It was refreshing to hear expert commentary yesterday on a part of the immigration debate normally blocked out by bickering over the ideal number of brides that should come from China: the tendency for governments to treat children of "mixed" marriages -- normally a Taiwanese husband and a Chinese or Southeast Asian wife -- as an administrative problem rather than an opportunity.
Issues of migration are complex and never easily resolved, nor are they reducible to black-and-white categories of right and wrong. In Taiwan's case, there has been a relatively smooth process of adjustment to hundreds of thousands of new residents as Taiwanese men marry women from markedly poorer, non-Chinese-speaking countries.
The numbers are impressive: Three out of every seven children are now being born to a foreign mother; by 2010, these children will amount to one-tenth of the school-age population.
Those inclined to define Taiwan in ethnic terms will be intimidated by these numbers. But there is no reason to feel that way -- as long as the government and a well-meaning population are willing to adapt, and as long as migrants are willing to learn how to integrate themselves and their "mixed" children into Taiwanese society.
Happily, this is an issue on which legislators of substance from both sides of the political divide can unite to develop constructive policies.
The demand for foreign brides is a function of the increasing wealth and urbanization of a society that raises the standard of living -- and increases life choices. Universal education inculcates in all children the principle of opportunity based on merit rather than geography or ethnic group, and from this comes a natural migration of women from rural areas into wealthier cities in search of better opportunities.
For such a system to function properly, migrant women who fill this demographic gap in rural Taiwan cannot be allowed to descend into an underclass.
Basic economics and good governance provide a powerful incentive for the nation to ensure that the productivity of their children as they become adults is no less substantial than that of any other group.
But there is a distance to travel in providing a migrant-friendly environment. Governments and legislatures are all too willing to speak to foreign spouses in a patronizing tone, and this is not helped by labor policies that treat migrant laborers -- the spouses' compatriots -- like second-class citizens.
It is also hoped that reports of husbands refusing foreign spouses permission to attend government-funded skills seminars will decrease. But for this to happen, the government must assume and proclaim that both parties have rights and responsibilities.
There is a strong argument that any mandatory training for migrant women should be accompanied by mandatory training for their husbands, who in some cases do not understand or respect -- and even obstruct -- their wives' legal and human rights.
Other considerations are ideological. If migrants are to integrate properly, it is important that the residue of race-flavored ideology in street signs, company names, government agencies and so on is removed.
We can only hope that mindless praise for "Hua" (
Until this happens, children of mixed marriages will inevitably experience a degree of discomfort as they come to terms with their differences as minorities. The challenge for elected officials, public servants and people of good conscience is to eliminate gratuitous obstacles containing racist terminology and practices and ensure that people are judged on their merits and not their DNA.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS