Taiwanese Citizenship and Renunciation

No. That’s not what you posted. I remarked that you are an Aussie citizen and your reply was:

Not in Taiwan!

You were wrong and got schooled. :smiley:

No shit. That’s what I told you… :laughing:

You’re a glutton for punishment, SatTV! :smiley:

That’s basically an argument for reciprocity, at least with respect to the US.

[quote=“John”][quote=“Omniloquacious”]
Let me add something about the human rights aspect of this issue:

Indeed, the US and EU effectively recognize dual citizenship as a basic human right. It is very hard to argue against such a proposition, which is being increasingly accepted by politicians, scholars and governments around the world.

[/quote]

The Netherlands also requires renunciation, but they do have a whole list of exceptions (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_nati … itizenship)[/quote]

Similar to Germany. As I mentioned earlier, in Germany about 45 percent of all naturalizations between 2000 and 2006 involved new citizens who were allowed to keep their original citizenship.

Most of the European countries that still require it are opening up more and more exceptions, and there’s a very marked trend toward dropping the requirement altogether. The number of countries dropping the requirement has increased enormously within the past two or three decades, and now a majority of countries have adopted liberal naturalization laws.

The “Dual Citizenship in an Age of Mobility” study I linked to sets out very compelling reasons why it’s in a country’s best interests to allow immigrants to gain citizenship without renouncing their primary nationality. People have very strong emotional attachments to their birth countries, and are understandably very reluctant to renounce that link. This prevents them obtaining citizenship and becoming fully integrated into the societies in which they permanently reside, which creates and exacerbates all kinds of social problems and divisions in those countries.

Omni, I wish I had a dollar for every cab driver or other Taiwan citizen (*the real ones, not the ones like SatTV) who has, over the years, expressed complete and utter shock at the requirement to renounce original citizenship.

I’m joking, folks
.

Sat TV, I have to heartily thank you for your participation in this thread. Your input has entirely validated and firmly buttressed my conviction that the renunciation requirement in its current form is misguided, irrational, inappropriate, contrary to Taiwan’s best interests, out of tune with progressive thinking in the first world, alien to the liberal democratic values that Taiwan espouses, productive of absolutely no good or benefit in any form, and without a scintilla of merit.

I understand that your contrary stance toward the generally approved proposition I’m advocating here is set in stone, and that no weight of argument could ever shift it an inch. But I am pleased that, in all the massive volume of your posts, you have not been able to present a single cogent, substantive or persuasive argument against the raft of compelling reasons why amending the law is the best and only right thing to do. It strongly reinforces my belief that the weight of reason lies overwhelmingly on the side of change, and makes me more confident that it can be achieved sooner rather than later.

This thread has helped me refine and augment the battery of arguments that I can present in favour of dropping or relaxing the renunciation requirement. It has helped me see that the evolution of nationality jurisprudence and law in this direction is an all-but-irresistible global trend, and that there’s already a large and convincing body of academic literature underpinning it.

The arguments for and against that have been posted here, including those from you and your son, have resoundingly confirmed that there is a cast-iron case for revising the law and not even the tiniest shred of rational cause for opposing revision. I have been made aware of good arguments and reasons for the change that had not occurred to me before, and am more convinced than ever of the merits of my proposal.

I hope you’ll forgive me if I do not respond specifically to each of your posts. I don’t want to repeat my points interminably, since I don’t think that will be fruitful or is needed to make them any stronger. I’m really only interested in building up and polishing the case for amendment, and don’t see any value in batting away every fish-head or rotten spud tossed at it, whether the tossing is done in jocularity or for whatever other reason.

Cheers, and thanks again!

No, where is the reciprocity that US nationals do not need a visa to visit Taiwan but ROC citizens need a vis for the USA.

Reciprocity, so full of it Tigerman the USA never gives reciprocity unless it thinks it’s in the best interests of the USA only.

[quote=“Omniloquacious”]Sat TV, I have to heartily thank you for your participation in this thread. Your input has entirely validated and firmly buttressed my conviction that the renunciation requirement in its current form is misguided, irrational, inappropriate, contrary to Taiwan’s best interests, [color=#0000FF]out of tune with progressive thinking in the first world[/color], alien to the liberal democratic values that Taiwan espouses, productive of absolutely no good or benefit in any form, and without a scintilla of merit.

I understand that your contrary stance ![/quote] I have no idea what you are on about.

A lot of the first world does not allow dual nationality.

Why address me about I dont care what the policy is one way or the other. I have already stated I support droppong the renunciation.

It is Llary that does not support it.

What about the word [color=#FF0000]basically[/color] do you not understand? :laughing:

There is a logical reason for that (unlike the reasoning behind Taiwan’s renunciation requirement). Relatively few US citizens historically came to taiwan with the purpose of overstaying their visas, but, many, many taiwanese, historically, did go to the US with the intent to overstay their US visa. That has changed and policy will likely reflect this change sometime soon.

In any event, I am in favor of full reciprocity. Haven’t you been following the conversation, SatTV? Silly question, I know. But, I like to ask, anyway! :smiley:

And Taiwan and all other nations are different how? :loco:

What about the word [color=#FF0000]basically[/color] do you not understand? :laughing:

There is a logical reason for that (unlike the reasoning behind Taiwan’s renunciation requirement). Relatively few US citizens historically came to Taiwan with the purpose of overstaying their visas, but, many, many taiwanese, historically, did go to the US with the intent to overstay their US visa. That has changed and policy will likely reflect this change sometime soon.

In any event, I am in favor of full reciprocity. Haven’t you been following the conversation, SatTV? Silly question, I know. But, I like to ask, anyway! :smiley:

And Taiwan and all other nations are different how? :loco:[/quote]

Agreed. How many Americans illegally immigrate to other countries, and how many people illegally immigrate to the US? Reciprocity does exist, in the form of us paying more money for visas because “it’s not fair people have to pay so much to go to the US”. :fume: I’ve only met two people here who overstayed their visas. A Brit engrish teacher who legitimately forgot about it and just never went to fix it, and an American who was late twenties and didn’t have a college degree so he wasn’t eligible for a work visa anyway. The American stayed for 5 years on a tourist stamp. In my state, Rhode Island, we have more and more illegals because we give out drivers licenses without proof of identity (through birth certificate or SSN). You just need a utility bill or something. It’s a smart way for them to get some ID. This may have changed recently, but I remember it was a big story a few years ago. Just like how our “indoor prostitution” law was recently changed…it used to be as long as the solicitation was done indoors, you would need to pay an unenforceable tax of $10 and it’s legal. Age of consent in RI is 16, so we had 16 and 17 year old girls working at strip clubs doing “table cleaning” or something then when they were legally forced off work at 11pm, they would pick up a john in the strip club.

I don’t think the US will allow visa-free TW passport travel without worrying about pissing off Mainland. Plus, it’s not the Taiwanese actually get declined when they get a visa, anyway. It’s just a pain in the ass for them.

Let’s do reciprocity for Mainlanders here too! Taiwanese can go to Mainland as a compatriot, why can’t Mainlanders do the same here?

SatTV, is it possible for you to put all your ramblings in one post instead of making 5 separate posts with one sentence each?

Actually, Taiwan is pretty close to obtaining visa-free entry to the US for its passport holders. It’s one of the carrots being dangled in return for Taiwan opening its market to American beef.

Actually, Taiwan is pretty close to obtaining visa-free entry to the US for its passport holders. It’s one of the carrots being dangled in return for Taiwan opening its market to American beef.[/quote]

Mike209 doesn’t seem to understand a lot at all about Taiwan Mainland or US business arrangements. He’s still learning though. He claimed its legal to work in China on an F Visa when it is not. I just had a client deported from China for doing so and his company closed.

[quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“Omniloquacious”]…the renunciation requirement in its current form is misguided, irrational, inappropriate, contrary to Taiwan’s best interests, [color=#0000FF]out of tune with progressive thinking in the first world[/color], alien to the liberal democratic values that Taiwan espouses, productive of absolutely no good or benefit in any form, and without a scintilla of merit.[/quote] I have no idea what you are on about.

A lot of the first world does not allow dual nationality.[/quote]

Ergo, the small and diminishing minority of first world countries that do not allow dual nationality cannot be considered as embracing progressive thinking on this issue.

[quote=“Omniloquacious”][quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“Omniloquacious”]…the renunciation requirement in its current form is misguided, irrational, inappropriate, contrary to Taiwan’s best interests, [color=#0000FF]out of tune with progressive thinking in the first world[/color], alien to the liberal democratic values that Taiwan espouses, productive of absolutely no good or benefit in any form, and without a scintilla of merit.[/quote] I have no idea what you are on about.

A lot of the first world does not allow dual nationality.[/quote]

Ergo, the small and diminishing minority of first world countries that do not allow dual nationality cannot be considered as embracing progressive thinking on this issue.[/quote]

Yes must bring that up with those European leaders who state that multiculturalism is a failure and there are too many foreingers in their countries. Very progressive thinking.

Germany by the way require foreingers to renounce to obtain ctizenship, what it does allow is children or dual naitonality parents to have both, until they turn 18 when they are required to decide which nationality to keep.

But it allows so many exceptions that 45% of people who naturalized during 2000~2006 were allowed to retain their original citizenship.

If Taiwan would relax the law to allow that many exceptions, I and many others would be very happy indeed.

So would I Omni. I don’t see it happending anytime soon. You are going to renounce anyay and you said you dont care to keep or resume UK naitonality. So for you makes no difference one way or the other. Also germany dual nationality is not allowed for all its for UE members only.

PS if you applied 3 years ago hasnt your naturatlization period expired you’d need to reapply? a very quick process anyway.

Naturalisation by entitlementAn individual who fulfils all of the following criteria has an entitlement to naturalise as a German citizen:[4]

he/she has been ordinarily resident in Germany for at least 8 years (this period can be reduced - see below)
he/she has legal capacity or a legal representative
confirms his/her present and past commitment to the free democratic constitutional system enshrined in the German Basic Law (or that he is presently committed to such principles and has departed from former support of ideas contrary to such principles)
he/she is a European Union or Swiss citizen in possession of the appropriate residence permit which permits the free movement of persons, or he/she is a non-EU/Swiss citizen who has been granted a permanent right of residence
he/she is able to support himself/herself without recourse to benefits
he/she has not been sentenced for an unlawful act and is not subject to any court order imposing a measure of reform and prevention
he/she possesses an adequate knowledge of German
possesses knowledge of the legal system, the society and living conditions in the Federal Republic of Germany
An individual who does not have legal capacity is entitled to naturalise as a German citizen merely through ordinary residence in Germany for at least 8 years - he/she does not have to fulfil the other criteria (e.g. adequate command of the German language and ability to be self-supporting without recourse to benefits).

Applicants for naturalisation are normally expected to prove they have renounced their existing nationality, or will lose this automatically upon naturalisation. An exception applies to those unable to give up their nationality easily (such as refugees). A further exception applies to citizens of Switzerland and the European Union member states.

An individual who is entitled to naturalise as a German citizen can also apply for his/her spouse and minor children to be naturalised at the same time (his/her spouse and minor children need not have ordinarily resided in Germany for at least 8 years).

Exceptions to the normal residence requirements include:

persons who have completed an integration course may have the residence requirement reduced to 7 years
If a person shows that he/she is especially well integrated and has a higher level of command of the German language than the basic requirement for the German citizenship may have the residence requirement reduced to 6 years
The spouse of a German citizen may be naturalised after 3 years of continual residency in Germany. The marriage must have persisted for at least 2 years.
refugees and stateless persons may be able to apply after 6 years of continual residency
former German citizens
[edit] Naturalisation by discretion

Actually, Taiwan is pretty close to obtaining visa-free entry to the US for its passport holders. It’s one of the carrots being dangled in return for Taiwan opening its market to American beef.[/quote]

Mike209 doesn’t seem to understand a lot at all about Taiwan Mainland or US business arrangements. He’s still learning though. He claimed its legal to work in China on an F Visa when it is not. I just had a client deported from China for doing so and his company closed.[/quote]

Working on an F visa is legal as long as your contracted work doesn’t exceed 3 months and you are hired through an employment agent and not directly by the company. It is also legal to work on an F visa if your salary is paid from a source outside of China. I know this because every summer I work at New Oriental contracted and pay taxes. My friend currently works at Lenovo’s PR department and is the same story. She signs a new contract every 3 months. My high school classmate is working at Metlife in Shanghai and is paid in dollars. That being said, they change rules whenever they feel like it and selectively enforce them. Some days it’s possible to get extensions for whatever you want, some days it isn’t. Beijing is different from Xiamen which is different from Qinghai. Visas also don’t matter at all if you pay off the right people. China’s never an exact thing when it comes to trying to do anything.

Omni, that’s interesting about the beef, but that can’t possibly be the reason it hasn’t had it all these years. Taiwan has been “first world” for quite some time. Quick googling reveals AIT’s announcement that Taiwan has been nominated for inclusion this past December, new to me. I bet you’re right though that the beef is possibly the final piece.

Tiger, you know he’s going to spend the next 30 minutes searching and then quote you out of context, right?

This will be my last post here for a while. SatTV is being a troll and I have better things to do then be angry sitting behind a computer arguing with a disillusioned moron who I swear has nothing better to do than argue with me, as it’s the highlight of his day. This is the reason forumosa has such a terrible reputation…bored, drunk foreigners making asinine comments.

[quote=“mike029”]Working on an F visa is legal as long as your contracted work doesn’t exceed 3 months and you are hired through an employment agent and not directly by the company. It is also legal to work on an F visa if your salary is paid from a source outside of China. I know this because every summer I work at New Oriental contracted and pay taxes. My friend currently works at Lenovo’s PR department and is the same story. She signs a new contract every 3 months. My high school classmate is working at Metlife in Shanghai and is paid in dollars. That being said, they change rules whenever they feel like it and selectively enforce them. Some days it’s possible to get extensions for whatever you want, some days it isn’t. Beijing is different from Xiamen which is different from Qinghai. Visas also don’t matter at all if you pay off the right people. China’s never an exact thing when it comes to trying to do anything.

This will be my last post here for a while. SatTV is being a troll and I have better things to do then be angry sitting behind a computer arguing with a disillusioned moron who I swear has nothing better to do than argue with me, as it’s the highlight of his day. This is the reason forumosa has such a terrible reputation…bored, drunk foreigners making asinine comments.[/quote]

Mike I am talking about those who abuse the F visa to work in CHina for Chinese companies. Sure it happens and people get deported for it. I wasnt talking about genuine F visa holder who say reside in the UK and go to do QC work at their suppliers for awhile. Many abuse the F visa to avoid taxes and because they cannot get sponsored for work visas. I am sure you know that as well. Your friend is one of those who works in china for a Chinese company but abuses the F visa rule. Its quite common. She is not consulting as F visa’s allow you to do as you said she is working for Lenovo.

I have no issue at all getting 5 year extensions in China :smiley: :smiley:

I never sit at my computer angry, it’s not good for the soul. You should have no emotion at all when posting on forums. Sheesh so now you complain about bored drunk foreigners posting online, I hope you are not refering to yourself or jimipresley as he’s sknown to do that from time to time.

As for your claims I am a troll this is quite wrong. I am a citizen posting on a forum that concerns my home country. You are a mere passerby about to shoot off and leave.

Can’t we all just get along? :neutral: :neutral:

He shouldn’t have an opinion because he isn’t a citizen?

It really shows your disdain for your fellow foreigners…

Whereas I understand your point, that’s not accurate.

He shouldn’t have an opinion because he isn’t a citizen?

It really shows your disdain for your fellow [strike]foreigners[/strike] white people/westerners…[/quote]
This is. :idunno:

But that’s hardly the point of this thread, I think…

LOL chill out do you always get so mad on here??