例外國家下的移民家庭：地緣政治下兩岸家庭的法制發展及應對策略（1945-2025）

Abstract

家庭法不僅僅是身分法。入出境管制、移民、勞動、社會福利等法制，甚至是憲法與共同體認同，亦是形塑家庭想像與生活的廣義家庭法。本研究以兩岸家庭法為研究對象，指出中共在中華民國法秩序中的例外性，如何形塑了兩岸家庭法及身處其中的移民家庭。 為了分析二戰以來兩岸家庭的法制發展，以及法律在社會中的實踐面貌，本研究透過法律史與深度訪談的雙重實證研究方法，一方面以多種史料與大量政府檔案重建兩岸家庭法的法制發展，探究政治如何形塑兩岸家庭法，以及法律如何影響家庭生活。另一方面，本研究以歷史與深度訪談分析兩岸家庭如何「在地緣政治與法律陰影下構思策略（strategizing in the shadow of geopolitics and law）」，以呈現人們多樣的應對策略與能動性。 本研究首先「歷史化（historicize）」兩岸家庭法，捕捉到從禁止接觸時期到兩岸交流時期、從外省族群到陸配族群、從男性到女性之三大結構與焦點轉變。在禁止聯繫時期，國共內戰下的國民黨政府頒布入出境管理法，嚴格管制臺灣的人員進出，並透過戒嚴法制嚴禁兩岸人民的任何接觸。戒嚴法制以及全球冷戰脈絡下的區域共產鐵幕，使得外省族群與其留在中國的家人，經歷了近四十年的家庭分離。在國民黨的官方論述中，臺灣並非中華民國政府或外省族群的長期住所，而是內戰狀態下「反攻大陸」的復興基地。國民黨政府將「戰時／暫時流寓」心態與宣稱下的自我定位，投射於家庭法法制中。例如，政府與法院以管轄問題，禁止許多來臺的外省籍男性在臺灣提起與分隔兩地的中國妻子的離婚訴訟。保障中國妻子並避免重婚是另一個禁止離婚的重要理由。隻身在臺的榮民遺產，則由退輔會「暫時」保管，以期待在「反攻大陸」成功的未來歸還予中國繼承人。 在1970年代全球冷戰局勢轉向趨緩，且中國於1979年進入改革開放時代的趨勢下，臺灣政府終於開放探親並建立對中移民政策。在共同體範圍縮小、臺灣地區人民變成僅剩之真正國民的政治現實下，當外省族群在中國與臺灣的兩個家庭之間產生了利害衝突時，「臺灣家庭優先」成為重要的政策與立法原則，如大陸地區繼承人之繼承權受到嚴格限制，並取代了前一時期保障中國家庭的傾向。 在兩岸交流時期，兩岸家庭法的核心議題轉變為移民政策，主角轉變為來自中國的女性婚姻移民。1992年通過的兩岸關係條例正式建立了臺灣對中移民政策與法制。然而，中華民國法制下的臺灣地位問題並未消失。政府與立法者技術性地以戶籍替代國籍，建構出模糊性公民身分。此種作法避開了臺灣地位問題，以及大陸地區人民是否具有中華民國國籍的政治問題。在多樣的歷史時空與多重政治的結構中，陸配在移民政策、工作權與社會福利各種議題中，於「自己人／本國人」、「外人／外國」人與「敵人／敵國外國人」等不連續的光譜上處於不同位置，從而具有「不是外國人，亦非自己人」之既模糊又衝突的法律地位。陸配移民政策則擺盪在特殊化與正常化之間。居留配額制度的建立及其數額的增加，象徵著對中移民政策從緊縮到正常化的過程。在國安議題中，陸配居於比外人更為邊緣的「敵人」地位。透過政府檔案，本研究指出國家的理想家庭圖像是偵測國安風險的重要判準，例如調查局以夫妻是否同居作為判斷國安風險的標準之一。 兩岸家庭法也形塑了兩岸家庭中人們的權利、地位與談判籌碼。在禁止聯繫時期，外省族群受到戒嚴法制的強力壓制，僅能以重婚方式在臺灣另組家庭。與中國家人共同生活的基本權利被予以剝奪。在兩岸交流時期，防範中國目的下的特殊法規使陸配在國家機關、家庭與職場等場域中居於弱勢地位，從而減損其談判籌碼。例如，大陸地區人民購入房屋的事前許可制度，使陸配在夫妻談判過程中被迫選擇將房屋登記為臺灣配偶所有。即便陸配係頭期款的實際出資者，也面臨了無法獲得婚姻財產的風險。在管制陸資以及服公職權的法律陰影下，陸配則必須借用臺灣配偶的名義設立營業登記，甚或在大學中成為「長期的臨時人員」，被迫居於邊緣的勞工地位。再者，法律增加了陸配家庭的經濟負擔。早期針對工作權的限制，使陸配必須投身於非正式經濟，欠缺勞工相關法律保障。近來兩岸同婚必須先行至第三國登記結婚的要求，則對於經濟不利者造成經濟負擔。簡言之，在防範中國的地緣政治與法律陰影下，陸配不但適用其他婚姻移民所無的瑣碎且複雜的特殊法規，更面臨談判籌碼遭到減損的困境。 但是，人們與其說是默默承受法律限制的接受者，不如說是積極了解法體制結構、觀察縫隙並構思應對策略的行動者。在禁止接觸時期，當政府以核心家庭作為允許入境之親屬範圍標準時，外省族群的中國家人（如叔姪、婚外對象）以「虛構眷屬關係」之策略成功入境臺灣。當全球冷戰趨緩，然臺灣政府重申三不政策、禁止接觸之際，外省族群觀察到冷戰的區域性時間差，透過香港等第三國，以偽造出境目的及目的地之方式，在全球展開家庭團聚行動。在兩岸交流時期，為因應無法登記為所有權人的困境，陸配以預告登記的法律工具積極保障其婚姻財產。針對婚姻移民面談，陸配以網路社群互助之方式摸索移民制度、迎合政府所期待之理想家庭圖像，並在社群之間傳承移民機關的應對之道。必須注意的是，人們的策略並不外於法體制。人們時常必須在既有的法律框架之內構思策略。換言之，人們既繞過了法律，其策略又被法律加以形塑。法律是難以徹底繞過的鉅觀結構。 兩岸家庭法是兩波中國移民在臺灣如何面臨冷戰、地緣政治、威權統治、性別政治、族群政治之多層政治與強大法律陰影的故事。從透過入出境管理法視外省族群為國內遷移，到透過公民身分與移民政策實質上視陸配為跨國遷移，兩岸家庭法深刻地反映了兩岸關係的轉變。此外，儘管地緣政治與法律陰影十分強大，人們仍然能夠在法體制之中，以個人、朋友、家族與社群的多種尺度進行抵抗，無論是私下懷有異議之聲、在法體制中繞開法律、與國家或父系家庭協商，甚或公開挑戰並從事法律動員。藉由法實證研究，本研究希冀讓移民家庭的故事能夠為更多人所知悉，並在當今兩岸關係緊張之際，及時地讓學界了解兩岸家庭的歷史、法律經驗與困境。

Family law is not merely status law. Legal regimes governing entry and exit controls, immigration, labor, and social welfare—and even the constitution and identity—constitute family law in a broader sense, shaping both the imagination and reality of family life. Focusing on cross-strait family law involving Taiwanese and Chinese, this study demonstrates how the exceptionality of the People's Republic of China (PRC) within the legal order of the Republic of China (ROC) has shaped both cross-strait family law and the migrant families situated within it. To analyze the legal development of cross-strait families since World War II and the practice of law in society, this study adopts a dual empirical research method combining legal history and in-depth interviews. On one hand, it reconstructs the legal development of cross-strait family law using a variety of historical materials and plenty of government archives, exploring how politics has shaped cross-strait family law and how the law has affected family life. On the other hand, this study utilizes history and in-depth interviews to analyze how cross-strait families "strategize in the shadow of geopolitics and law," thereby shedding light on people’s diverse coping strategies and agency. This study first "historicizes" cross-strait family law, capturing three structural and focal shifts: from the period of prohibited contact to the period of cross-strait exchanges; from the Waishengren (Mainlander) to the mainland spouse; and from males to females. During the period of prohibited contact, the Kuomintang (KMT) government, amidst the Chinese Civil War, promulgated entry and exit control laws to strictly regulate the movement of people in and out of Taiwan, while banning any contact between people across the strait under martial law. The martial law regime subjected Waishengren and their families left behind in China to nearly forty years of family separation. In the KMT’s propaganda, Taiwan was not a permanent home for the ROC government or the Waishengren, but rather a bastion for "rertaking the mainland" during a state of civil war. The KMT government projected this self-positioning—characterized by a "wartime/temporary sojourner" mentality and claim—onto the family law regime. For instance, based on jurisdictional issues, the government and courts barred many Waishengren men who had come to Taiwan from filing for divorce against their wives in China. Protecting Chinese wives and preventing bigamy served as another rationale for prohibiting divorce. Meanwhile, the inheritance of veterans who died alone in Taiwan were "temporarily" managed by the Veterans Affairs Council, with the expectation of returning them to heirs in China in the future. As the global Cold War détente unfolded in the 1970s and China entered the era of reform and opening up in 1979, the Taiwanese government eventually opened up cross-strait family visits in 1987. Under the political reality of a shrinking community—where the people of the Taiwan Area became the only remaining nationals—when conflicts of interest arose between the two families of a Waishengren individual in China and Taiwan, "priority to the Taiwanese family" became a key principle in policy and legislation, replacing the previous tendency to protect the Chinese family. Consequently, the inheritance rights of people of the Mainland China Area were strictly restricted. During the period of cross-strait exchanges, the core issue of cross-strait family law shifted to immigration policy, and the primary actors became female marriage immigrants from China. The Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland China Area, passed in 1992, formally established Taiwan’s Chinese immigration policy. However, the question of Taiwan’s status under the ROC legal system did not disappear. The government and legislators technically substituted household registration for nationality, constructing an ambiguous citizenship. This approach sidestepped the controversy of Taiwan's status and whether people of the Mainland China Area possess ROC nationality. Amidst diverse historical contexts and multi-layered political structures, mainland spouses have occupied shifting positions along a discontinuous spectrum—ranging from "insiders/nationals" to "outsiders/foreigners" and "enemies/enemy aliens"—across various issues such as immigration policy, working rights, and social welfare. Consequently, they possess an ambiguous and conflicting legal status of being "neither foreigners nor insiders." The establishment of the residency quota system and the increase of quotas symbolize the transition of Chinese immigration policy from stringency to normalization. In the realm of national security, mainland spouses are cast into the status of 'enemies,' rendering them even more marginalized than mere outsiders. Through government archives, this study demonstrates that the state's image of the ideal family serves as an important criterion for detecting national security threat; for instance, the Investigation Bureau used cohabitation as a criterion to assess national security threat. Cross-strait family law has also shaped the rights, status, and bargaining chips of individuals within cross-strait families. During the period of prohibited contact, Waishengren were heavily suppressed by the martial law regime and could only form new families in Taiwan through bigamy, being deprived of their fundamental right to live with their families. During the period of cross-strait exchanges, exceptional regulations aimed at guarding against China have placed mainland spouses in a subordinate position within state, domestic, and workplaces, thereby eroding their bargaining chips. For example, the prior approval system for people of the Mainland China Area to purchase real estate pushes mainland spouses to register properties under their Taiwanese spouses' names during marital negotiations. Even mainland spouses who actually contributed the down payment face the risk of losing control over marital property. Under the legal regimes regulating mainland capital and the right to hold public office, mainland spouses must use their Taiwanese spouses' names for business registration, or they become "long-term temporary personnel" in public universities, forced into a marginal labor status. Furthermore, the law has increased the economic burden on mainland spouse families. Restrictions on working rights driven mainland spouses into the gray economy, lacking protections from labor laws. More recently, the requirement that cross-strait same-sex marriages must first be registered in a third country imposes an economic burden on the underprivileged. In short, in the shadow of geopolitics and laws aimed at guarding against China, mainland spouses not only apply restrictive and complex exceptional regulations absent for other marital immigrants, but also face the predicament of impaired bargaining power. However, rather than being passive recipients who silently endure legal restrictions, people are active agents who understand the legal structure, observe cracks, and devise coping strategies. During the period of prohibited contact, when the government used the nuclear family as the standard for eligible relatives to enter Taiwan, the Chinese family members of Waishengren (such as uncles, nephews, or extramarital partners) successfully entered Taiwan through the strategy of "fabricating dependent relationships." When the global Cold War thawed but the Taiwanese government reiterated the "Three Noes" policy and banned family contact, Waishengren observed the regional time lag of the Cold War and initiating family reunification action on a global scale through third countries like Hong Kong by fabricating their exit purposes and destinations. During the period of cross-strait exchanges, to counter the predicament of being unable to register as property owners, mainland spouses actively secured their marital property by using legal tools such as registration of caution. Facing marital immigration interviews, mainland spouses navigated the immigration system through the help of online communities, catering to the ideal family image expected by the government, and passing down ways to handle immigration authorities across communities. Importantly, people’s strategies do not exist outside the legal system; individuals must often conceive strategies within the existing legal framework. In other words, while people bypass the law, their strategies are simultaneously shaped by it. The law remains a macro-structure that is difficult to completely circumvent. Cross-strait family law is a story of how two waves of Chinese immigrants in Taiwan faced the shadows of a multi-layered political landscape and a powerful legal regime encompassing the Cold War, geopolitics, authoritarian rule, gender politics, and ethnic politics. From treating Waishengren as domestic migration through entry and exit laws to substantially treating mainland spouses as transnational migration through citizenship and immigration policies, cross-strait family law profoundly reflects the transformation of cross-strait relations. Furthermore, despite the formidable shadows of geopolitics and law, people are still capable of resisting within the legal system across multiple dimensions—as individuals, friends, families, and communities—whether by harboring dissenting voices in private, circumventing the law within the legal system, bargaining with the state or patriarchal families, or even openly challenging the system through legal mobilization. Through empirical legal research, this study hopes to make the stories of immigrant families known to a wider audience, providing academia with a timely understanding of the history, legal experiences, and plight of cross-strait families amid the heightened cross-strait tensions.