Too Many Foreigners In Taiwan?

Legal Human Rights
21

I am familiar with an immigration matter of the One China policy and the capricious extent to which the US State Department officials coddled Beijing in the aftermath of Tiananmen.

In 1989, a young mother was killed in a bicycle accident in Beijing. An American couple whom were her teachers in a China university decided to adopt her baby daughter in her memory and then applied for an immigration visa to the USA. They did manage to get the baby into Hong Kong where the State Department flatly refused the visa due to objections of Beijing. Not in their national interests.

Because of the One China policy kowtowing to the Emperors in Beijing, the older couple hired a New Zealand solicitor in Hong Kong. This boisterous individual had the heart of gold and ran ads for two day in the English press in Hong Kong. The ad accused the USA of cruel intentions by denying an immigration visa to such a young victim of their China policies. The ad banner made it very clear the orphan’s mother had been killed in a “bicycle accident” in Tiananmen. It just diplomatically failed to mention that she had been run over by a PLA tank.

The US Embassy reacted quickly and Rep. Tom Foley, Majority Leader in House of Rep., had a phone conversation with the Hong Kong attorney and overruled the State Dept visa center by expeditiously issuing that orphan her immigration visa in the “public interest” of avoiding anymore international embarassment.

Just think of the social repercussions of moral indignation if the whole truth of the “accident” had been revealed. Those unflappable diplomats and their national interests of the State Dept can only become unnerved when confronted by the brinksmanship so needed to acquire the “public interest” policy waivers in compelling situations like that. Does seem one has to pose a threat of provoking an international incident to be noticed.

The flipside of the advocacy coin is backstabbing against any higher authority pressure tactics of Congressmen on behalf of their “foreign constituents” seeking to immigrate into the USA. In 1994, the “outspoken” Congressman Stephen Solarz persistantly attempted to pressure the US Ambassador in Hong Kong to officially issue an immigrant visa in the “public interest”. A rich “foreign constituent” of Chinese descent had been officially denied a visa on the inadmissible grounds of being a “Triad member”, according to the Hong Kong police intelligence sources.

Today, we know how the scandal caused the threat of Congressional investigations into Mr. Solarz’s relations with Chinese organized crime. To avoid scandalous implications, the very contentious Congressman was officially forced to resign and his constituent was never allowed to immigrate to my knowledge. During the late 1990’s, Solarz became the “official” advisor to Al Gore on China policy and the 1999 invasion drama of the PLA was the result.

So lessons of “foreign representation” are to provoke an international incident and then to traumatize the State Dept by rocking the ship of state. Isn’t this capricous, or are they just a bunch of bureaucratic sadomasochists?

AIT Nominee being blocked by Blue Team staffers
http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/03/08/story/0000126808

Quote:

There are two possibilities at the moment: the head of the Asia program at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Larry Wortzel, who was once the military attache at the US Embassy in Beijing, and AIT’s Taipei office acting director, Pamela Slutz, who was recently promoted to a position that, sources in Washington say, would qualify her for the director’s post.

Nevertheless, Paal has powerful friends in the State Department, sources note. “Jim Kelly and Rich Armitage have their heels dug in on this, and Doug Paal is their man, and they’re not going to budge,” a Senate source said.

Did you know that George Kerr was a naval attache when the USA “jointly occupied” Taiwan on October 25, 1945?

Connect the dots…if you want to be heard.

22

Washington Times: Pacific Command Appointments, Judicial Watch nuclear lawsuit dismissed by CIA
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020308-68509928.htm

bgertz@WashingtonTimes.com
rscarborough@WashingtonTimes.com

Congressional legislation has promised us that nothing would be tolerated as a contravention of the American interest in the human rights of Taiwan. Because of SFPT treaty rights, they even promised us an “enhancement” of these basic civil rights of TRA.

Power of the press and email blitzkriegs, anyone?

23

“Click and paste” an email to our Taiwan friendly investigative reporters at the Washington Times, as the “collective voice” can be heard if we try a little more together.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/02/28/story/0000075546

24

What is SFPT? Does anyone know of any other similar cases in which the right to citizenship in the adopted country was denied even though right to citizenship was allowed in the home country? Also, for all of us who are not up on this issue (the goal is possibility of citizenship for expatriates in Taiwan?), what would an email to the Washington Times contain? The only other thing I can think of is contacting US immigration reform groups as possible allies. What strikes a nerve with me, being an ESL teacher in the US (I teach immigrant students), is how much the US tax payer pays out to immigrants in free lunches, extra services for immigrant children (ESL teachers), welfare, etc. The tax payer pays while businesses who employ both legal and illegal immigrants make profits by paying them low wages. Many immigrants who can afford not to be on welfare lie to save money. My Taiwanese husband wanted me to lie and have the government pay the costs for me having our baby, but I refused. He had many friends and family members who did it, so it was no big deal to him. So here we in the US break our backs to accomodate immigrants from other countries including Taiwan, yet we get second rate treatment when we go to live in their countries. I would like to know the names of the Congresspeople who make up the Taiwan caucas. But just as an aside, this cuts to the whole issue of the government’s responisiveness to the people-which leads me to campaign finance reform- an issue I am working on at the state level here in NJ.

25

Certainly we have discussed enough in this thread for someone in the USA to take the ball and set up the appropriate lobbying group to work on behalf of USA residents in Taiwan.

Any takers?

26

Perhaps one thing that stands in your way is the terminology you use. People who move to the US from other countries are usually called “immigrants”, while people from western countries who move to Taiwan are “expatriates” or “(US) residents”. The implication is that people who move to the US are going to stay there, while the feeling one gets with terms like “expatriates” and “residents (of a western nation) in Taiwan” is that they’re only here while it suits their purposes to be here. Also, including things like “Why doesn’t the US have a better plan to evacuate us in case of trouble with China?” probably doesn’t engender a great belief in your dedication to Taiwan, simply furthering the whole “expatriate” connotation. Maybe, since what you’re asking for is the right to immigrate (even though you already can immigrate; you just wish to keep your foreign passports and avoid conscription in the process), you should see yourselves as “immigrants to Taiwan” rather than “foreign residents”, and also promote yourselves that way. Perhaps that might engender more sympathy to your cause, although I’m not sure how appealing to the US government for the right to immigrate to another country would help.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) was a peace treaty signed by the US and Japan several years after the end of WWII. Neither the ROC nor the PRC signed it or even attended the conference.

27

Why limit this endeavor to US citizens, I am Dutch and also very inclined to become a Taiwanese national.

[Moderator’s note: Please provide full information on whether Taiwanese citizens are required to produce formal renunciation of their original nationality when becoming naturalized in your country.]

28

What an interesting board, but I was wondering the answers to some of these questions:

Is there an actual, formal registered group with NT$2,000,000 in the bank (or at least had it there at one time), a board of directors including supervisors, (all of which I believe are the legal foundations for a non-profit organization) and who is actively seeking donations with success to hire a lobbyist in Taiwan?

If so, what are the membership fees, who are the board members and how does one get a hold of them? I know there is Richard and NNFS, but is it a well-regarded advocate and a loose network organization or are they organizations with legitimate groundings in law?

BTW, I think that AIT and Congressional representatives would have no choice but to be helpful if the right approach was used. Yes, they are political organizations with their own mission as prescribed by law, but I have seen others who have tried and were successful, at least with AIT, on smaller issues.

Also, why would FAPA ever care? It might be a good try for cooperation, but I doubt it’s related to their mission or that there is a direct, undeniable upswing for them.

29
quote[quote] . . . you should see yourselves as "immigrants to Taiwan" rather than "foreign residents", and also promote yourselves that way. Perhaps that might engender more sympathy to your cause, although I'm not sure how appealing to the US government for the right to immigrate to another country would help. [/quote]

He should see himself as no more than the many Taiwanese living in the United States, e.g. “no, I don’t necessarily have to learn your language, interact with the community outside my family, etc.[consider the average parents of immigrants, who follow afterwards] I’m legally allowed to become a citizen, so that’s what I want to become.”

Up until last year I was telling Richard H. we should package ourselves as in your suggestion. However, instead of the “I love Taiwan too” track, how about a new “give me my rights. If my rights aren’t in your lawbook, then put them in. If you don’t want your neighbors cows to graze your land, then why not stop your cows from grazing your neighbors land?” [cows=people, grazing=getting dual nationality]

Actually who says a proper Taiwanese citizen must speak Taiwanese, Mandarin, etc., or “love Taiwan” as is the fashion of politicians . . . ? Back in the US I believe we could handle nationality not == ethnicity necessarily. Anyways, what is the official explanation of grazing other’s pastures while closing off your own?

I hear the PRC doesn’t allow its citizens to go around collecting other citizenships. Why doesn’t Taiwan take a lesson from that beacon of democracy, the PRC?

So why do I have to feel bad about wanting a Taiwan ID card? Why don’t I just collect ID cards from lesser countries to fill my wallet’s empty rungs and show my friends? What’s my problem, when I could live probably OK without that card anyway, I mean gosh, isn’t life just for the “good times”, and not having that card will not reduce your good times… aren’t you foreigners all here oh just for fun? An extended college break. Now you are 40, 50, 60, but you see, you are just here to enjoy those “good times in your travels”. Look how lovable you are on the TV fun show… ah, the lovable lao3wai4.

Now lets flip the coin and examine the Taiwanese immigrant to America. Nobody says they are just hanging around for the good times and with smile and a twinkle will pass down the road sooner or later.

Anyways, a so called foreign person here should not have any different self-evaluation than an American in Canada: “I have lived here for xxx years, I ought to have xxx rights, or else please don’t allow me to live here.” Whatever . . . ***[error 34: terminated: reason=“rambling”]

P.S. What happened at the 8 March 2002 Public Hearing to give the 50 year residents permanent resident cards?

30
quote:
Is there an actual, formal registered group with NT$2,000,000 in the bank (or at least had it there at one time), a board of directors including supervisors, (all of which I believe are the legal foundations for a non-profit organization) and who is actively seeking donations with success to hire a lobbyist in Taiwan?

If so, what are the membership fees, who are the board members and how does one get a hold of them? I know there is Richard and NNFS, but is it a well-regarded advocate and a loose network organization or are they organizations with legitimate groundings in law?


My opinion of 26 years in residence in Taiwan is that you are not going to find a so-called legitimate organization (with a president, board of directors, supervisors, committee chairmen, etc.) who are going to take on a large project such as “Foreigners Rights to Obtain ROC Nationality with Retention of Original Nationality”.

This is because of a very simple fact. The president (board of directors, supervisors, committee chairmen, etc.) are elected for one year or at most two years. Hence, they will concentrate on projects which have a strong possibility of being completed within that period of time.

What is the period of time for completing “Foreigners Rights to Obtain ROC Nationality with Retention of Original Nationality”? Certainly not one or two years. Three perhaps. Four maybe. Five on the outside.

What guarantees are there that such an effort will be successful? Well, actually there are no guarantees. At the present time, I am actively involved in at least three court cases that have bearing on this entire issue. I could do more, but my time is limited. In my modest opinion, the best bet for moving ahead with this effort would be to take up a collection to enable me to hire a part-time Chinese secretary. I am 100% serious. You will be glad you did. I know how to work cases through the administrative court system, and I have been researching the nationality issue for several years. I am at a very advanced state of research, far beyond anything that a local Chinese lawyer could advise you about.

I will be happy to show the documents involved with my various cases to parties who are interested in advancing the cause through monetary contributions. Talk is of no use, what we need is action.

31

There is a current matter of AIT Chairman appointees and pending rejections by the US Senate. Under TRA, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has jurisdiction for appointments.

The Committee Chairman has historically been the legendary and ultra-conservative Senator Helms. However, shifting alliances in the composure of the Senate majority installed Senator “Blue Eyes” Biden. In a recent speech to FAPA, his position on Taiwan is clear:

  1. Strongly opposed to National Missile Defense initiatives for Taiwan against PRC SCUD missiles(eg. Star Wars anti-missile technology) and;

  2. Taiwan status is not a country because the USA said so and Taiwan should just get the message.

On the first issue, Vice President Dick Cheney allegedly “dumped” the John Bolton nominee of Under-Secretary for Arms Control on Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Senator Biden utilized some very “controverial” tactics in his opposition to Bolton by attacking him under the “foreign agent registration act” and his “FARA crimes” of unreported compensation from Taiwan sources.

Senator Helms has retaliated against “One China” supportor Senator Biden by attacking the nomination of Douglas Paal.

Douglas Paal is the first choice of Secretary Kelly (Asia Desk). Regretably here lies a major source of “Anti-Taiwan” lobby at the State Dept.

Larry Wortzell is the Blue Team staffers choice and is a former military attache to Beijing.

Then there is the acting Chairwoman whom might be a compromise candidate.

With Wortzell, there is the increased chance that he would really acknowledge the human rights policy of TRA, as AIT obligations of the US government instrument of this same legislation. Wortzell’s background has much in common with George Kerr’s career advocacy of Taiwanese issues. Both were military officers, military attaches in foreign service, and were academics. To my knowledge, this senior AIT position would be a career move for Wortzell, but in comparison to some very poor performances in the past “China lobby” at AIT, Wortzell is very high caliber and has demonstrated integrity to Taiwan affairs.

There is no ambiguity in his advocacy of Taiwan, unlike Douglas Paal. Will he support or recognize Taiwan as a “country” as AIT Chairman? No, this is not a Taiwan independence supporter.

AIT is a government organization and is still official. The semantics of unofficial is the legal separation from federal service employment in Taiwan by its employees.

The implications for the expatriate community are that the defense of Taiwan is quite strengthened, and those State Dept personnel and info creating contingency plans of “executive evacuations” are rectified. AIT, Dept of Defense, and the rest of the US bureaucracy has no notion that there are 50,000 dual USA-ROC nationals in the ROC. We are clueless on the other nationalities, and the ROC has made moves to utilize expatriates and dual nationals as pawns to leverage the TRA defense commitment to Taiwan. Defense insecurities of TRA to Taiwan is attributable to those key supporters of One China policies against the TRA.

Not until you have been in a combat zone and been exposed to the very real PRC threats of chemical or biological payloads of SCUDS parked in Xiamen. Made in China will change its connotations, you can understand the need for a “military attache” in AIT.

Senator Biden feels that PRC missile exports are not so detrimental to US interests and Taiwan is expendable. That means you and our Taiwan friends are expendable, too.

As for ROC conscription of ARC, these laws of Taiwan are muddled and very unprepared for war with China.

Blue Team wargames have suggested that the PRC could successfully invade within 72 hours, and the civilian population would be defenseless.

The idea that “girls with guns” will save the day is foolhardy.

Due to the CIA and State Dept hostilities to any viable Taiwan defenses and resistance to any info-sharing with Conressional Staffers, the expatriate community is just left hanging in the balance. You are just like Taiwan, but the issues are even greater as the ROC could conscript you for “militia service”. Currently the reserves in Taiwan are a complete joke in readiness and there is the fact that ARC PR numbers will continue to grow and create “imbalances” in the ROC military ranks.

In Korea, there is the KAATUSA concept, or Korean Army Attached To US Army. They are jointly under the US Command of its soldiers and speak English.
They do share the same uniforms and equipment but with different nationality insignia.

To potentially resolve the draft-dodging issues of ROC nationality laws and alien status, all the ARC aliens in Taiwan should be under a KAATUSA concept for the rapid mobilization purposes of a “TRA reserve status”. The “expatriate lobby” has the potential to assert their “international” leadership in potentially defending Taiwan and for resurrecting the mission readiness of the Taiwan reservists. Including the ARC aliens in a Reserve status of “English-speaking reserves” and as an equal opportunity employer including women, you are the more progressive influences upon the ROC and increases your leverage with the local politicians. Ladies don’t get the respect that they command in uniform, even if a ROC militia corps. That might include extending the KAATUSA reserve concept to any ROC national in the USA with a F-1 visa as coming under TRA status. If you must serve, then every 15 year old abroad must serve, too. The “English-speaking reserves” are quite essential to potentially assisting the USA and ROC in officially coordinating and integrating their “civil defense” systems of Taiwan.

It also sends the political message that we are also a “militia-lobbying force” to be more fully reconned with in the sphere of TRA politics.

32
quote:
Originally posted by Hartzell: At the present time, I am actively involved in at least three court cases that have bearing on this entire issue. I could do more, but my time is limited. In my modest opinion, the best bet for moving ahead with this effort would be to take up a collection to enable me to hire a part-time Chinese secretary. I am 100% serious.

Richard, I admire the work you have done and are doing for the foreign community in Taiwan. At the same time, I have to admit that I am not in the situation that I could spend much time on such issues and probably wouldn’t have the energy to pursue all the paths in the legal jungle. What you suggest sounds good. I may not have too much money to spend, but I would be willing to make my contribution.
You are probably the one who understands best the requirements for such a secretary, so you will probably know about how much that secretary would have to be paid. Maybe you could give us a number (maybe set a bit higher than actually needed, to meet “unexpected circumstances”) and then everyone could respond by private mail or in an anonymous poll or however how much he/she would be willing to give each month, as a one-time donation would not be of much use. This way, you can see easily just how much support there is in the community…

Olaf

33

Great post.

I don’t have a lot of money either, but I would be willing to make a donation. How do I get it to you?

34

Please see this thread
http://oriented.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000064&p=
for a further discussion of how I plan to get the whole project rolling. It will need to be undertaken step by step.

35

There are too many taiwanese in taiwan. The Island is over populated and maybe they should introduce the one child policy here as they seem obsessed in having as many kids as possible.

36

Wouldn’t that be an abhorrent infringement by state power on the rights of the individual?

37

Don’t confuse me, did u get the stamp before or after Dec. 1?

I read the news that the new 10 digit has been issued since April
of this year, but the Dec. 1 new law is totally different, I guess
you would have your old one removed from their database, as
their main purpose is to better keep track of the foreigners

38

Too many foreigners!!! Ok, I’ll leave then