In their reasons for rejecting my original CEPD-endorsed proposal for revision of the renunciation provisions of the Nationality Act, the MOI said that Taiwan’s law was in alignment with a number of other countries, and listed Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, China, Belgium, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Germany, Austria and Italy as 14 countries that require renunciation.
If I take up this matter again (as I strongly intend to, if I can find the time to attend to it), I will need to specifically rebut all of the reasons given by the MOI for rejecting the first proposal. Hence, I have been looking at the relevant provisions of the law in the more advanced of the countries they listed. And I have found that the MOI was fundamentally wrong about the nature of the law in nearly all of them, while even in those that do require renunciation to any extent, the conditions are far more lenient and subject to far more exceptions than the corresponding provisions of the law here.
This is what I’ve found from my initial research on the listed European countries and Japan:
Belgium
In Belgium, naturalization is discretionary. Discretionary naturalization is, in essence, not a right but a favour which one can be granted. Renunciation of the previous nationality is, in principle, not a condition of acquiring Belgian nationality. All adults who have been residing in Belgium for 3 years (reduced from 5 years in 2000) can apply for naturalization.
(From: European Immigration: A Sourcebook)
Italy
A foreign national who marries an Italian national and lives in Italy can apply for citizenship after 6 months of marriage. In such case, the conferral of citizenship is a right unless the person has been convicted of a crime or divorces before the naturalization proceedings are completed. In other cases, conferral of citizenship is discretionary.
Naturalisation is at the discretion of the government, which expresses its willingness to accept the foreign citizen on Italian soil. This acceptance is based on the participation of the applicant in Italian society, the applicant’s personality (lack of social danger, police record) and financial self-sufficiency.
The general requisites are:
• Ten years’ legal residence in Italy (five for those who have the status of stateless persons or refugees and four for citizens of the European Community)
• Three years of payment of state contributions
• Financial self-sufficiency
I can find no mention of any requirement to renounce other nationality.
Sweden
According to the relevant official Swedish government website, to become a Swedish citizen you must:
be able to prove your identity
have reached the age of 18
have a permanent residence permit
have lived in Sweden for a specified period (3 years if married to Swedish national, 5 years for others)
have conducted yourself well in Sweden. There is no requirement to renounce any other nationality.
Austria
Generally requires renunciation of foreign citizenship “unless impractical.” Among those exempted from this requirement are those who acquire Austrian citizenship on the basis of being appointed a professor at an Austrian university.
Germany
The provisions governing naturalization as a German citizen are set out in the Nationality Act (Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz). Although the renunciation or loss of previous citizenship is included in the list or requirements set out in Section 10 of the Act, it is subject to many exceptions as set out in Section 12. Here is the full text of the Section 12 exceptions:
Hence, the requirement only applies to roughly half of all applications for naturalization.
Japan
In principle, Japan does not allow dual nationality for any of its citizens, and hence requires naturalizing foreigners to renounce previous citizenship (since no Japanese national is permitted to hold any other nationality).
However, in contemporary practice, the authorities do not actively request dual national Japanese to give up other nationalities, and do not impose any punishment on those who are revealed as dual nationals.
Significantly, there are moves afoot to liberalize the nationality law and formally allow dual nationality. A senior LDP politician, Taro Kono, has submitted a proposal to an LDP panel he heads calling for the Nationality Law to be revised. His proposal includes allowing foreigners to obtain Japanese citizenship without giving up their original citizenship.
Here are the details of Kono’s proposal, which passed initial deliberation in the Diet in December 2008, but was then referred to a panel of lawmakers for further consideration. I can’t find any news about its subsequent status, but since there were many more urgent matter on the ruling party’s agenda, it wasn’t expected to be formally submitted to the Diet as a bill within a near timeframe.
Kono’s multiple citizenship plan
The conditions and procedure for naturalization as a Japanese citizen are described in this excerpt from a December 2011 article in The Japan Times:
This does not make any mention of the renunciation requirement. However, in Japan, unlike Taiwan, renunciation of original citizenship is not a precondition for naturalization, but a step that the new citizen is required to take after he has been naturalized. As part of the application process, the candidate must sign the following oath:
It seems that a two-year period is allowed for the renunciation. But what happens if you don’t carry out the oath, and retain your original citizenship?
Under Japanese law,
So, Japan’s naturalization law is evidently far more lenient than Taiwan’s, and there’s a fair possibility that it will become substantially more so if Taro Kono’s proposed changes to the law are enacted.
I would have told them I’m not a foreigner, therefore don’t need said information, nor would I be able to aid in the survey as a result. So moot point as far as I’m concerned.
If they pressed the issue I would have asked questions about CKS and the like being foreigeners with ROC nationality, and would have asked how come Taiwan still uses 民國年 when the ROC died an early death in 1947-1949, or what the fuck did SYS ever have to do with Taiwan, as that bugger was clearly a Mainlander and hence a bloody foreign devil!
And Jiayou, Omni! Keep us posted, although I strongly suspect it’s much like pissing against the wind.
I know an individual here in Taiwan who arrived as a child from Japan, and has successfully retained their Japanese citizenship while gaining ROC nationality.
AFAIK Japan, and countries like it, are an exception. If you can prove that for some reason you are unable to renounce then that is waived.
The entire thing is a bit of a balls up, because as a born South African I technically can’t renounce citizenship. Sure, they gave me a renunciation certificate, but it clearly states on there that being born there I retain Permanent Residence in the Republic and can resume at any time (including my son, who lost his along with me being under 18).
So, other than the mafan of waiting 42 weeks for my renunciation certificate and the expenses involved in getting it, it was really a pointless exercise. The only people, AFAIK, that are really fucked by the whole process are Americans and possibly Canadians, who can’t resume. And where’s the benefit of excluding that particular group (because that’s what it really comes down to), i.e. North Americans, from the naturalization table? And once a citizen you’re free in any case to apply for any other citizenship, or to resume (if able) in any case.
So, in summary, the only people that get screwed are North Americans, it’s just mafan for everyone else, and as a citizen you can gain any number of other nationalities, so what’s the difference in the long run? Not really sure why the government is so persistent in this.
IMVHO, if they keep the renunciation article, then all Taiwanese who have attained another country’s nationality should have to choose, or at the very least (if they are non-resident) lose HHR, their ID Card (and if they still hold a passport, have no ID number in it, like a TARC Taiwan passport) and their voting rights. But that too would be ridiculous, so just waive the bloody renunciation already!
Omni, I would suggest, in interests of greater assimilation, that you also add other requirements like:
A much more difficult Immigration exam, to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Make the exam written and oral, as the written exam is too easily hacked.
Military service, alternative service or community service (working at NIA branches, HHR offices, District Offices, the GIO, the FAP and the like) should be absolutely compulsory, and in the case of married people who can’t afford a year off to bugger around with 22 year olds, a certain number of hours should need to be fulfilled on weekends, for example. If over 36, like myself, alternative service should be done as described above. I would be totally willing to take the time to serve with the local Coast Guard in Anping.
Can’t think of anything else at this time, but I just feel uncomfortable with the idea of citizenship being conferred as easily as an APRC. And I don’t think renunciation is the key here.
I think Bismark is correct and that this provision was put into the law to deal with the problem of Japanese nationals who were spouses of Taiwanese citizens and had lived in Taiwan all their lives but could not renounce Japanese citizenship because Japan does not allow them to do so.
Not necessary according to Article 9 of the Nationality Act, and deceit wouldn’t work as the MOFA folks will check the details. Countries like Japan aren’t allowed to renounce. They simply get a letter from their government stating that and hand that in with their naturalization package.
I wouldn’t advise “deceit” as they do check everything diligently, and if (even after you have acquired your ID Card and passport) discover that any instances of fraud was committed in the naturalization process you will be stripped of nationality. Point is, unless you are a citizen of a country like Japan that either doesn’t allow renunciation, or won’t allow it as they don’t consider Taiwan to be an official country (one of the SE Asian countries has this issue, not sure which one, possibly Laos or Cambodia), then an official authenticated and translated letter to that effect from said government is all that is needed. This will NOT work if you are a national of the UK, US, Canada, SA, Aus, NZ etc.
I knew a couple of Singaporeans who also had Taiwanese passports.
I have no idea how they did it.
They came to Taiwan about 25 years ago and live in Taiwan. They only went back to Singapore to renew their passports.
It seems that Japanese can renounce their citizenship. This is what “The Embassy of Japan in the United States of America” has to say about it:
As I understood it, Japan does not allow its citizens to hold dual nationality, and hence requires anyone who obtains foreign nationality to renounce their Japanese nationality (though they don’t actively enforce this).
But it may be that they require you to prove that you have already obtained foreign nationality before you can renounce your Japanese nationality, and Taiwan’s Certificate of Candidature doesn’t suffice for that purpose. Or it might be that, since the Japanese government does not formally recognise Taiwan or the ROC, it does not recognise Taiwanese/ROC nationality for this purpose.
Another on the MOI list, and the last of the developed countries on the list:
Singapore
Singapore’s law on dual nationality is quite distinct from Taiwan’s. It requires foreigners who naturalize to renounce all foreign citizenships, but that is because it does not allow any dual citizenship, and enforces this strictly against all Singaporeans – which is totally different from the situation in Taiwan, where countless Taiwanese citizens enjoy and are freely allowed to enjoy dual or multiple citizenships. Hence, it cannot be correctly cited by the MOI as an example of a country where the relevant provisions of nationality law are in alignment with Taiwan’s.
Here are some of the reasons why many Singaporeans (including non-citizen immigrants) are unhappy with this law and would like to see it changed.
Here is the Singaporean government’s official stance on the issue:
Rather a weak rationale, I’d say. And hardly applicable to Taiwan’s situation. If they do revise the law to allow dual citizenship, they surely won’t do so on a double-standard basis of allowing Singaporeans to obtain multiple citizenships while not allowing naturalizing foreigners to keep theirs.
I haven’t read the Act. I trust your interpretation of it. Maybe this person cut some corners, I’m not sure. But if I’d done such a thing, I wouldn’t go around telling people, like they did!
A more precise translation:
“If the naturalization, renunciation or restoration of ROC nationality is found, within five years, to be not in compliance with the provisions of this Act, it shall be cancelled.”
So you just have to hide your deceit for five years, and after that the citizenship cannot be cancelled or lost.
Recent developments in South Korea’s nationality law are very interesting indeed. Given the many close similarities between the situations of the two countries, these developments are highly relevant to Taiwan, and give strongly persuasive support to my proposals for similar changes to the law here.
In a nutshell, South Korea substantially revised its nationality law in April 2010, with the new law coming into effect at the beginning of last year. Under the revised provisions of the law, the following categories of foreigners are allowed to obtain citizenship without renouncing their existing citizenship or citizenships:
Talented foreign residents (who have skills that can contribute to the national interest).
Foreign residents who have made a significant contribution to the country.
Foreigners married to Koreans, who only need to stay in Korea for two years and pass a naturalization test in order to be eligible.
Dual citizenship will be granted on the condition that those concerned take on oath not to exercise their rights as a foreign national while staying in Korea.
And naturalized foreigners do not have to perform military service.
This is a very exciting discovery. It not only knocks for six the MOI’s assertion that Taiwan’s law is in alignment with Korea’s, but sets an excellent example of what Taiwan should be aiming to achieve.
The case for revising the law gets stronger and stronger. And I’m becoming more and more optimistic about the chances of getting it revised.
I wonder what would count as “causes not attributable to him/her”? For example, the U.S. government is supposed to reject applications for renunciation, if motivated by a desire to evade U.S. taxes, or if the would-be renouncer maintains significant ties with the U.S. Armed with a rejection letter, what would be that person’s chances of getting their ROC citizenship?
On a more serious note, I am very happy to see this being appealed, and would like to help if I possibly can. Probably others feel the same way, so please keep us informed and let us know what kind of help would be helpful.
Also, “Living in Taiwan” may not be the best forum for this. (I stumbled upon it by accident.) There is another forum dedicated to dual citizenship issues.
A few months ago, I heard that the Executive Yuan had approved some minor revisions to the Nationality Act, including the renunciation provisions, and I had a wild moment of hope that the light might have finally shone into a dark place on this issue. But when I investigated, I found that it delivers next to nothing in improving the law.
Here’s the official MOI announcement about it:
In a nutshell, it’s just saying that, where a candidate for naturalization cannot provide proof of renunciation because his/her country does not allow them to renounce until they have gained another nationality (or reached a certain age), the requirement to furnish such proof can be deferred until after they are able to meet this condition.
In other words, it’s not giving away anything of any substance to the vast majority of would-be naturalizers.
At first, I thought it might present an opportunity to resubmit my modified and expanded arguments for a fuller revision of the law, but then I realized that, since the proposed amendment had already been approved by the Executive Yuan, there would be no chance of getting it altered. It was already too late for that. It also probably closes the door to any further revision of the law within the near future. Any push for further revision will now likely be met with a response along the lines of: “But we’ve only just revised the law, and made it much easier for you foreigners to become ROC citizens. Isn’t that enough for you already? Surely you can’t expect us to do even more for you on this so soon!”
Nonetheless, I am excited by the findings of my research on naturalization laws in other countries, particularly those cited by the MOI as examples of countries with provisions similar to Taiwan’s, but whose laws all turn out to be completely different to and vastly more liberal than those here. I believe that the case for revising the law and dropping or substantially modifying the renunciation provisions is absolutely overwhelming. When I have sufficient time available, I’ll rewrite my petition in much fuller and more persuasive form than before, and have various ideas about how to seek support for it from those whose backing might make it hard for the MOI to reject it as they did before. I am quite optimistic about the chances of getting the law changed eventually. But the time is not ripe as yet.
I am also interested in legal issues surrounding visas, passports, nationality, citizenship, etc. Perhaps you could also include/quote some case studies looking at the role of immigrants in various economies. I am not sure if this a sound legal tactic, as I don’t have any background or experience in law, but it is something to consider. I think it’s important to understand that while many countries have laws against dual citizenship, what actually happens in practice is often different, as you have pointed out.
Anyway, as far as I know for Japan, there hasn’t been any case of Japan enforcing the no dual citizenship law, as in they come knocking at your door, prevent you from entering Japan, or prevent from partaking in some government activity. However, they often do friendly reminders to dual citizens over the age of 22 that they can have another citizenship if they are Japanese citizens. I could be wrong of course, but I suggest you contact this individual debito.org/ if you want more information. I am sure he would be glad to help.
This study has a nice map of countries that allow dual citizens (though it seems out of date because Finland allows dual citizens now) migrationpolicy.org/transatlanti … -FINAL.pdf
Here is a study on whether or not dual citizens are good citizens ftp.iza.org/dp3008.pdf
And here is a great resource from the US government, with reference to specific laws, and a profile of each nation (most? but it’s a bit out of date 2001) opm.gov/extra/investigate/is-01.pdf
