Taipei – The Immigration Agency in Taiwan has revoked the residence permits of several mainland Chinese individuals, igniting a debate over national security and social stability. The decision, announced March 12, 2025, includes the high-profile case of a mainland internet celebrity known as “yaya in Taiwan,” whose permit, obtained thru relative residency, was revoked. Authorities cited concerns that these individuals pose a risk to Taiwan’s security and social order, marking a rare instance of such action in recent years.

The Immigration Department stated that Ms. Liu, known online as “Asia and Asia in Taiwan,” made remarks on social media that were interpreted as “delaying reunification.” According to the agency,these remarks violated the “Regulations on the Long-term Residence or Settlement Permit for People in Mainland China in Taiwan.” the department further asserted that Ms. Liu’s actions “endanger national security or social stability,” leading to a five-year ban on applying for residency through relative status.

This action underscores the delicate balance Taiwan navigates between cross-strait relations and domestic security. The regulations cited by the Immigration Department provide a legal framework for assessing and addressing potential threats posed by individuals from mainland China residing in Taiwan.

Another case involves a mainland woman surnamed Xu from central Taiwan. Ms. Xu, who had been granted a long-term residence permit, was denied settlement in Taiwan by the Ministry of the interior. Consequently, her long-term residence permit was also revoked, and she was ordered to leave the country.

Ms. Xu challenged this decision through an administrative lawsuit,arguing that her actions did not endanger social stability. She contended that her requests for compensation from her employer for occupational injuries, amounting to NT$8 million, and her demand for NT$5 million from her husband before agreeing to a divorce, were legitimate exercises of her rights. She also argued that applying for low-income subsidies was not a threat to social stability.

The Ministry of the Interior countered that the Miaoli County Special Service Team of the Central District affairs Brigade of the Immigration Bureau discovered that Ms. Xu had a daughter in mainland China. They also cited her frequent travels between Taiwan and the mainland, strained relationships with her husband’s family, and her stated intention to apply for low-income household and disability certificates after obtaining her national identification card as reasons for concern.

The Taipei Higher Administrative Court, in January 2025, upheld the Ministry of the Interior’s decision. The court acknowledged that while Ms. Xu had been allowed to reside in Taiwan for an extended period, her application for settlement raised concerns due to her deceased husband, unstable employment, lack of autonomous income, and perceived emotional instability. the court noted that she would frequently contact emergency services or the police over minor grievances.

Moreover,the court found that Ms. Xu maintained strong ties to mainland China, regularly sending money to her family. The court also highlighted her plans to apply for social welfare programs, which could possibly burden the social system. Based on these factors, the court ruled against Ms. Xu, a decision she can appeal.

The court’s judgment emphasized the government’s policy of “leniency in life and strict identity” for mainland spouses entering Taiwan. While acknowledging the ambiguity of terms like “national security” and “social stability,” the court maintained that their meaning could be understood within the context of legislative intent and the overall legal framework.

The judgment further stated that the relevant regulations are designed to protect the security and welfare of the people in Taiwan and align with the legislative goals of cross-strait relations.The court concluded that these regulations are necessary to maintain social order and promote public interests, and thus do not violate the constitution.

These cases are not isolated incidents. In 2019,Li Yi,a Chinese scholar known for advocating the use of force to unify Taiwan,was invited to give a speech in Taiwan. Despite entering the country on a tourist visa in April of that year,the Immigration Department,in consultation with the Mainland Affairs Council,revoked his entry permit and restricted his departure,citing his past statements as a threat to national security and social stability.

More recently, in early 2024, former CCTV reporter Wang Zhian faced similar consequences after making disparaging remarks about disabilities on the talk show “He Long Night Show.” The Immigration department asserted that his stated purpose for visiting Taiwan was inconsistent with his actual activities, leading to the revocation of his entry permit and a five-year ban on visiting Taiwan.

Legal Framework and Implications

These cases underscore the complexities of managing cross-strait relations while safeguarding national security and social stability. Taiwan’s Immigration Agency operates under a legal framework that grants it the authority to revoke residence permits and deny entry to individuals deemed to pose a threat. The interpretation and application of these regulations, however, remain subject to scrutiny and debate.

Taiwan’s tightrope Walk: National security vs. Cross-Strait Relations

Taiwan’s recent revocation of residence permits for mainland Chinese individuals highlights a delicate balancing act between fostering cross-strait relations and safeguarding national security. This isn’t just about a few isolated cases; it’s a complex issue with far-reaching implications.

To understand the complexities, we spoke with Dr. Chen, an expert in cross-strait relations, to provide context and analysis.

Interviewer: Dr. Chen, thank you for joining us today. These recent actions by the Taiwanese government, revoking residency permits and denying entry to mainland Chinese citizens, have raised meaningful international attention. Can you provide some context for our readers regarding the legal framework under which these decisions are made?

Dr. Chen: Certainly. The core issue revolves around Taiwan’s attempt to balance its relationship with mainland China while maintaining its own sovereignty and security. The cases involving the revocation of residence permits, highlighted by the instances of “Yaya in Taiwan” and Ms. Xu, rest upon the “Regulations on the Long-term Residence or Settlement Permit for People in Mainland China in Taiwan.” This legislation provides the Immigration Agency with the authority to deny or revoke permits based on assessments of potential threats to national security or social stability. Understanding the legal framework requires appreciating the inherent ambiguity in terms like “national security” and “social stability.” The government must meticulously interpret these broadly defined terms to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.

Interviewer: The cases highlighted seem to involve a broad range of alleged threats. From social media posts deemed to “delay reunification” to financial concerns and strained family relationships, the criteria seem subjective. How can the public reconcile the seemingly wide net of these criteria?

Dr. Chen: You raise a crucial point. The case variations illustrate the challenges inherent in applying these regulations. “Yaya in taiwan’s” case exemplifies the scrutiny applied to individuals with significant online influence, particularly concerning potential disinformation campaigns. In Ms. Xu’s case, the concerns whent beyond mere financial difficulties; the court considered her frequent contact with emergency services, strained family dynamics, and frequent cross-strait travel, all of which cumulatively contributed to concerns about her suitability for long-term residency. This cumulative assessment, focusing not simply on individual actions but on the overall picture, is a key component of the risk appraisal. The challenge lies in establishing clear, objective criteria that transparently define potentially threatening behaviors without compromising individual rights.

Interviewer: Several cases cited, such as that of Li Yi and Wang Zhian, involved individuals with public profiles who expressed controversial views. What role does public speech play in these decisions?

Dr. Chen: Public speech, especially when it ventures into areas directly impacting cross-strait relations or potentially incites social unrest, is a significant factor. These considerations fall under the broader umbrella of national security. Individuals advocating for the use of force to unify Taiwan, like Li Yi, are viewed as posing a potentially destabilizing influence. Similarly, inflammatory rhetoric targeting specific groups, as seen in the Wang Zhian case, can be interpreted as harmful and disruptive to social harmony. Though, a balance must be struck between restricting speech that could instigate violence or significant social unrest while upholding freedom of expression. Taiwan’s ongoing struggle to achieve this delicate balance is a complex societal challenge.

Interviewer: What are the broader implications of these policies for cross-strait relations?

Dr. Chen: These policies undeniably impact cross-strait relations. While intended to protect Taiwan’s security interests, they could be perceived by some in mainland China as hostile or discriminatory. This creates further tension in an already sensitive relationship. Obvious and consistent application of these regulations, supplemented by rigorous judicial review, are essential to mitigate the risk of escalation. This requires careful consideration of both the legal and diplomatic implications of such measures. Improved communication and engagement with mainland counterparts could help alleviate some of these concerns.

Interviewer: Looking forward, what recommendations do you have for Taiwan to address these complexities and build a more enduring approach?

Dr. Chen: Several key improvements could be beneficial:

• Clarify the legal standards: Precise definitions of “national security” and “social stability” within the context of these regulations are necessary for clearer, more predictable application.
• Enhance openness and due process: Providing greater details and transparency around the decision-making process can enhance public trust and address concerns about fairness.Strengthening the appeal process and providing avenues for redress is also crucial.
• Strengthen international cooperation: Engagement with other nations facing similar challenges could create opportunities for sharing best practices and learning from comparative experiences.
• Invest in cross-cultural understanding: fostering greater cultural understanding can definitely help diffuse potential misunderstandings that may trigger misinterpretations of intent or actions.

Interviewer