不對稱社會融納：探討跨兩岸遷移者雙重成員身分之管理政策

Abstract

公民身分的賦予係屬「歸屬的政治」，國家透過界定何人為公民，何人為非公民來設立歸屬的疆界，疆界內的屬於「我群」，疆界外的屬於「他群」。因此，「社會封閉」原是公民身分的本質，亦是主權國家保有主體性的手段之一。然而，全球化下的人員跨境流動，衝擊傳統的國家公民身分制度，封閉的國家必須回應人員因跨境流動而產生的社會保障不足問題，「公民身分」的概念因此不敷時代所需，代之而起的是「成員身分」的概念。將「成員身分」從「公民身分」的概念區別出來，係由於移民係基於作為當地的「成員」而非當地的「公民」而享有當地一定程度的公民權利。尤其在經濟和社會權利的領域，是否具有正式的國家公民身分重要性已降低，長期居留在當地才是權利享有的關鍵。 兩岸的公民身分制度在全球化的背景下，也面臨同樣的考驗，但與此同時，兩岸主權的重疊，卻讓跨兩岸遷移者的成員身分，與其他遷移至兩岸的外國人相較，有著不同的權利地位。本研究嘗試以「跨兩岸遷移者成員身分」為分析對象，探討兩岸政府提供何種身分待遇給來自對岸的公民，透過何種的管制及融納政策，形塑跨兩岸遷移者特殊的權利地位。 本研究採納Tomas Hammar的理論框架，將兩岸雙方的移民政策區分為入出境、居留許可等外部邊界的管制政策，以及工作權、醫療保險、養老保險、社會救助等內部邊界的管理政策，以此觀察跨兩岸遷移者的成員身分地位。研究發現： 一、兩岸雙方融納跨兩岸遷移者確實存在不對稱格局，台灣方面對大陸地區人民有著比對外國人更嚴格的管制，但大陸方面對待台灣居民與對待外國人從差別不明顯，到差距逐漸擴大，朝「超最惠國待遇」或「國民待遇」的方向前進。 二、原則上，全球化下的人員融納體制受到兩個判準影響：一為對當地經濟有貢獻；二是基於家庭倫常。台灣方面的政策基本上已服膺第二種判準而行；至於第一種判準，政府正努力摒除政治力的干擾，更理性的接納大陸地區人民來台。反觀大陸方面的政策，正逐漸跳脫這兩種判準的綑綁，以不帶限制的「兩岸一家親」態度接納所有身分類別的台灣居民。 三、兩岸政府對於國境線的管控在面臨全球化市場力量與人才競爭時出現退讓，透過修法許可投資遷移者及人才遷移者進入國境內從事專業或商務活動。然而，兩岸的法律一方面對於開放訂有明文，但另一方面卻同時授予行政機關行政裁量權及審查權，使外部邊界管制終究難以脫離政治以及國安的考量。 四、兩岸皆以「戶籍身分」作為公民權利賦予的機制，設立戶籍為取得當地公民身分的必要條件。兩岸因為主權的重疊，因而在關乎兩岸人民身分的法制上，往往規避「國籍」的歸屬，實質公民身分的取得，在於設立戶籍與否。唯有「戶籍身分」才是區隔兩岸人民群體歸屬及國家資源分配的依據。 五、公民身分的本質為我群與他群的識別機制，這個本質在全球化的人員跨境移動下並沒有根本性的改變，而是對我群認定的鬆動，使我群的概念擴大化。兩岸政府依據權利的內容而在我群認定原則上有不同的偏重：在外部邊界管制及工作權上，國族建構的政治考量在兩岸都是主要的規範依據，且雙方在國族建構上的分歧（亦即一方將對方納為己方，另一方卻將對方排除在己方之外），為兩岸不對稱融納的根本原因；醫療保險、養老保險、社會救助等社會保障上，政治考量逐漸被經濟考量所取代，兩岸政府所採取的政策原則上是趨同的，繳費制社會保障基本上不問國（戶）籍，非繳費制或政府負擔比例較高之繳費制社會保障，則基本上限制在國（戶）籍範圍內。 隨著中國大陸在國際經貿體系中扮演越來越吃重的角色，兩岸的不對稱格局如果持續下去，恐將對國家競爭力產生不利的影響。研究建議政府可藉由消除對大陸地區人民的歧視待遇，將兩岸關係引導到正常的政治實體間的關係，並利用賦予大陸地區人民各項權利的機會，加強對其監督與管理，以嘗試在全球區域經濟整合趨勢下的人流自由化與國家安全之間取得平衡點。

The entitlement of citizenship is the politics of belonging. By defining citizens from non-citizens, the nation states come to establish the boundary of belonging: within the boundary, there is “we-group”, and outside the boundary there is 'others-group.' Therefore, citizenship by nature is a form of 'social closure', as a means for the national states to maintain its sovereignty. However, in the context of globalization, people’s movement across territorial boundaries impacts the traditional regime of national citizenship. The nation states must respond to the insufficient social security occurred to immigrants due to their transnational movement. The concept of 'citizenship' no longer meets the demand of our time, and therefore is replaced by the concept of 'membership.' By separating the concept of 'membership' from the concept of “citizenship,' the immigrants are identified as 'members' rather than 'citizens' of the local society, but still are entitled to have some degree of civil rights. The importance of holding a full citizenship of a country gradually diminishes, and what is more important for the immigrants is to be granted with the right of long-term residency, which allows the immigrants have certain economic and social rights. In the context of globalization, the citizenship structure on both sides of Taiwan Strait is confronted with the same challenges. However, the overlapping sovereignty on both sides of Taiwan Strait complicates the issues further. Taiwan and China give different status and rights to migrants across the strait from other foreigners who immigrate to Taiwan or mainland China. This study attempts to take the membership of cross-strait migrants as the research subject, and explores what kinds of regulation and incorporation policies the governments on both sides of Taiwan Straits should respectively adopt to shape special status of cross-strait migrants. This study adopts the theoretical framework of Tomas Hammar that distinguishes immigration policy into two parts: regulation policy of the “external border” such as entry, exit of the country and the residence of immigrants, and the management policy of “internal border” such as the right to work, health insurance, pension insurance, and social assistance to the immigrants. This study attempts to observe the membership of the cross-strait migrants with an overview of these policies of both sides. The main findings in this study are as follows: Firstly, an asymmetrical framework exists on two sides of Taiwan Strait incorporating the people from the other side. On the one hand, Taiwan regulates the people from mainland China much strictly than from other countries. On the other hand, at the beginning mainland China gave aliens with no significant difference treatment between those who come from Taiwan and from other countries, but gradually the difference is more and more significant, even toward the direction of 'super Most-Favored-Nation Treatment' or 'National Treatment.' Secondly, generally speaking, the incorporation policy in the context of globalization is affected by two criteria: the first is the contribution to the local economy, and the second is based on family relationship. Taiwan's policy has been largely adhering to the second criterion. As for the first criterion, Taiwan’s government is trying to exclude the interference of political power, and with a more rational attitude to accept the people from mainland China. In contrast, mainland China’s policy is gradually moving beyond the restriction of the two criteria, and formulating the 'cross-strait a pro' attitude to accept all identity categories of Taiwanese. Thirdly, in regulating territorial boundaries the governments of both sides make a concession in facing the forces of global market and talent competition. By revising the immigration laws, both sides permit investment and skilled immigrants to engage in professional or business activities. However, the immigration laws on both sides on the one hand are revised to deregulate, on the other hand are subjected by new regulations under executive review and administrative discretion. This is why the control of external border is highly influenced by the considerations of politics and national security. Fourthly, the both sides of Taiwan Strait take 'household residency membership' as a mechanism for the entitlement of civil rights. Making initial household registration is the requirement to get citizenship. Because of the overlapping sovereignty of two sides, the legal systems of both sides often deliberately avoid the 'nationality' of cross-strait migrants. Whether in Taiwan or mainland China, getting substantial citizenship is based on the household registration. On both sides 'household residency membership' is the basis for identification and for the allocation of national resources. Fifthly, citizenship, as a mechanism to distinguish 'we-group' and 'others-group,' has no fundamental change in the trend of globalization. However, the more and more loosening definition of 'we-group' enlarges the range of 'we-group.' For different rights, the governments of both sides have established different range of 'we-group.' On the regulation of territorial boundaries and the right to work, the political consideration of construction of nationhood is the main normative basis on both sides, and the divergence of cognition about construction of nationhood (namely, one side takes the other side as its own, but the other side doesn’t) is the fundamental reason for shaping the asymmetrical framework of the two sides of Taiwan Strait. On health insurance, pension insurance, and social assistance, the political consideration has been gradually replaced by the economic consideration. The policies of immigrants’ social security on both sides are converging. For contributory benefits, nationality or household register are basically not required as necessary qualifications. As for non-contributory benefits or contributory benefits that need more financial input from the government, nationality or household register are still necessary qualifications. With mainland China playing an increasingly important role in the international trade system, if the asymmetrical framework of the two sides of Taiwan Strait remains, it may cause negative impact on Taiwan's national competitiveness. This study suggests that Taiwan's government should eliminate discriminatory treatment against mainland people to guide cross-strait relations toward normal relations between two political entities, and seize the opportunity to entitle mainland people to certain civil rights to strengthen supervision and management on them, in trying to strike a balance between free movement of population and national security in the trend of regional economic integration.