台湾移民配偶基于民族的差异化人权

Te-Yuan Chien
{"title":"台湾移民配偶基于民族的差异化人权","authors":"Te-Yuan Chien","doi":"10.1163/15718158-01902001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Taiwan, there were 530,512 migrant spouses in 2017 and, among them, 337,838 (about 63.7 per cent) came from China. However, Chinese spouses have to spend two years more than other foreign spouses to receive residency. Due to the political complexities between China and Taiwan, this differentiated treatment is a controversial issue. Nevertheless, some advocates have urged legislators to propose amendments, whereas others support raising the issue in the Constitutional Court.This article contends that the period it takes for Chinese and other foreign spouses to receive residency should be equal. Furthermore, the article suggests that it is more suitable for the legislative branch to use its plenary power in dealing with the political issues than the judicial branch, similar to how the United States (us) resolved disputes after the enactment of the Chinese-Exclusion Act 130 years ago.This article begins with the political and legal background to the differentiated treatment issue in Taiwan. The second part begins with the bills in Congress to eliminate the difference and outlines the interpretation of the Constitutional Court in Taiwan regarding the Chinese issues. The third part discusses the similar discriminatory treatment of the Chinese in the us after the Chinese-Exclusive Act in 1882 and how the Supreme Court dealt with those disputes. Finally, considering international treaties and the sensitivity of the political issues, this article suggests, similar to the us approach, introduction of the doctrine of plenary congressional power and the political question doctrine to resolve the disputes.","PeriodicalId":35216,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718158-01902001","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differentiated Human Rights of Migrant Spouses Based on Nationalities in Taiwan\",\"authors\":\"Te-Yuan Chien\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718158-01902001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Taiwan, there were 530,512 migrant spouses in 2017 and, among them, 337,838 (about 63.7 per cent) came from China. However, Chinese spouses have to spend two years more than other foreign spouses to receive residency. Due to the political complexities between China and Taiwan, this differentiated treatment is a controversial issue. Nevertheless, some advocates have urged legislators to propose amendments, whereas others support raising the issue in the Constitutional Court.This article contends that the period it takes for Chinese and other foreign spouses to receive residency should be equal. Furthermore, the article suggests that it is more suitable for the legislative branch to use its plenary power in dealing with the political issues than the judicial branch, similar to how the United States (us) resolved disputes after the enactment of the Chinese-Exclusion Act 130 years ago.This article begins with the political and legal background to the differentiated treatment issue in Taiwan. The second part begins with the bills in Congress to eliminate the difference and outlines the interpretation of the Constitutional Court in Taiwan regarding the Chinese issues. The third part discusses the similar discriminatory treatment of the Chinese in the us after the Chinese-Exclusive Act in 1882 and how the Supreme Court dealt with those disputes. Finally, considering international treaties and the sensitivity of the political issues, this article suggests, similar to the us approach, introduction of the doctrine of plenary congressional power and the political question doctrine to resolve the disputes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35216,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718158-01902001\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718158-01902001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718158-01902001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在台湾,2017年有530512名移民配偶,其中337838人(约63.7%)来自中国。然而,中国配偶必须比其他外国配偶多花两年时间才能获得居留权。由于中国和台湾之间的政治复杂性,这种区别对待是一个有争议的问题。尽管如此,一些支持者敦促立法者提出修正案,而另一些人则支持在宪法法院提出这一问题。本文认为,中国和其他外国配偶获得居留权的期限应该是平等的。此外,文章认为,与司法部门相比,立法部门更适合利用其全体权力来处理政治问题,类似于130年前美国颁布《排华法案》后解决争端的方式。本文从台湾差别待遇问题产生的政治和法律背景入手。第二部分从国会提出的消除分歧的法案开始,概述台湾宪法法院对中国问题的解释。第三部分论述了1882年《华人专属法》颁布后,美国对华人的类似歧视待遇,以及最高法院如何处理这些争议。最后,考虑到国际条约和政治问题的敏感性,本文建议类似于美国的做法,引入国会全体权力学说和政治问题学说来解决争端。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differentiated Human Rights of Migrant Spouses Based on Nationalities in Taiwan
In Taiwan, there were 530,512 migrant spouses in 2017 and, among them, 337,838 (about 63.7 per cent) came from China. However, Chinese spouses have to spend two years more than other foreign spouses to receive residency. Due to the political complexities between China and Taiwan, this differentiated treatment is a controversial issue. Nevertheless, some advocates have urged legislators to propose amendments, whereas others support raising the issue in the Constitutional Court.This article contends that the period it takes for Chinese and other foreign spouses to receive residency should be equal. Furthermore, the article suggests that it is more suitable for the legislative branch to use its plenary power in dealing with the political issues than the judicial branch, similar to how the United States (us) resolved disputes after the enactment of the Chinese-Exclusion Act 130 years ago.This article begins with the political and legal background to the differentiated treatment issue in Taiwan. The second part begins with the bills in Congress to eliminate the difference and outlines the interpretation of the Constitutional Court in Taiwan regarding the Chinese issues. The third part discusses the similar discriminatory treatment of the Chinese in the us after the Chinese-Exclusive Act in 1882 and how the Supreme Court dealt with those disputes. Finally, considering international treaties and the sensitivity of the political issues, this article suggests, similar to the us approach, introduction of the doctrine of plenary congressional power and the political question doctrine to resolve the disputes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law is the world’s only law journal offering scholars a forum in which to present comparative, international and national research dealing specifically with issues of law and human rights in the Asia-Pacific region. Neither a lobby group nor tied to any particular ideology, the Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law is a scientific journal dedicated to responding to the need for a periodical publication dealing with the legal challenges of human rights issues in one of the world’s most diverse and dynamic regions.
期刊最新文献
Religious Exemptions and the Constitutionality of Vaccine Mandates in the Philippines Equal Representation of Women in the Superior Judiciary: A Comparative Analysis between Pakistan and the United Kingdom Decriminalisation of Adultery in Taiwan Empathy, a Hallmark of Equality: Shaping Fearlessness Into Transformative Decision-Making and Teaching Microverse, Mezzoverse, Macroverse: Protection Against Discrimination in an Artificialised World?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1