We are Taiwanese, if you please

I’m sorry to say that the bods at the BTCO certainly would not be interested in taking or participating in any initiative that was solely for the purpose of serving the interests of British residents in Taiwan. They don’t see that as part of their functions at all. Their mindset seems to be “We’re not officially an embassy, we don’t have the kudos that would imply, so we’re damned if we’re going to put ourselves out for our fellow countrymen who also happen to be living here.” All they care about is pushing business, soliciting investment and flogging English.

I wonder if any fellow Brit has ever received a reply to an enquiry e-mailed to the BTCO? I soon found that was a complete waste of time.

On the reciprocal right of dual citizenship issue, of course we should be entitled to that, and certainly it would be very much in the interests of Taiwan to grant it. But I can’t see it happening in the near future, no matter how much lobbying might be mobilized for it.

A long-term Taiwan resident from Taichung wrote into me to say that in a couple more years he will be retiring here in Taiwan. He plans to travel for six months and then probably go to stay with his parents in the USA for eight to ten months, or possibly longer.

He asked me if this would have any effect on his permanent residency status. My answer is that the only effect that such a lengthy absence from the ROC will have on your APRC status is that your APRC status will be cancelled.

Article 31 of the Immigration Law clearly states that one must maintain a physical presence of 183 days or more per year in the ROC area for permanent residency to remain valid. There are some limited categories of exceptions for formal overseas study, overseas medical treatment, and other formally verifiable and rather extraordinary activities.

I had originally assumed that everyone who has been commenting in this thread was aware of these “travel restrictions”, especially when they have been saying “permanent residency and an open work permit are fine for me.” If this is not the case, then some of these people should revise their comments.

The term “permanent” in this context is wholly misleading.

Maybe you should be lobbying for “real” permanent residency rather than dual citizenship, then? It might be easier to revise existing rules rather than create a whole new category of immigration, and more beneficial to more people in the long run. You would also be able to avoid the draft issue altogether, therefore eliminating a major stumbling block.

On the basis that I know many many Taiwanese who also have US passports, why is the Taiwan gov. insisting that we surrender our national passports?. It just doesn’t make any sense other than they really don’t want to encourage us.