Too Many Foreigners In Taiwan?


#1

http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/02/28/story/0000125723
Quote:

“There are more than 800 foreigners who qualify for Chen’s proposal, a number the Bureau of Immigration worries might “unbalance” Taiwan’s population.”

The ARC PR standard of 270 days of ROC physical presence annually for 7 years is about 75%. That is substantially much higher than other developed countries which equally grant “Chinese aliens” their own citizenship with lower threshholds.

For example, USA naturalization is 5 years, 50% in physical residence without more than 12 months outside the USA (or six months in some contested cases). Or 3 years if married, but still 50% of actual physical residency.

New Zealand is 3 years, 180 days annually.

Canada is 3 years, 6 months annually as past residency waivers were possible if immediate family members remained in physical residence while the breadwinner was running his business in Taiwan. This has changed somewhat but it still remains similar to New Zealand.

Australia is two years of naturalization with 100% physical residency.

Hong Kong SAR is 7 years of a “permanent abode” without being physically absent longer than 365 days.

Taiwan “SAR” does have something in common with China as 7 is so lucky. So 10 years/183 annually is an immigration floodgate of “American wetbacks”?

Ooops, 800 “big nosed rednecks” negatively adding to the ROC’s mongrolization of the Taiwanese gene pool?


#2

Are 800 foreigners ‘worth’ 23 Million Taiwanese then, that they’d somehow ‘unbalance’ the population?


#3
quote:
Originally posted by taiwanstatus: So 10 years/183 annually is an immigration floodgate of "American wetbacks"? Ooops, 800 "big nosed rednecks" negatively adding to the ROC's mongrolization of the Taiwanese gene pool?

It was always my assumption that the strick residency laws were to keep out SE Asians. Are the eligible 800 really only big noses?


#4

I loved the thought that 600 to 800 foreigners - who have been already living here for a long long time - might destabilise the population. Sounds like the Queensland (or what ever group you want to call stupid for a joke) vasectomy.


#5

Are all 800 “big noses” really such? One could perhaps reasonably infer that such low numbers are. But whether they be “big noses” or Filipino maids, this is the best glaring example yet of the petty nature of Chinese chauvanism in Taiwan. It is culturally repulsive, socially disgusting, and just plain ugly to me. And I am not so new to China either.

This is the fundamental problem of the Chinese majority in Taiwanese society and the biggest impediment to “civil rights” of aliens, or the lost cause of human rights in Taiwanese.

Maybe a generous democratic protest is a suitable dose of “Ugly Americanism”. A little rocking of the ROC ship of state will really make those not so virtuous Confucian bureaucrats want to legally strengthen those fabled democratic mechanisms. The eyes of Washington are upon them, you know.

I sweep westerners under the carpet of Uncle Sam, because in the mindset of the Ugly Chinese, we’re all apart of that “One America” in those Chinese perceptions of us barbarians. As they always call us ‘hairy monkeys’, then maybe we should act like the 800lb guerrillas that we are. The guerrillas of China seeking to invade Taiwan are only mere lightweights in comparison to us.


#6
quote:
Originally posted by taiwanstatus: ...they always call us 'hairy monkeys'... [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

What is all this about hairy monkeys? No Chinese person has ever called me a monkey, although I am indeed quite hairy. Not within earshot, anyway. Isn’t this “hairy monkey” thing a myth?


#7

Hairy Monkey is tame compared to what I’ve heard… but typically that only comes from betelnut boners in low rider Hondas with oversized, amplified exhause systems, airfoils, and racing decals.

Given the source of the criticism, how can you get bent out of shape? You go, Mario!


#8

Wait until someone starts petting the nice kitty on your arm.


#9

Richard, the newspaper says on March 8th they will hold a Hearing. Am I supposed to go to the hearing and argue that "in the US, the greencard can be upgraded to a gold card [citizenship], but not in Taiwan. Permanent residency means just that, permanently a resident, never a citizen. “Who knows, perhaps 1/2 of you board members are dual citizens yourselves. Could you accept one more, but with a pointy nose?”

OK, if I go I suppose I should prepare something the newspapers can quote, otherwise they will quote me wrong. Will it be worth the trip [200 km]? Should I bother? Who do I sign up with? The telephone number in my humble abode is 04-2585 4780.


#10

Ask them what kind of social chauvanisms they are openly espousing for their potentially advocating Chinese eugenics in Taiwan society. Lee Kaun Yew of Singapore has had some very similar notions, too. And especially when the Han majority always ignores the very unique genetic identities of any other yellow minorities, and not just the Mountain people.

Pluralistic democracy or just a majority rule of Han hypocrisy?


#11

ROC’s Economic Recovery Planning?
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/miller1.html

“There is a simple economic argument for eugenics. Eugenics is defined as efforts to improve the gene pool in a particular population.”

“A secondary economic goal is to minimize the externalities in the economy resulting from the activities of one citizen affecting another citizen.”

Bureau of Immigration & DNA tests for citizenship?


#12

I called the Ministry of the Interior on Friday, March 1st, and finally reached the person in charge of organizing the Public Hearing on March 8th. He said that it is closed to “outsiders”.

In other words, it is by invitation only.

And . . . . all the invitations have already been sent out.


#13

Waiguoren mei guanxi?

Barbarians residing in Taiwan just don’t matter because they have no Confucian-type connection to by equally protected by the laws on Taiwan?

So, it seems that human rights is solely about those ROC bureaucratic connections, not rule of law.

Ok, what about the “human rights” of any Taiwan national under TRA? The Congress has more concern for the survivors of 2-28 than the ROC ever has had and the Taiwan Caucus should hear about this inequality of SFPT issues and “Chinese only”!

On April 25th, Taiwan legislators will be given unequaled political access to their Congressional counterparts due to the specific formation of the Taiwan Caucus as so lawfully authorized under the TRA.


#14

TO: Jeffrey Geer alias taiwanstatus:

I have spoken privately with a number of foreigners here, including many who post regularly on the ORIENTED boards. As you know, many of us devote ourselves to researching, coordinating, investigating, promoting, and otherwise advancing the interests of foreigners in Taiwan.

We would like to appoint you as our lobbyist to go to Washington, D.C., and lobby with members of Congress on our behalf. We assume that appropriate funds would be coming (from donations, etc.) after you were in Washington, D.C., and got the ball rolling.

Of course, there would also be the opportunity for you to give speeches and lectures to other groups concerned with the future of Taiwan, and those would provide additional income for you.

As we understand, you are currently living in Las Vegas, Nevada. Will it be possible for you to move to Washington, D.C., and help advance our agenda? We would be most happy to liaison with you by email on a regular basis, and provide all needed political and social analysis from this end.

We await your decision.


#15

SHOCK!! I am very flattered by your public statements of support. Perhaps I am not the best candidate to solely represent your cause in Washington, DC. My friend Jack Abramoff of Greenberg-Taurig has been keenly interested in representing Taiwan interests and was the “second contender” for the Cassidy & Associates contract with the Taiwan Research Institute.

He is “Michael Jordan” of the Saipan scandals and is very experienced with Insular Law issues and the backstabbing politics of the State Dept. The threats of Neo-McCarthyism have been overblown, but the One China types have been inclined to smear their opposition, thus the need for heavy armor in the political lobbying. Abramoff has a team of 11 people, and I am available to help assist you as needed.

Perhaps you should consider forming a non-profit corporation and then legally contracting with a DC lobbist. That would eliminate the redunancy of overhead, offices, and the need to reconnect with the DC guanxi networks. A fast track into DC beltway.

There is FAPA, but I must clearly state the the American principals, including some foreigners, are not yet up to speed in the issues of SFPT. I have communicated with them, and frankly, they do not support the SFPT as as a 50 year old treaty. Period.

“Blue Team” principals are familiar with my assertions and research on SFPT. Their confusion and contention is there needs to be a “professionally qualified” legal opinion issued. To this end, I have a short list of US attorneys with sufficient experience in the field of SFPT, Insular laws, or the “extra-territoriality” of Alien Tort Claims Act. Some come from Berkeley or East Coast Ivy League univerisities.

Regretably, Jordan Paust does not have any professional interest in Taiwan issues and is not professionally informed about the SFPT. He is the modern “Blackstone commentaries” of 18 USC 7(3).

I should suggest that a non-profit corporation might be formed to legally fight for “human rights” anchored in laws of war (eg. SFPT). This is a form of political lobbying within the safe harbor of ‘KMT redress’ of SFPT, or a Jewish Holocaust Restitution type effort.

The hiring of a lobbist with Tom Delay guanxi is very desireable to getting the message out in DC.

I don’t have any connections to Greenberg-Taurig, it is just my opinion of the matter after three years of unresponsiveness of the ACLU, FAPA, and Amnesty International. My opinion is very low of them and for good reasons.

Lest you think I am too right of center, the Blue Team types usually think I am out of “left-field”, but they do listen to me. Sometimes.

Broadbased support is possible, as I was also a research assistant to Dr. Frederic Deyo. He (and I) did in country research including a little extra work at Academia Sinicia in 1990 and 1991. Dr. Shelley Rigger and Linda Arriyo will be able to inform you better of the significance of this. Or ask Wu Naijen of the DPP.

Regards,

Jeff Geer
Las Vegas


#16

Mr. HH-158 asked me to comment. OK: all I know is that Wu Nairen is the guy who said tongyong pinyin has already been used here for 50 years. As far as Washington, good luck, and do ask FAPA if they can accept a whitey being a Taiwan citizen [Jiang1xin1bi3xin1][do unto others…]. The other stuff is over my head. You see, my brain is marshmallows.


#17

I’ll bring this down to a more pragmatic level of discussion. The Congress is now forming a Taiwan Caucus in April on the anniversary of the TRA.

That is a special focus groups of legislators interested in Taiwan. Quite unusual. Plus they will interact with ROC legislators, too. Again, most unusual as far as Caucuses go. And an excellent opportunity to bring up the rights of aliens in Taiwan. Having a “lobbist” or vocal outlets in Washington allows for the expatriate community to be heard in Washington and Taipei. Based upon my knowledge of the Beltway, that is good. Bless their hearts, but FAPA does not seem to care about “whitey” in the ROC.

Other friends of Taiwan, however, already have taken note of the ROC plight of the expatriate community. Those people have been deeply involved with the AIT “ambassador” issues as they want a more Taiwan friendly representative. As the AIT Chairman theorectically represents your interests in Taiwan, you and others should be more involved with the US Congress. The Chairmen represents the State Dept’s “One China” policy first and before representing the commoners. Expats are not the highest priority.

The expatriate community are the “eyes and ears” of the Congress and it is a true shame that American citizens and other alien residents in Taiwan are so out voiced by the 23 million non-citizens of Taiwan in DC. When these very professional spin doctors go to work on Congress, the disinformation is counterproductive and misleading. For example, if you don’t care about the faulty AIT evacuation plans of US citizens in the event of PRC attacks, then just don’t care.

I called up some folks and the idea that there is some trouble in “paradise” got their attention. Isn’t it time to really stop living in diplomatic isolation?

You have the nucleus of an activist group on which to expand the “human rights” of Taiwan. You are active in Taipei and should be more active in Washington.

I have the lobbist contacts whom have already today indicated an interest in Taiwan. They are very qualified to be the influential voice of your human rights issues in DC.

Organize yourselves in a fairly loose group of interests, and then the collective message will become very focused and loud.

“We’re unhappy with the ROC!” Tell Congress why you longterm residents are unhappy in paradise?


#18

While I appreciate taiwanstatus’ comments, my experience suggests that the facts of the matter yield a different conclusion. Although this does not purport to be the definitive analysis, I believe that there is a great deal of truth in what I am going to say here.

To a large extent, USA citizens living in Taiwan long-term are totally disenfranchised. The USA maintains no “Overseas USA Citizens Affairs Commission.” No members of Congress represent the interests of USA citizens living outside the USA on a long term basis. (In comparison, the Taiwan government has an active “Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission”, and there are a number of members of the Legislative Yuan who are elected specifically to deal with overseas Chinese issues.)

You can see this disenfranchisment attitude every time you write an email to some member of the US Congress, even those serving on the Foreign Relations Committee, and receive an automated response saying THANK YOU FOR YOUR INQUIRY, HOWEVER PLEASE NOTE that in order to be processed, all correspondence must indicate a mailing address IN MY DISTRICT.

Over the years I have seen a large collection of perfunctory replies which US Congress people have made (by snailmail) to US citizens living in Taiwan, when those citizens have expressed dissatisfaction with the policies of the ROC government, and made calls for “mutually reciprocal treatment.” Some posters to this Forum have even received such perfunctory replies when writing to Taiwanese-Americans serving in the US Congress, and pointing out that “in your push for universal human rights and non-discriminatory policies, could you please pay some attention to how USA citizens are being discriminated against in Taiwan.” These Congressmen’s replies indicated: “Oh, we don’t get involved in such matters.”

My parents lived in Tennessee for over twenty years. I wrote to Al Gore on more than one occasion, and included a Tennessee mailing address. I never received any reply. I also wrote to Clinton, both while he was President and after he retired and set up an office in New York City. No reply whatsoever. Carter has a Carter Center in Atlanta. Same story.

In my early days in Taiwan, I made the rounds of the various State Representative Offices, and would even try to meet up with delegations of US officials coming to Taiwan for a visit. I am sure that other people have done the same. Results to date: ZERO.

In conclusion, I feel that lobbying in Washington, D.C. for the interests of US citizens in Taiwan is a dead-end street. On the other hand, I sincerely hope that someone can move forward with such an agenda and prove me wrong.


#19

What about lobbying to the AIT? Since the AIT is the de-facto American Embassy, isn’t it their job to help out American citizens in Taiwan and defend our human rights?


#20

A common misconception, rapidly fixed by a visit to the consulate/embassy of any country anywhere.

They do not want to know about you and your problems. If all English teachers tomorrow were murdered at midnight in a Satanic ritual by their bushiban bosses, I guarantee that neither the AIT, British Trade Thingy, or any of those other useless organisations that are paid for by the poor long-suffering taxpayers at home, would give two hoots.

These organisations exist for their own benefit only, occasionally rustling up a trade delegation or two, but existing mainly for political purposes.

When was the last time any of your respective representative offices did anything whatsoever that benefitted you as one of their overseas citizens ? I would be interested to hear.