Abstract
Many researchers have redefined citizenship to understand better the membership status aspired to and demanded by contemporary migrants, and how states have responded to these demands. Brubaker has argued that many postwar migrants live as "resident non-citizens" who might not aspire to naturalize. What matter most to them are the rights to enhance or maximize their economic and social benefits. Therefore, the concept of "membership" as opposed to citizenship was proposed in delineating the decoupling between citizenship and nationality; immigrant demands for rights and state policies in response can thereby be interpreted without considering the political meanings of citizenship. This paper, however, tries to bring politics back to the center of the analysis of citizenship. We examine the shifting policies of China (the People's Republic of China, or PRC) and Taiwan (the Republic of China, or ROC) towards the citizenship conferred to Taiwanese migrants in China. Adopting Hammar's perspective, we argue that whether the political dimension of citizenship, i.e., political loyalty, can be put aside while formulating citizenship policies is an empirical question dependent on the inter-state relation between sending and receiving states. In short, we propose to situate citizenship within inter-state relations. China, the receiving state, and Taiwan, the homeland state, have been engaged in an overt political standoff for decades. Migration from Taiwan to China challenges the conceptions of citizenship on both sides. We pose the following questions: How do inter-state relations affect dual citizenship policies on both ends? And what are the most critical aspects of citizenship considered inseparable from national loyalty?