The statements from both sides on whether Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is a permanent US resident have been confusing, so I went to the library to look up the issue in a legal encyclopedia. I found an informative article in American Law Reports (193 A.L.R. Fed. 673). Below are two relevant paragraphs: "If an alien has been abroad for a lengthy period of time, however, his commitment to permanently residing in the US is called into question."
"Abandonment of permanent resident status is generally found when there has been a lengthy absence from the US. Whether an alien has abandoned his status is a matter of subjective intention proven by objective facts, the ultimate issue being whether there is a continuing intent to return. Whether there was an intention to maintain permanent-resident status is not the issue, but rather whether there was a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the US."
A "temporary visit abroad" is generally defined as a situation in which either the permanent resident's visit is for a "period relatively short, fixed by some early event" or the permanent resident's visit will terminate upon the occurrence of an event having a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.
A "temporary visit," however, cannot be defined in terms of elapsed time alone.
The alien's intention, when it can be determined, is a controlling factor. Some of the factors a court can use in determining whether an alien harbored a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return are: his family ties, property holdings and business affiliations within the US; the duration of residence in the US; family, property and business ties in the foreign country and whether the alien's conduct while abroad showed that he intended to remain in the foreign country.
The law seems to favor Ma, but he seems quite evasive and his explanation is not of the quality one would expect from a Harvard law graduate. What does he have to hide?
Alfred Tsai
Taipei
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS