Taiwan, China, and other things. Recovered from the defunct TypePad platform.
Video at No Pasaran!
How can this be? As a faithful reader of Taiwan's China Post, I've been schooled to understand that such wounds are impossible — simply impossible!
Unless of course, it's a conspiracy and the "victim" faked this mysterious shooting to gain people's sympathy…
<eye roll>
So I'm in a taxi after seeing The Dark Knight on IMAX*, when a female newscaster on the radio fills the cab with a loud, childish, taunting voice:
"A-bian, uh! A-bian**, uh!"
Followed by something in Mandarin, followed by more, "A-bian, uh! A-bian, uh!"
Guess the lady's not too upset by the news that former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian (or his wife) was caught skimming money from his own campaign funds and sent it overseas. As for former Chen supporters, the revelation must come as a bitter blow. A-gu from That's Impossible sums it up well:
Speaking of those supporters, for the past two years a lot of them have been defending Chen in arguments with friends, co-workers and family. Their only reward now is to be subjected to an endless stream of I told ya so's.
Which says nothing of the legislators belonging to Chen's Taiwanese independence party. The party was DECIMATED in the legislative election of '08. Those DPP lawmakers stuck by their man through the recall campaign of 2006 and nearly all paid with their seats.
Not a nice feeling to learn you've taken an arrow for a scoundrel.
But what strikes me is the sheer stupidity and arrogance on Chen's part. Let me illustrate what I mean with a little story:
One evening, way back when, I left a bar and got into my car. (Relax — I'd had only one beer which I'd nursed over one or two hours.) Anyways, I drove about one or two blocks, then did a U-turn at the next intersection.
Suddenly, there's a loud screeching of tires behind me, and police car following me. One a.m., and no one else on the road? Yeah, they're following me. My thoughts at the time:
Is it because of my U-turn? Are U-turns illegal in this jurisdiction? Did they follow me from the bar? Do they think I'm impared? What's the speed limit here? It's a major roadway, so the speed ought to be a bit higher than a residential neighborhood. But shoot, I can't see any speed limit signs anywhere!
So I slow down to 50 kph (or 30 mph). Which might have been suspicious in itself, but I'm erring on the conservative side.
Ah, there's my exit! I signal and pull off.
Holy smokes! They're still following me!
All right, there's a stop sign up ahead. No rolling stops now, I think. No, come to a FULL STOP. As I recall from driver's ed, a full stop should be held for 2 seconds. Just to be safe though, I hold it for 5 seconds.
One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand . . .
Now, the point of all this is that most people generally try to be on their best behavior when the authorities are watching them.*** The police were following me, and I didn't want to give them any excuses to pull me over.
What about President Chen? Chen was being followed too – not by a single cop car but by a whole slew of prosecutors. Prosecutors who were crawling ALL OVER THE WOODWORK trying to pin something on him.
Maybe not the best time to take $20 million dollars in unspent campaign contributions and launder it through three banks into your Swiss account . . .
* Which is much better the second time 'round, when you're not dozing off from jet lag.
** Former President Chen Shui-bian's nickname.
*** Acts of civil disobedience would be the obvious exception.
From Wednesday's China Post:
Hsu said he plans to ask two former party chiefs, Shih Ming-teh and Lin Yi-hsiung, to rejoin the DPP so that they may work together to reinvigorate the opposition party, demoralized earlier by repeated election defeats in recent years. [emphasis added]
Wild stuff. In 2006, ex-DPP man Shih Ming-teh led KMT marches against Chen Shui-bian, accusing Taiwan's DPP president of corruption. Shih is persona non grata in the party. But the wheels of fate turn. Two years later, Chen leaves office at the end of his term, and within months it's discovered he (or his wife) spirited $20 million of leftover campaign funds overseas. Chen cancels his DPP membership — and Shih Ming-teh will be asked to return to the party.
Doesn't mean he'll accept, or even that the DPP wants him back. But it's a remarkable reversal of fortunes, to say the least.
"Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it;
those who fail to learn history correctly — why, they are
simply doomed."
– Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda
Taiwanese have NOTHING to be ashamed of if they surrender their sovereignty in tough economic times, said the China Post's Joe Hung a week ago, because even the never-say-die Texans of the Nineteenth Century did THAT:
Hung brings up the subject in the context of his dreams for a commonwealth with China, the bellicose nation that threatens Taiwan. Though perhaps it escaped his notice that Texas didn't vote for annexation TO the country that threatened it militarily; it voted for annexation to a country that would PROTECT it from same.
And so I have a counter-proposal for Hung and the editors of the China Post. If Taiwan's economy really IS that bad (which is to say, worse than in the immediate years following World War II when the KMT managed to drive it into the ground), then perhaps Taiwan should emulate the Texas of two centuries ago by forming a commonwealth (or even a confederation) with a nearby country that will protect it from China's designs.
(Of course, using the Texas analogy, the only logical choice for that role would have to be . . . Japan.)
"The Commonwealth of Asian Democracies." Has kind of a nice ring, doesn't it?
Been back in Taiwan for a while now, and I see Joe Hung at the China Post is still flogging that old hobbyhorse of his, the idea of a unified Chinese-Taiwanese commonwealth:
Lien Chan, honorary chairman of the Kuomintang . . . is an advocate of a Chinese confederation,* an idea similar to the Chinese commonwealth which alone may be endorsed by the United States, Japan and other world powers. All of them want the status quo between Taiwan and China. Their national interests will be hurt if Chinese reunification takes place as Beijing now wants. Neither do they want Taiwan to get too closely associated with China. If Taiwan remains a dominion within the Chinese commonwealth, they will be able to best safeguard their respective national interests.
[…]
Peaceful unification or reunification is not impossible, if the example of the British Commonwealth of Nations is followed. Just as Great Britain made Canada a dominion in 1867, the People's Republic of China can give Taiwan dominion status now in preparation for a full-fledged Chinese commonwealth. The People's Republic and the Republic of China in Taiwan may be united in the name of the Chinese nation. They will be equal in status and in no way subordinate to the other, albeit the People's Republic may be the ex-officio head of the commonwealth. A dominion is recognized as a separate state entitled to have separate representation in the United Nations and other world organizations, to appoint its own ambassadors and to conclude its own treaties. At the same time, it is not considered to stand in the same relation to the People's Republic as foreign countries.
How ironic that Hung should make these arguments as the terrible events of 8/8/08 unfold before the world's eyes. And by 8/8/08 I speak not of the Genocide Games, but of the war between Russia and Georgia. For you see, the Georgians followed Hung's advice to the letter: fifteen years ago they humbled themselves, humbled themselves before a giant neighbor and joined the Commonwealth of Independent States.
And where did THAT get them? Did it get them all those sweet gauzy promises as outlined in the Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States?
No. It got them Russian land grabs in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that's where.** Apparently the wisdom of Lao Tzu ain't all that it's cracked up to be.***
And so the question I pose is threefold: Which nation does autocratic China more closely resemble, democratic Britain or autocratic Russia? And, given that resemblance, can we expect the character of a Chinese Commonwealth to be more like Britain's . . . or Russia's? And finally, can we all agree that the fate of Georgia within Russia's Commonwealth of "Independent" States is a fate that Taiwan would do well to avoid?
I've tried to debunk Hung's dangerous dreams of a Chinese Commonwealth on previous occasions (here and here). But I must admit that the War of 8/8/08 discredits them far more persuasively than my own humble efforts ever could.
* About the only thing I know about confederations is how remarkably unstable they tend to be. Within short order, confederations tend to either dissolve into their component states or centralize into federations instead. Indeed, the lifetime of most confederacies appears to consist of a span of less than ten years.
Given the inequalities of power within Lien's proposed confederation, the smart money would be on future centralization, however. Once Taiwan raises the hopes of Chinese unificationists by joining a Chinese Confederacy it would be well nigh impossible for a Taiwanese president to approach Beijing and say, "Hey, we gave it our best, but this just isn't working out. We'd like to negotiate a peaceful separation."
And so we see that the KMT's Lien Chan advocates little more than a face-saving Taiwanese surrender, followed by progressive involuntary absorption into the Chinese Empire.
** Some background explaining Russian provocations prior to 8/8/08 can be found here and here. Could a similar scenario play out someday in Taiwan? If a breakaway Kinmen Island attempted to reunify with China, would Beijing be all that reluctant in sending PLA "peacekeepers"? In issuing the island's inhabitants Chinese passports? In escalating military attacks on Taiwanese waters or even Taiwan proper from Kinmen, all the while denying those attacks or perhaps insisting that the Kinmenese were the ones responsible?
And lastly, how severe would Chinese attacks have to be before Taiwan was goaded into a military response of its own?
*** Hung quotes Lao Tzu as follows:
"And if a small kingdom humbles itself before a great kingdom, it shall win over that great kingdom," he teaches. "Thus," he concludes, "the one humbles itself in order to attain, the other attains because it is humble. If the great kingdom has no further desire than to bring men together and to nourish them, the small kingdom will have no further desire than to enter the service of the other. But in order that both may have their desire, the great one must learn humility."
Hung's message to Taiwan is that Beijing is generous and humble. And therefore, Taiwan must capitulate.
UPDATE: Oh, THIS just keeps getting better. Russia demands that Georgia be demilitarized.
UPDATE #2: Take this Commonwealth and shove it — President Saakashvili announces his intentions to take Georgia out of the Commonwealth of Independent States, and suggests other former Soviet Republics follow his lead. Hey, I'm sure Russia will be cool with that . . .
UPDATE #3: Why couldn't the Georgians have just let South Ossetia pass into Russian hands, if that was what the local population wanted? Certainly a question I've asked myself lately. Kat from Missouri explains how South Ossetia is sort of the Golan Heights of Georgia.
UPDATE #4: This is a few days old, but still worth the read if you've got the time. Who's Winning in Georgia and Who's Winning in Georgia #2.
UPDATE #5: A piece much more critical of Georgia.
UPDATE #6: And French sympathies are with . . . Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
UPDATE #7: "China’s Communist rulers, while basking in the glow of their Olympics bash, are surely checking the tea leaves for what this might presage about U.S. support for another U.S. ally: the democratic Republic of China on Taiwan. If the U.S. will not stand up to North Korea, will not stand up to Iran, will not stand up to Russia, then where will the U.S. stand up? What are the real rules of this New World Order?" Yeah, that's gonna make me sleep better at night.
UPDATE (Aug 14/08): Where the Kosovo analogy breaks down.
From an editorial in yesterday’s China Post entitled, “Living a simple and virtuous life”:
There is a growing awareness among the Taiwan public that adopting a new lifestyle is necessary to combat inflation and keep the wolf from the door. It is imperative to adjust one’s spending habits.
[…]
All in all, our people must re-embrace the traditional virtues of thrift and diligence.
Funny, but for the last two years, the Post wasn’t sternly exhorting its readers to return to the simple life. No, for at least two years the paper busied itself with rank economic demagoguery, directed at Taiwan’s pro-independence president.
(Food prices too high? Blame Chen Shui-bian!)
But that was then. There’s a new man at the helm now — a KMT man, a pro-communist man. And suddenly, poverty itself has become a virtue!
(What, did they really think nobody was going to notice the about-face?)
You know, a couple weeks ago the China Post lamented the decline of its Chinese-language sister paper, the China Times. Let me go out on a limb here and say that if the Times‘ respect for its readers’ intelligence is anything like its English-language cousin, then perhaps there may have been a perfectly valid reason for that decline.
Saturday's Taipei Times on Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou's refusal to tour flooded areas in southern Taiwan:
This weekend there are dragon boat races around the country, and consistent with his sporting image and past practice during his time as Taipei mayor, Ma was set to take part in a dragon boat contest in Taipei.
But politicians from both sides of the fence have expressed dissatisfaction with Ma, saying that he should be tending to the wounds of the farming industry and other sectors in the south, who are mopping up after seasonally heavy rainfall.
Ma should have known from the outset that canceling his dragon boat jaunt and touring rain-affected areas in the south was the sensible political thing to do. It seems he did not. But now that he has changed his mind and pulled out of the Taipei bash, he hardly looks any better: It is perfectly obvious that he was responding to harsh criticism and not out of a last-minute crisis of conscience.
[…]
If [Ma's] spokesperson is to be believed, the president now believes that touring disaster-affected areas poses a risk to the Constitution, given that the premier is the executive’s traditional link man in delivering onsite relief.
We can only deduce that when presidents Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) toured disaster zones during their tenure that they also came perilously close to damaging the nation’s most important document. [emphasis added]
So, instead of either participating in the races or touring the waterlogged south, Ma is doing neither.
Chiang Ching-kuo, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian all apparently toured Taiwanese disaster areas, but I'll do the Times one better. Remember all the fuss the China Post made about Hu Jintao touring earthquake-stricken Szechuan province?
For all the losses, sufferings and agonies, Beijing can take some comfort from the fact that the earthquake has rallied the country behind the government, which has been constantly criticized by Western countries for human right abuses. Suddenly, such criticisms disappeared, thanks to the earthquake that prompted Premier Wen Jiabao and President Hu Jintao to respond instantly and effectively — an evidence of their care and concern for human rights. [emphasis added]
Guess this would have to mean, by the Post's own reasoning, that PRC President Hu Jintao cares more about human rights in China than Ma Ying-jeou cares about them in Taiwan.
UPDATE (Sep 17/08): President Ma decides to visit areas hard hit by Typhoon Sinlaku.
That's Panić as in Milan Panić (PAN-itch). Wikipedia may help brush away the cobwebs:
Milan Panić or Milan Panic . . . (born 20 December 1929 in Belgrade in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) is an American multimillionaire, a Newport Beach and Pasadena, California-based business tycoon. Panić served as Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1992-1993. [emphasis added]
Now, I'm not going to argue that it's a GOOD thing for dual citizens like Panić to serve as PRIME MINISTERS of foreign countries and still retain their American citizenships. (Nor will I suggest, as per Dr. William Fang, that dual citizens are disloyal opportunists, either.)
What I will say is that the case of Milan Panić illustrates the principle that accepting high political office in a foreign country is not sufficient in and of itself to strip an American of his citizenship. Panić was a naturalized American who became prime-minister of his native Yugoslavia for about six months. When he lost power he returned Stateside — and returned as an American.
It's 2008, and many have probably forgotten Panić's brief but fascinating political career. But in late 1992, the man's name was on everyone's lips. Hard to believe that Diane Lee of Taiwan, who obtained her dual American citizenship in 1991, could have easily ignored the case. Hard to believe — and hard to argue that Diane Lee, Taipei city councillor and Taiwanese legislator, should have been stripped of her American citizenship . . . while the Yugoslavian who became P.M. should keep his.
[An earlier post on this issue can be found here.]
The story in a nutshell: A Taiwanese woman stays in America for several years, and undertakes the lengthy process of becoming a dual U.S. / R.O.C. citizen. Upon returning to Taiwan, she enters political life under the aegis of Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party. Now, she is aware of a Taiwanese law which states that no one possessing dual citizenship may hold a government job (those that do must return ALL their government salaried earnings back to the State!) Despite this, the woman doesn't renounce her new American citizenship legally, and is eventually discovered.
When she IS found out, she's asked to give back her accumulated paychecks to Taiwanese taxpayers. The sum total of which equals . . . $3.29 MILLION U.S. dollars.
Naturally, the woman in question — Diane Lee of the KMT – insists she's the victim of overly-complicated American citizenship law. Lee claims she ASSUMED the U.S. government would strip her of her citizenship when it discovered she had taken a government position and signed an oath to the Taiwanese government.
Meanwhile, her detractors believe she had more cynical motives: THEY believe she deliberately kept her American citizenship secret as an emergency escape hatch in case any . . . unpleasantness . . . with China happened to arise. Three million bucks at stake sure buys a whole lotta ignorance of the law, her opponents argue.
Dr. William Fang of the China Post wrote a column BLAMING AMERICA FIRST for Lee's troubles, which smacked of crude partisanship. Personally, I can see plenty of blame to go around on this one. But since Fang pointed his finger at America, let's start there:
1) Where was American Immigration in all of this?
After assuming her political posts in Taiwan, Diane Lee apparently visited America using a non-immigrant visa in her Taiwanese passport. This was ILLEGAL — dual American citizens like Lee are required to use their American passports when re-entering the country. So why didn't American Immigration officers discover Lee doing this? Granted, INS maybe didn't have its act together before 9-11, but is there any excuse for them now?
Another thing: the form for a U.S. non-immigrant visa asks the applicant about the length of their previous visits to America, as well as previous visas that were issued. (No questions about previous U.S. citizenship, though.)
Anyways, Lee lived in the States for more than six years – so why didn't anyone take the time to pull her file to have a look-see? Unless of course, she lied on her application form . . .
2) Why didn't the KMT vet its candidate more carefully?
Chinese Nationalist Party headquarters, 1994:
Well, Ms. Lee, your credentials certainly SEEM impressive. Just out of curiosity though, it says here you spent more than six years living in America. Did you ever think about, y'know, getting a green card or maybe emigrating there, or something?
REALLY? Dual citizenizenship in 1991? No kiddin'! Now, normally I'd run this by Huang in Legal, but the guy's off on yet another one of his month-long vacations, the lazy bum . . . 😉
But, what the hell – we'll just take your word for it that this won't become an embarrassing problem later down the line!
Readers can decide for themselves the probability of Diane Lee's interview ending on such a note. Onto then, to the character issue. In his column, Dr. Fang says when Lee took her oath of office in Taiwan she became a woman with a "dishonest record" whose oath could not be trusted, and America should have stripped Lee of her citizenship because of her "illicit relationship with another country."
In other words, dishonest oath-breakers having illicit relationships with other countries ( ! ) should be expelled by the U.S. . . . but welcomed with open arms by the KMT.
Recalling Oliver Twist's introduction into a gang of juvenile pickpockets:
Consider yourself – at home.
Consider yourself — one of the family.
We've taken to you – so strong.
It's clear — we're — going to get along . . .
3) Isn't Diane Lee responsible for looking out for numero uno?
Get this: SIX years elapsed between the time Diane Lee received her Green Card and the time she was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1991. That's 2,200 days she could have picked up a pamphlet or two and learned the rights and responsibilities belonging to Americans with dual citizenship. For my previous post on this matter, I found this U.S. publication which EXPLICITLY informs dual citizens on "How to give up your U.S. citizenship."
There're two words for not doing your homework when so much is at stake: willful ignorance. And what's more, Lee then allowed her entire future income to ride on her "assumption" that her U.S. citizenship would be cancelled. Cancelled by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in a little Washington office somewhere. A bureaucrat she'd never met before. A bureaucrat who might easily have lost or mis-processed or just plain FORGOTTEN about her file.
But oh well, la-de-da. Why should Lee pick up a phone to check up on the nice man? It's only money, after all.
I'll confess the Diane Lee dual citizenship issue didn't really interest me much when I first read about it. Must have scanned it too quickly, I guess:
The [Taiwanese] legislature yesterday approved two proposals to probe the nationality of all lawmakers and government officials, following recent queries by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) over Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Diane Lee's (李慶安) US citizenship status.
[. . .]
The two initiatives were proposed in March after the Chinese-language Next Magazine accused Lee of having US citizenship, a claim that she denied.
Article 20 of the Nationality Act (國籍法) prohibits anyone with foreign citizenship from holding a government position [in Taiwan].
Any lawmaker or government official found to have dual citizenship would be relieved of his or her job and forced to return his or her salary.
Lee has said she obtained permanent residency in the US in 1985 and citizenship in 1991, but gave up her US citizenship after becoming a public official.
She has also cited Section 349(A)(4) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, saying that she had lost her citizenship when she began to serve as a public official and took an oath of allegiance in relation to the job.
If Lee were found to be a US citizen, she would be required to give back all the salary she received as a Taipei City councilor between 1994 and 1998 and as a legislator since 1998, an amount estimated to be NT$100 million (US$3.29 million).
She'd have to give back $3.29 million? Whew, now THAT'S a chunka change. Since Lee cites Section 349(A)(4) in her defense, it might shed some light to head to the U.S. State Department website (with pertinent sections underlined by myself):
POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
- obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
- taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
- entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
- accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
- formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
- formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
- conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
Lee was indeed subject to a loss of American citizenship because she was a Taiwanese national who accepted government employment in Taiwan, not to mention that she had to take an oath of allegiance for her position. However, none of that was sufficient: she also had to display an intention to relinquish her U.S. citizenship. The State Department site goes on to discuss this (again, relevant lines underlined by me):
DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS INAPPLICABLE
The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:
- formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
- serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States;
- takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
- is convicted of treason; or
- performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)
Cases in categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's intent toward U.S. citizenship.
Ye gods! First of all, what exactly is a "policy level position"? Non-lawyer types like us can argue about what that means until the cows come home, but in the final analysis, it means whatever the courts have decided it means. Diane Lee apparently served as a Taipei city councillor from 1994 and 1998 — would the courts assume THAT constituted a "policy level position"?
A dual citizen's case should also be "developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's intent toward U.S. citizenship." Developed carefully? What does that actually mean, in practice? I had to go to a website belonging to a legal firm specializing in immigration law to find out:
Working for the government of a foreign country
Generally, acceptance of only high political posts in a foreign government, along with a purposeful renunciation of US citizenship, will result in the loss of US citizenship as a result of employment in a foreign country. Also, if the oath involved is simply that the person will obey the laws of a foreign country, that is not sufficient as evidence of renunciation. [emphasis added]
High political post? National legislator — maybe; Taipei city councillor — iffy. Furthermore, I couldn't find a copy of the oath Lee was required to take, but if all it asked was for her to promise to obey the laws of Taiwan, then that wouldn't be adequate proof of her intent to relinquish her American citizenship. At any rate, purposeful renunciation on the part of Lee was glaringly missing. Lady could have spared herself a whole HEAP of trouble if she had bothered to show up at the American Institute in Taiwan one day to sign a questionaire renouncing her citizenship. That would have been iron-clad proof of her intent.
As things stand now, well, with her job and over three million dollars at stake, it's kind of a no-brainer for her to insist her citizenship intentions were pure – fourteen years ago.
Dr. Willliam Fang defended Lee in his Thursday column in the China Post:
The KMT lawmaker maintains that since she has been sworn to be loyal to the Republic of China (ROC) as its legislator, she has automatically, according to her knowledge, lost her U.S. citizenship.
Besides, she stresses that she has for a long time been using a non-immigrant visa [using her Taiwanese passport] for entry into the United States, a fact indicating that she no longer has a desire to become a U.S. citizen.
Uh, it maybe wasn't a good idea to mention that. I don't want to beat up on the woman here, but a Q&A from the visa section of the U.S. State Department website had this to say:
I have dual citizenship. Which passport should I use to travel to the United States?
All U.S. citizens, even dual citizens/nationals, must enter and depart the United States using his/her U.S. passport.
If Diane Lee entered the U.S. using her Taiwanese passport while still a dual American citizen, she was in violation of U.S. immigration law. From what I gather (though I could be wrong), the penalty for that is a small fine.
Fang argues that U.S. immigration law is complicated and sometimes traps innocent people. No argument from me there. But on the other hand, it only took me a couple hours to get myself up to speed on the subject of dual citizenship — and it's not MY neck on the line. Shouldn't someone who DOES have dual citizenship take the initiative to do some of this legwork themselves? Please don't tell me Lee didn't receive information packets on this stuff. This U.S. publication for people contemplating duel citizenship explicitly includes information on "How to give up your U.S. citizenship." The info isn't exactly hidden legal arcana.
(BTW, the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan website seems to have deleted the educational information regarding the current legislators. So — does anyone know if Diane Lee received legal schooling? 'Cause it'd be pretty unforgivable if someone trained as a lawyer didn't bother to look into all of this beforehand.)
Fang then tries to shift the blame for Lee's problems onto the U.S. government:
As common sense dictates, the U.S. government, upon learning that Diane Lee has been sworn in as a member of the ROC Parliament, should have taken the initiative in canceling her citizenship as a suitable penalty to her illicit relationship with another country . . .
Maybe, but then the law and common sense don't always meet eye-to-eye — and sometimes, what seems to be common sense to a Taiwanese may not be so obvious to an American. For example, I was surprised to learn from the Wikipedia entry on Dual Citizenship that Arnold Schwartzenegger holds Austrian/American citizenship while performing his duties as governor of California. Yet the Austrians haven't cancelled HIS citizenship. Nor did the Czech government cancel Madelaine Albright's citizenship when she served under the Clinton administration.
Certainly, if we were talking about hostile countries, the discussion would be different. But Taiwan is on good terms with America. So why should the U.S. treat Diane Lee any worse than European countries treated Albright or Arnie?
Postscript: Here's an interesting piece on the history of dual citizenship, and the practical problems it posed to nation-states in the 19th Century. Don't think I'm as strong an advocate of dual citizenship as the author is, but the background's good.
UPDATE (Jun 3/08): More thoughts here.
UPDATE #2: The related case of Milan Panic, the American who became prime-minister of Yugoslavia in 1992.