# 留下來可以,月薪先翻倍:移工永居門檻的數字把戲

- URL: https://justfly.idv.tw/%e7%95%99%e4%b8%8b%e4%be%86%e5%8f%af%e4%bb%a5%e6%9c%88%e8%96%aa%e5%85%88%e7%bf%bb%e5%80%8d%e7%a7%bb%e5%b7%a5%e6%b0%b8%e5%b1%85%e9%96%80%e6%aa%bb%e7%9a%84%e6%95%b8%e5%ad%97%e6%8a%8a%e6%88%b2/
- 日期: 2026-09-11
- 分類: 我知故我在
- 標籤: 勞動政策, 台灣政經, 社會運動, 移工

![留下來可以,月薪先翻倍:移工永居門檻的數字把戲]
在台灣照顧長輩十六年,月薪大約落在NT$26,000到30,000之間。留才計畫開出的永居門檻是最低工資兩倍,約NT$60,000。中間那道缺口,不是努力就能跨過去的距離,是制度本身畫的一條線。

這有點像餐廳貼出「歡迎內用」的牌子,卻把門把裝在只有籃球員摸得到的高度。牌子沒說謊,只是沒人講清楚誰真的進得去。

##### 895,000人裡的80,379個「例外」

台灣現有895,000名移工,留才計畫讓其中80,379人取得中階技術人員資格。這個數字聽起來像是政策開了一扇門——理論上,五年後就能申請永居身分。但「理論上」三個字,在這裡做了太多工作。

申請永居的前提是月薪達到最低工資兩倍。這個門檻對工程師、對技術士或許構成得到,但對照顧產業幾乎是天方夜譚。照服員的薪資結構,從一開始就沒有被設計成能達到那個數字。更關鍵的是,外籍照服員在台灣根本沒有對應的替代升等路徑——同樣做著十六年的照護工作,連「有機會但很難」的資格都沾不上邊。制度看似一視同仁地訂出一個標準,實際上把整個照護人力排除在門外。

##### 缺工的預測,和拒絕的現實,同時存在

台灣國家發展委員會(NDC)預估,2030年將缺48萬名勞工。這個數字和80,379、895,000擺在一起看,浮現出一個很矛盾的畫面:一邊喊著缺工,一邊把已經在這裡工作十幾年、最熟悉在地家庭需求的照顧者,用一道薪資門檻擋在永久居留之外。

不是沒有能留下來的人,是留下來的規則只替少數幾種工作類型量身打造,照顧產業從頭到尾沒被放進設計圖裡。[移工](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A7%BB%E5%B7%A5)制度常被談成人力調度問題,但門檻怎麼訂、訂給誰,本身就是一種選擇,不是自然結果。

##### 修法在醞釀,時鐘沒停

勞動部已經在醞釀修正這套門檻設計。這代表現行制度的落差已經被看見,只是還沒被改。對一個已經在台灣照顧別人家庭十六年的人來說,「醞釀中」是個懸在半空的詞——薪資不會因為修法討論就漲上去,永居資格也不會因為政策有共識就自動生效。

80,379張中階技術人員證書握在手上,是資格,不是身分。NT$60,000和NT$26,000到30,000之間的差距,還在那裡。距離2030年的48萬缺工,還有幾年時間,足夠讓一套門檻重新畫線,也足夠讓它繼續原地不動。

— 杜雅雯

### Stay, They Said — But Double Your Salary First

A migrant care worker who has spent sixteen years in Taiwan earns somewhere between NT$26,000 and NT$30,000 a month. The residency threshold under the retention scheme requires double the minimum wage — roughly NT$60,000. That gap isn’t something effort closes. It’s a line the system drew on purpose, or at least never bothered to erase.

It reads like a restaurant hanging a “welcome” sign with the door handle installed at basketball-player height. The sign isn’t lying. Nobody just explained who can actually reach it.

##### 80,379 out of 895,000

Taiwan currently hosts 895,000 migrant workers. The retention scheme has let 80,379 of them qualify as mid-level skilled workers — on paper, a route to permanent residency after five years. “On paper” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

The residency requirement is a salary at twice the [minimum wage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage). That bar might be reachable for engineers or licensed technicians. For care work, it isn’t. Caregiver pay was never structured to hit that number, and there’s no alternative upgrade path for foreign care workers in Taiwan at all. Someone doing the same job for sixteen years doesn’t even get a harder-but-possible option. The rule looks neutral on its face. In practice, it locks an entire workforce out.

##### A shortage forecast and a rejection, side by side

Taiwan’s National Development Council (NDC) projects a shortfall of 480,000 workers by 2030. Set next to 80,379 and 895,000, the picture turns contradictory: warnings about labor shortages on one side, a salary threshold quietly excluding the caregivers who already know the households they work in, on the other.

Capable people aren’t missing. The rules for staying were built around a narrow set of job categories, and care work was never on that drafting table. Migrant labor policy tends to get framed as a supply-and-demand problem, but where a threshold gets set, and for whom, is a choice — not something that happens on its own.

##### A revision is brewing. The clock hasn’t stopped

Taiwan’s labor authorities are reportedly working on revising the threshold. That means the gap has been noticed. It hasn’t been closed. For someone who has already spent sixteen years caring for another family, “under review” is a phrase suspended in mid-air — wages don’t rise because a policy discussion exists, and residency doesn’t get granted because a consensus is forming.

80,379 certificates sit in people’s hands as qualifications, not status. The distance between NT$60,000 and NT$26,000–30,000 hasn’t moved. There are still a few years left before 2030 and its projected shortfall of 480,000 — enough time to redraw a line, or enough time to leave it exactly where it is.

— 杜雅雯