At an event held at the Presidential Office for foreign spouses last week, President Chen Shui-bian (
We can only admire these enlightening words, which once again demonstrate the diversity and openness of Chen's views on human rights.
But for all people fighting for human rights, the talk given soon after Chen's speech by the minister of the interior about establishing an immigration office to safeguard immigrant rights was laughable.
In reality, not only will the office not be helpful in protecting the rights of foreign spouses, but it may very well have a negative effect. Myself and other representatives of immigrant rights groups have on numerous occasions discussed the new Immigration Law (
The responses we received have revealed that officials view immigrants as potential criminals, using phrases like the "natural character of Taiwanese citizens" and the "burden on the country" in their arguments.
What's worse, during discussions of the chapter about the protection of immigrants' rights, the members of the ministry and other officials unabashedly expressed exclusionary attitudes.
They repeatedly told immigrant rights organizations that "We [the future immigration office] should only be responsible for `investigation.'"
"Not even the human rights of Taiwanese are protected, so why should those of foreign spouses be protected?" they asked.
With this kind of attitude, what chance do we have of effectively protecting immigrant rights, as Chen talked about?
The proposed immigration office is only an agency, while the real key to safeguarding human rights lies in the content of the law that it will implement -- the Immigration Law.
Not only does the Immigration Law not contain a single word about protecting immigrants' human rights, but it also empowers the foreign affairs police to use completely inappropriate procedures, disregard the principle of proportionality and ignore family relations in dealing with married immigrants.
Furthermore, not only does the Cabinet's draft amendment not resolve this problem, but it strengthens the powers of the original law's provisions to arrest, conduct visitations, question and impose judicial sanctions.
What does any of this have to do with protecting human rights?
Will domestic violence against foreign spouses drop after the immigration office opens? Will politicians and the media stop smearing them? When doing business or applying for jobs, will they no longer face discrimination?
Some may assume that inviting new immigrants to sing at the Presidential Office is equivalent to defending human rights, but it is not.
The real problem is that the law and the Cabinet's revisions are completely unconcerned with human rights.
If we really want to protect immigrants from being victimized, it will take more than just words from the president.
We need to establish explicit protections against discrimination and exploitation from the public and private sectors, and the immigration office must actively protect immigrants from abuse.
A comprehensive human rights amendment to the Immigration Law is needed. Otherwise the establishment of a special agency to manage immigrants simply makes a mockery of Chen's grand speech.
Bruce Liao is an assistant professor of law at Soochow University.
Translated by Marc Langer
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations