correspondence and related laws and regulations. As a result, it is difficult for migrant workers to work together to strive for equal rights for themselves in an environment in which they are already socially disadvantaged. The Ministry of Labor and Yilan County Government should recognize that migrant workers constitute an indispensible part of society in Taiwan. The related laws and regulations and counseling on interests and rights should take the migrant worker group’s needs into account, in order to disseminate information equally and protect migrant workers’ interests and rights. Article 23 Marriage and Protection of Family Family 132. The marriage immigrant interview system refers to a homeland security management policy established to verify the authenticity of marriage and prevent human trafficking and stop foreign nationals from engaging in illegal (wrongful) activities or jobs which might cause harm to social and national security. However, according to the existing laws and in practical judgment, whether or not a true marriage is determined by the reality of the couples’ cohabitation is a question that is not the same as the “reality” of the regulations. There seems to be no inherent, justified and reasonable connection with the “authenticity” requirements regulated by the law. Therefore, it is against the principle of prohibition of coupling (Kopplungsverbot), an administrative principle concerning conflating different functions. The interview system is also suspected of infringing on the Taiwanese national’s right to family reunion with the partner he/she has married. It is advisable to review whether there is a violation of the protection of equality under Article 7 of the Constitution. 133. Under implementation of the “Regulations Governing Inspection Visits and Information Registration of Alien Residence or Permanent Residence,” many Mainland Chinese spouses or foreign spouses who had already passed their marriage immigrant interviews have had their residence approvals revoked after surprise visits and inquiries into the authenticity of their marriages, during investigations conducted by the National Immigration Agency, Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry failed to distinguish the difference in the intents of Article 70 and Article 71 of the Immigration Act, and conducted investigations with unscheduled visits from time to time pursuant to Article 71 of the Act and Article 3 of said Regulations. As a result, these spouses are put in uncertainty about their cohabitation and life together in the territory of Taiwan. This differs from the system and framework regulated by the parent act, namely, Article 70 and Article 71 of the Immigration Act. It is against the due process of law, affects the protection of the rights to family reunion, and deviates from the equality applicable to other domestic families. 57