While new immigrants and their children born in Taiwan have grown to a population of more than 1 million, the legislature in a late-night session on Tuesday last week passed a basic act governing “new residents” to facilitate their integration into Taiwanese society.
In addition to setting up a new special commission under the Executive Yuan to oversee new resident affairs and services, the act mandates that the government aid them with counseling, medical and maternity healthcare, employment rights protection, education, and cultural empowerment. It aims to protect their rights, help them obtain residency and integrate into a multicultural society in which all groups can prosper.
The bill would apply to foreigners, stateless people, and people from China, Hong Kong and Macau who are permitted to reside in Taiwan, or whose spouses are Taiwanese with household registration in Taiwan.
The act’s scope also extends to the children of new immigrants, and foreigners who reside in Taiwan through different immigration schemes other than marriage, such as professional and investment immigration. As the Cabinet aims to recruit up to 400,000 foreign workers by 2030 to address a labor shortage, the long-awaited new residents act would surely help to attract more talent to Taiwan.
Some provisions of the act, which was originally called the “new residents’ rights protection act,” have been changed due to proposals from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party, which together hold a majority in the legislature. Some potential problems should also be noted.
Since it was extended to include immigrants from China, Hong Kong and Macau, the new act might potentially conflict with the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which was specially authorized by the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (中華民國憲法增修條文) to handle cross-strait affairs, along with the Laws and Regulations Regarding Hong Kong and Macao Affairs (香港澳門關係條例).
Although Minister of the Interior Liu Shyh-fang (劉世芳) said that migrants from China would continue to be governed by the existing acts covering cross-strait affairs, some pro-China parties and lawmakers are expected to again propose to shorten the period required for the naturalization of Chinese spouses from six years to four years, in line with rules for other foreign spouses. Such proposals have consistently aroused massive concerns and opposition from the public over national security. They also risk worsening inequity among migrants from different countries, with Chinese migrants being able to maintain their nationalities while applying for Taiwanese citizenship, while other foreigners are required to renounce the citizenship of their homeland. Under the proposals, the parents of Chinese residents who are aged 70 or older could move to Taiwan to live as dependents, but not the parents of other foreign immigrants.
Under the new act, more than 65 percent of people who fit the description of “new residents” are Chinese spouses married to Taiwanese. An influx of Chinese immigrants might crowd out others for resources, some of which were created to recruit overseas professionals.
On the other hand, while expressing some support for the new residents act, migrants’ rights advocates have called for it to not just focus on white-collar professionals, but also do more to support Taiwan’s blue-collar migrant workers that could contribute more to industries facing a labor shortage. Not only to protect their basic rights, the act, which has been named as a basic law, should also do more to promote the value and importance of new residents in society, so that they could develop a stronger sense of belonging and identity.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS