta-radical position would see no protection of property rights for alien private ownership (scooters, bank accounts, securities, real estate, business interests, etc) and certainly no civil rights of due process means that these enterprising aliens would not be able to legally ever object to the nationalization of their assets…a license to steal?
ARCP “immigrants” have a legal status in Taiwan itself and so should be allowed a reasonable degree of free expression as their ascending scale of civil rights should increase with their closer political status and social/community associations with the country. Do they identify with the constitution which grants them those rights? Do they pay the taxes to support that government? Do they have a legal opportunity to acquire Taiwan citizenship?
There are truly huge differences between a permanent resident visa and a tourist visa, but V hasn’t distinguished this like most of the others have noted. Aliens in Taiwan, do you have no civil rights including a right to life?!
quote:Originally posted by taiwanstatus:
Dr. Sun Yat-sen had a US passport and used it frequently when things got too dangerous for him.
Should we ban him from influencing the political spectrum?
Absolutely! Sun’s problem which led to his failure was due to having spent most of his adult life OUTSIDE of China and having virtually no understanding of Chinese society outside of the Treaty Ports and Chinatowns. He also had a credibility problem…people in China were actually doing something while he wined and dined his way across Europe and America.
Most people would say that trying to overthrow the government of a friendly power (China) is alittle bit more than “influencing the political spectrum”. Training terrorists in a foreign country (the US) is not friendly. Neither is hiring foreign mercenaries (Sun’s military advisor was the American dwarf “General” Homer Lea).
In addition, what if China would have been alittle bit more powerful? Strong enough to express it’s displeasure militarily??? This is one reason why the US has the Neutrality Act. Have any knowledge of it?
Question: Where and what was Sun Yat-Sen doing when he found out about the start of the revolution?
Answer: Reading a newspaper over breakfast in a hotel in Denver, Colorado.
Where was Lenin when the Bolsheviks were coming to power? It is amazing how many Trotsky-type DPP politicians exist in Taiwan politics and do follow the Quasi-Leninist road in a “democracy”.
However, no one including the Trotsky-types are training TI terrorists nor are overthrowing a Taiwan government. (They don’t need to with SFPT, if they understood Kerr’s Formosa Betrayed). If this noted issue was the case, they would be put on trial by a US Military Commission, and I would be the first one to press the charges!
As TS points out, the steps that need to be taken to ensure foreigners enjoy a reasonable degree of protection by the law are not going to cause the fabric of society to be rent asunder.
quote:Originally posted by hexuan:
the steps that need to be taken to ensure foreigners enjoy a reasonable degree of protection by the law are not going to cause the fabric of society to be rent asunder.
It would be nice if Taiwan had something like US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
Those 31 words would about cover it. Not too hard…even for Taiwan.
Yes, the “basic law” of Taiwan rights are a direct legal descendant from the Magna Carta, as broadened and slightly modified by the 14th Amendment’s equal protections rights of the US Constitution during the legal journey to Taiwan.
Who says that the West has no longstanding legal history when that British cycle of evolutionary history has included Taiwan?
From the FM 27-10 “Laws of Occupation” for SFPT:
quote:
374. Immunity of Occupation Personnel From Local Law
Military and civilian personnel of the occupying forces and occupation administration and persons accompanying them are not subject to the local law or to the jurisdiction of the local courts of the occupied territory unless expressly made subject thereto by a competent officer of the occupying forces or occupation administration. The occupant should see to it that an appropriate system of substantive law applies to such persons and that tribunals are in existence to deal with civil litigation to which they are parties and with offenses committed by them.
You’ll find this right of “St. Paul, citizen of Rome” a judicial issue under Supreme Court cases for Kinsella v. Madisen, Johnson v. Eisentrager, and US v. Tiede. It is the established doctrine of Civis Romanus Sum.
Are recent US State Department statements that Taiwan is not independent, and should not move toward indepence, to be interpreted as interfering in Taiwan’s internal affairs or influencing local political developments?
Are you stating that the Taiwan Lobby Group in Washington DC is interfering in Taiwan interest as well?
Or are you stating that since the China Lobby Group in Washington DC is gaining as much influence as the Taiwan Lobby Group in Washington DC. That we should disregard anything Washington DC says on the matter.
Or are you stating that since the DPP doesn’t have a personal Lobby Group in Washington DC that is as effective as the Taiwan Lobby Group and China Lobby Group, that we should ignore Washington DC advice in Taiwan matters.
[quote=“Hartzell”]Are recent US State Department statements that Taiwan is not independent, and should not move toward indepence, to be interpreted as interfering in Taiwan’s internal affairs or influencing local political developments?
What does everyone think?[/quote]
I think that it is neither of your two choices.
I wish we had the luxury of considering it as interfering in Taiwan’s internal affairs, but I wouldn’t dare say this. Nor would I say it is influencing local politics. I think it is simply lip service for the benefit of US business interests in the PRC and military interests in the Middle East. The US already know that Taiwan is an independent country that is in no way connected to China, they just don’t want to say that right now. Remember, they also pointed out that the PRC can do nothing to change the status quo now either.
I guess it all depends on how much a foreigner identifies with their place. Some foreigners are always foreigners and create an Alamo like existence in Taiwan. Others go native. If you are a tax paying individual who is a contributor to your society in any way, you have every right to get involved. If you are not legally allowed to vote, buy the election swag that is offered for sale as a type of vote by proxy. If you can not identify with Taiwan… stay to the foreign bars and hang with other foreigners who care very little about their community.
No matter how much a foreigner identifies with a place, he will always be a foreigner until he becomes a naturalized citizen…once he is a citizen then I think he has the right to try to influence.
The question of whether or not American citizens have the right to try to influence local politics is irrelevant. Particularly when the government of the ROC spends millions of dollars every year to influence US politics.
The fact the government here in Taiwan tramples all over US citizens basic human rights makes it an obligation.
Taiwan may not be connected to the PRC . . . . but it is not an independent sovereign country. The USA has restated this OVER and OVER AGAIN.
Taiwan is not an independent and sovereign country. That is the fact of the matter. There can be no dispute about it . . . . . read the post WWII treaties !!! Taiwan was not given to the Republic of China !!!