2024年《國籍法》修正之立法過程與內容分析

Abstract

本論文以政策制定過程與公共政策合法化過程為理論框架，系統性分析2024年《國籍法》修正的立法過程與內容。研究聚焦於兩項核心議題：其一為加強延攬外國高級專業人才歸化，將居留年限由5年縮短為2年；其二為保障兒童取得國籍權利，允許社會福利機關代為申請無國籍兒童歸化。 本研究採用內容分析法，蒐集與分析官方修法文件、立法院審議紀錄、新聞與評論報導、學術論述與政策報告，以及社群輿論與民意調查資料，藉由文本的系統編碼與主題分類，重構修法議題的問題框架、論述模式與權力互動關係。理論上，本文結合政策階段模型、Kingdon多源流框架與Van Horn等人所提出的合法化策略類型學，說明修法從議程設定、政策形成、決策到合法化的動態過程，並分析行政部門、立法部門與民間倡議聯盟在不同階段所採取的包容性、排除性與說服性策略，以及行政立法互動在制度化與政黨化之間的運作樣態。研究發現，此次修法代表我國國籍制度的典範轉移，從單純的身分規範轉向兼顧全球人才競爭與人權保障的戰略性制度突破。在人才政策面向，修法回應了嚴峻的人才外流與產業缺工雙重危機，透過縮短歸化年限等方式，強化國家經濟競爭力；在兒童權利面向，則解決了非本國籍無依兒少因身分不明而無法享有醫療、教育等基本權益的人道困境，建構了完整的保護機制。 本研究運用Kingdon多源流框架驗證了政策視窗開啟的動態機制，發現修法動力源於三股力量的交匯：在「問題流」方面，人才淨流出加劇、半導體產業嚴重缺工，以及非本國籍無依兒少人數攀升等三大危機同步凸顯；在「政策流」方面，行政部門透過系統性國際比較進行選擇性政策學習；在「政治流」方面，朝野政黨基於國家發展與人權價值達成高度共識。 同時，應用Van Horn等人的合法化策略類型學分析顯示，政策制定者採取了複合式的策略運用：以跨部會協商的「包容性策略」整合行政資源，以強調國家利益與人權價值的「說服性策略」爭取社會支持，並透過設定專業門檻的「排除性策略」化解寬鬆國籍的疑慮。研究結論指出，此次修法展現了行政立法互動的高度制度化，並透過倡議聯盟的價值調解與本土化的制度創新，成功在開放與安全、效率與公平間取得動態平衡，具重要的理論參考與政策實踐意義。

This thesis employs the policy-making process and public policy legitimization as theoretical frameworks to systematically analyze the legislative process and content of the 2024 amendment to the Nationality Act. The research focuses on two core issues: first, strengthening the recruitment of foreign high-level professionals for naturalization by reducing the residency requirement from five years to two years; and second, safeguarding children's right to acquire nationality by allowing social welfare agencies to apply for naturalization on behalf of stateless children. This study adopts content analysis, collecting and examining official amendment documents, Legislative Yuan deliberation records, news and commentary reports, academic discussions and policy papers, as well as social media discourse and public opinion survey data, in order to reconstruct the problem framing, discursive patterns, and power relations surrounding the amendment through systematic coding and thematic classification of texts. Theoretically, the thesis integrates the policy stage model, Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework, and the typology of legitimization strategies proposed by Van Horn et al. to explicate the dynamic process through which the amendment evolved from agenda setting, policy formulation, and decision-making to legitimization, and to analyze the inclusive, exclusive, and persuasive strategies adopted by administrative agencies, the legislature, and civil advocacy coalitions at different stages, as well as the patterns of executive–legislative interaction between institutionalization and party politics. The findings indicate that this amendment represents a paradigmatic shift in Taiwan's nationality regime, moving from a purely status-regulating framework toward a strategic institutional breakthrough that simultaneously addresses global talent competition and human rights protection. In terms of talent policy, the amendment responds to the dual crises of severe brain drain and labor shortages across industries by measures such as shortening the required years of residence for naturalization, thereby strengthening national economic competitiveness; in terms of children's rights, it resolves the humanitarian predicament in which non-citizen unaccompanied minors, due to indeterminate status, were unable to enjoy basic rights such as healthcare and education, and establishes a comprehensive protection mechanism. This study utilizes Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework to verify the dynamic mechanism of policy window opening, finding that the momentum for amendment originates from the convergence of three streams: in the "problem stream," intensified net talent outflow, severe labor shortages in the semiconductor industry, and rising numbers of non-citizen unaccompanied minors constitute three major crises highlighted simultaneously; in the "policy stream," administrative agencies engage in selective policy learning through systematic international comparison; in the "politics stream," ruling and opposition parties achieve high consensus based on national development and human rights values. Simultaneously, applying Van Horn et al.'s typology of legitimization strategies reveals that policymakers employed composite strategy: "inclusive strategies" through cross-ministerial negotiation to integrate administrative resources, "persuasive strategies" emphasizing national interests and human rights values to secure social support, and "exclusive strategies" through establishing professional thresholds to address concerns about lax nationality policies. The research conclusion indicates that this amendment demonstrates a high degree of institutionalization in executive–legislative interaction, and through the value mediation of advocacy coalitions and localized institutional innovation, successfully achieves dynamic equilibrium between openness and security, as well as efficiency and fairness, possessing significant theoretical reference and policy practice implications.