US to accept ‘Taiwan’ on entry forms? Really?

A report on Taipei Times (TT) informs us that the US government is changing it's custom policy to "accept ‘Taiwan’ on entry forms" for Taiwanese citizens entering the United States.

The case involves an effort to correct a naming issue on the entry forms. It was raised by the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) and pushed forward by Democrat House Representative, Howard Berman, to "allow Taiwanese to list Taiwan as their country" -- or so written by the TT report :

The US Department of Homeland Security has changed its policy and will now allow Taiwanese citizens entering the US to list Taiwan as their country of citizenship rather than China (Taiwan).

The TT report continues:

Berman protested to US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano last month after he discovered that Taiwanese were required to write “China (Taiwan)” on their Form I-94 entry document and in the Global Entry Program

These descriptions doesn't sound right, especially the words I mark red. For one thing, I've been entering the US, using the I-94 and filling up other entry forms so many times in the past. But I've never been asked to write "China(Taiwan)" as my country on any of my entry document.

I asked some Taiwanese, and got the same thing: they've never heard of, or were asked to follow, such a "requirement" when entering the USA. They have been using the term "Taiwan" like I did on all their entry forms for decades without being questioned.

It's more likely that the US government never has such a policy to force Taiwanese citizens to write "China(Taiwan)" in order to get admission.

But then why did Berman ever bother to seek the solution to a problem that never exists ?

Read what Berman actually said in his own news release ,

Many Taiwanese citizens travel across our borders every day. These individuals should not be required to sign their name under an inaccurate statement in an official government document.

In his letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano --- the letter that pushes this issue forward, Berman wrote:

It has recently come to my attention that when Taiwanese citizens enter the United States, the I-94 documents they are issued by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) lists their country of citizenship as “China (Taiwan).” Similarly, in the application process for CBP’s Global Entry Program, the CBP system refers to Taiwan as “Taiwan, Province of China.”

There's no where in either his blog or letter did he ever write something like Taiwanese were required to write “China (Taiwan)”.

The form I-94 is a form denoting the Arrival-Departure Record of particular foreigners used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and it must be completed at the time of entry to the United States by foreign citizens that are being admitted into the United States in a nonimmigrant visa status. --- wiki

As far as I know, people could receive the I-94 in two ways:

1. Receiving it as a blank form that you need to fill up by yourself before you enter the USA. Most likely for people who are not in the USA to apply for entry;

2. Receiving it as a form that already has your personal information pre-filled. It is issued to people who are in the USA with a non-immigrant status (like, students) and want to leave the country for a short period. They have to apply for re-entry permission before they leave the USA. That's when the I-94 is issued to them as a pre-filled form.

What the FAPA questioned, and the one Berman pushed, is obviously  the case 2, where the I-94 is issued by the US government with your info pre-printed, including the Country of Citizenship.

For some reason, the US government keeps messing it up by printing "China(Taiwan)" on the I-94 of Taiwanese non-immigrants who want to go out and re-enter the USA, as shown by a sample on Berman's website:

Fig.1. A pre-filled I-94 form, issued as a re-entry permit by the US to Taiwanese who were in the US and intend to leave the US for a short time. Source: Rep. Berman's news release. 

It could be due to laziness, lack of knowledge or communication, carelessness, or some other factors. By no means is that an indication that the USA had a policy to "require Taiwanese to write 'China(Taiwan)' as their country" as the TT article described.

A simple testimony to that fact is that some Taiwanese non-immigrants simply returned the wrong pre-filled I-94 by noting that the Country of Citizenship is wrong. They got a new I-94 with "Taiwan" on it. They couldn't have done so if there was a requirement in the policy.

Another testimony is that, in case 1 where Taiwanese fill up their info by themselves, they have been allowed to enter 'Taiwan' since long time ago. 

There's no doubt that the effort of FAPA and Rep. Berman, as well as the response from the Homeland Security is a victory. But it's more like a victory to get the US government to clarify the inconsistency in their own naming system. It's not a victory of getting the US to have a policy change in favor of Taiwan like the TT article portrays. A misleading with a twist of facts should never have happened in such a high quality news agency. 

民主化是無止境的進程

最近綠營有一些關於『台灣是不是民主國家』的討論，內容相當有意義 【1】。

不過，在我看來，『民主』這東西，用『過程』來看，可能比用『狀態』來看要恰當。

用『狀態』來看就是：我們是不是個民主國家；
用『過程』來看就是：我們是不是個越來越民主的國家；

畢竟追求民主是一個不斷前進，而且通常必須歷經很長時間的過程。美國開國時的憲法立下了人生而平等的理想，但建國後很長一段時間，在很多州裡，女人跟黑人都沒有投票權。即使美國政府在 1870 年通過了憲法修正案，嚴格禁止各州政府以膚色為投票資格，但是甚至到了 1950 ～60 年代，有的州還存在著很嚴重的種族隔離與歧視的問題。不但民間有嚴重歧視，連地方政府與民意機關都還可以完全無視憲法的存在，公開的、正式的以立法或行政命令確保黑人必須被歧視。

換言之，美國的民主，是花了將近 200 年才慢慢做到現在這個樣子的。即使在現在這個時代，司法不公、檢方造假（有意或無意）害無辜被告被處死、警察圍毆無自衛能力的黑人致死的消息也時有所聞。

我們不妨把現在擺一邊，光看 1950 年代的美國，到底是不是民主國家？就看你『民主國家』的標準要從哪裡切。如果以整個國家整體的民主進程，或者只看白人不看黑人，也許我們可以說 1950 年的美國可以是民主的。但如果以『人權』，尤其是黑人不被當人看的角度，那1950 年的美國應該是不夠格的。

在世界各地，很多國家人民在爭取民主，其中有不少是必須付出相當慘重的生命代價的。我記得看過經濟學人的一篇文章講伊拉克某某地區的選舉，說該次選舉有十幾個候選人被暗殺，比上次進步很多。我嚇了一跳，暗殺十幾個候選人還能叫進步？原來上次選舉被暗殺的是『幾十個』。

這只是一些例子。如果我們去問國際人士，尤其是那些知曉為民主付出慘重生命代價的國家的國際人士，台灣是不是一個民主國家，恐怕很少人會回答說『不是』。

但，從另外一個角度看，我們在討論『台灣是不是一個民主國家』時，所提出的一些『台灣還不夠格』的論點，譬如說司法不公、賄選氾濫等，卻又忠實地反應台灣確實在很多方面離期望中的民主標準還有相當的距離。

所以，『台灣是不是一個民主國家』這個問題的答案，恐怕就跟 1950 年的美國一樣，就看你要從哪個條件切起。

但這樣問題就來了 -- 誰有權決定從哪裡切才對？

這不但每個人有各自的看法，而且，因為任何一個國家恐怕都可以找到『不民主』的部分，因此對有心人來說，任何國家都可以被切成『不民主』。尤其如果你剛好不幸是這個『不民主』的受害者 （以美國為例，如果你是被檢察官誣陷致死的受害者），則更是如此。

所以，『台灣是不是一個民主國家』這個針對『絕對狀態』的問法，恐怕是很難得到有共識的客觀答案的。

因此，如果真的要問台灣的民主狀況，不妨針對民主進程，也就是『民主化的程度』來問：台灣是不是越來越民主? 台灣民主化的程度到底有多少？

我想這才是比較實際而且客觀的問法。

事實上，確實有不少衡量一個國家『民主化程度』的指標存在。不過這個超出本文範圍，以後有空再談。

說到這裡，順便談到幾個聯想：

1. 為什麼我之前強調中國民主化是不可能的？看看世界各國民主化的過程，再拿來跟中國比較文化與人口，我相信中國根本不可能民主化。或者中國如果有民主化，恐怕得再等個上千年。台灣人去替別的國家推那種根本不可能達到的東西，只有白白浪費生命而已 【2】；

2. 雖說民主化是『進程』，但世界上的國家也有從民主化的過程中，往後倒退變成獨裁國家的。所以沒有人保證爭取民主化的過程一定是往前走的；

3. 因為『民主化』是一個進程而非『狀態』，而且還有可能『倒退嚕』，所以不管現在的民主化的程度，我們都必須不斷地努力讓台灣往前更民主化一些。這個看法有助於讓我們了解：追求民主是一段永無止境的過程，不是說用幾個事先設定的標準把台灣歸類為民主國家這樣就可以休息了。這有點像是說：『建國』是一個不斷努力的過程，而不是只要名義上獨立了，建國就完成了。

4. 因為民主化不是一個絕對值，所以一個大致上民主化的國家，也有可能在某種情況下，對該國自己國民或是對他國做出不民主的事情。所以，不能以為一個國家只要被歸類為民主，其所言所行都將百分之百符合正義的標準。

5. 也許這樣的觀察與思考，可以幫助我們跳出『二分法』的傳統思維方式。『二分法』將複雜的人類行為簡化成黑白兩面，思考、觀點、立場、態度，都因為這樣的簡化而僵化，不但脫離現實，而且讓弱勢者更容易被權威勢力所操控。因此，試著從動態的、不斷演化的角度去看民主（或其他任何人事物），避免把整個國家單純地歸類為民主或不民主，也許有助於使我們的思維突破傳統的僵化，讓我們更貼近現實。



【1】臺灣是民主國家嗎？
http://blackrain.skycity.cc/2012/07/05/13278.html
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/i_love_taiwan/fC3Dg8effYA
http://denghongsblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-post.html

【2】外國的政治社會不是民進黨的責任
http://echotaiwan.blogspot.com/2012/06/blog-post.html