Taiwanizing female immigrant spouses and materializing differential citizenship

Abstract

Taiwan holds the Asian record for the proportion of families that involve so-called 'foreign brides'. Marriage migration has brought close to half a million immigrant spouses into the country over the past decades. Most of these women come from Mainland China, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. This paper discusses how the Taiwanese state and society have actively pursued the integration of immigrant spouses since 2002, with a set of policies that acknowledge the massive migration of 'foreign brides' and the impact of this phenomenon on society. It argues that the attempt to integrate new immigrants is fraught with a discourse that serves to further stigmatize these women, discriminate against them, and, therefore, create an 'Other' that is used to erect the ideology of nation-building in Taiwan. The paper provides a critical analysis of policies, academic discourse and NGOs fundraising strategies to show how these institutions reinforce the idea that immigrant spouses are problematic and, therefore, need to be 'Taiwanized'. This results in a system of differential legal and social citizenship in which immigrant spouses are at the bottom of the social hierarchy in Taiwanese society.

Women's Migration for Domestic Work and Cross‐Border Marriage in East and Southeast Asia: Reproducing Domesticity, Contesting Citizenship

“…In particular, Taiwan and South Korea recently implemented a series of social integration programs (Kim ; Wang ). Wang and Bélanger () argue that immigrant integration activities and programs organized by the Taiwanese state and civil society adopted discourses that reinforced an image of marriage migrants as inferior, helpless, underclass “Others” who needed to be “Taiwanised.” In both South Korea and Taiwan, for example, Bélanger () argues that the language class offered to Vietnamese migrant wives infantilized migrant women. In South Korea, the emphasis on “Korean motherhood” and domesticity produced what Kim () calls “ethnicized maternal citizenship,” whereby Filipina wives were rendered as the “ethnic others” and the basis on which they could claim rights was restricted to their motherhood.…”

“…In particular, Taiwan and South Korea recently implemented a series of social integration programs (Kim 2013;Wang 2007). Wang and Bélanger (2008) argue that immigrant integration activities and programs organized by the Taiwanese state and civil society adopted discourses that reinforced an image of marriage migrants as inferior, helpless, underclass "Others" who needed to be "Taiwanised." In both South Korea and Taiwan, for example, Bélanger (2007) argues that the language class offered to Vietnamese migrant wives infantilized migrant women.…”

Marriage Immigration and Multicultural Families: Public Policies and Their Implications for the Philippines and South Korea

“…As a result, aside from elements of racial tensions there are underlying social dynamics, and marriage immigrants face various sociocultural, economic, and political issues. On the other hand, governments have begun to regulate international marriages and to differentiate immigration, citizenship, and welfare policies for marriage immigrants (Lu, ; Lu & Yang, ; Palriwala & Uberoi, ; Tseng, ; Wang & Bélanger, ).…”

Gender and International Marriage Migration

“…Differential citizenship formed for marriage migrants is not only gender specific but intersects with ethnic and class‐based “othering.” In the context of patriarchal ideology, marriage migrants are expected to learn affinal ways in all aspects of life including the performance of reproductive labor, while their indigenous knowledge from their natal family and culture is denied as inappropriate (Faier 2009; Kojima 2001). Moreover, institutional efforts to integrate migrant wives paradoxically reinforce the image of poor immigrants with needy families and reproduce their low status (Newendorp 2008; Wang and Bélanger 2008). The ambivalent reception of marriage migrants curtails their sense of belonging and in some cases produces equivocal attitudes toward the acquisition of citizenship (Faier 2009; Imamura 1988; Nakamatsu 2003).…”