有關國民返國入境權利是否可以受到限制之問題，釋字第第五五八號解釋雖然於本號解釋中明文稱「國家不得將國民排斥於國家疆域之外」，但卻又同時謂國民返國入境權利與其他種類遷徙自由相同，是可以受到限制者，而此受限與否之關鍵，則在於中華民國國民是否於台灣地區設有戶籍。從國際法與憲法觀點，大法官如此見解，不僅是未竟全功，更有治絲欲棼之可能。首先，本號解釋忽略了主要國際人權公約中對於遷徙自由種類之區分，以及對於國民返國入境權利絕對性之強調。其次，大法官肯認以戶籍作為國民是否當然享有返國入境權利之看法，忽略了規範層面過猶不及之問題。抑且，大法官此舉，無異是將於國內無有戶籍設定之人士，實際上成為孤立隔絕之少數，又戶籍應屬美國憲法學上所發展出可疑分類之概念。再者，本號解釋之所以有前述之問題，則反映出大法官未採用類似美國法上審查基準理論之問題。於審查基準理論下，大法官至少應說明國民返國入境之權利與其他種類遷徙自由性質上之異同，以及說明對於此項權利限制，是否能通過所採之特定審查基準。最後，本文以為解決問題之癥結，或許應從限縮本國人士於海外所出生子女取得我國國籍之機會乙事上著手。申言之，本號解釋相關問題之定性，還應從國籍取得之規範上著眼。 In Interpretation No. 558, although the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan hold that the ROC Government should not refuse its citizens the right to enter its borders, at the same time the High Court in Taiwan also thinks that the people’s right to return to their own country can be restricted. Applying theories of international human rights law and constitutional law, this paper reviews Interpretation No. 558 from five points. First of all, Interpretation No. 558 is contrary to various conventions of international human rights’ regulations that entitle people with the absolute right to return to their own countries. Secondly, the fact that this Interpretation uses the registration of residence as the means to decide whether a particular citizen can be permitted to return to Taiwan makes the whole situation even worse. This is because the registration of residence is either over-inclusive or under-inclusive as the main criterion of decision making. Further, the Grand Justices failed to understand that citizens who can return to Taiwan have become the so-called discrete and insular minority. Moreover, the reason why Interpretation No. 558 makes the whole situation even worse is mainly because the Grand Justices have not applied the theory of levels of scrutiny to review the constitutionality of legal norms. Lastly, the problems with Interpretation No. 558 evince the necessity of rethinking the policy of awarding ROC citizenship.