iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://web.archive.org/web/20011217224447/http://www.geocities.com/taiwanstatus/taiwanstatus
Taiwan Status under Taiwan Relations Act
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20011217224447/http://www.geocities.com:80/taiwanstatus/taiwanstatus
Taiwan Status under Taiwan Relations Act>
Taiwan Status: Under
Taiwan Relations Act
A different perspective on the status of Taiwan...and something to think more about:

Legal research suggests that success in the courtroom is predicated upon the political status claimed under US laws regulating close relations with Taiwan and the USA. To date, only the "One China" policy nationalities of "ROC" or "PRC" have been claimed by plaintives filing a private lawsuit under the Taiwan Relations Act. No one from Taiwan has yet bothered to legally claim their "Taiwan nationality" under peace treaty cession. Under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Taiwan territory is still definitely within the jurisdictional perimeters of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. The duality of this constitutional situation for Taiwan is a "joint-occupation authority" under the SPFT and it is a condition geopolitically reminiscent of the Andorran Constitution with its dual 'heads of state' being officially split between France and Spain. As denizens of TRA, Taiwanese are labeled as "Chinese aliens", for any purposes of their basic equal protections of the 14th Amendment. These US judicial branch protections of all Taiwanese aliens, however, actually are more rooted in:

"Civis Romanus Sum, Jus Feciale".

Foriegn affairs are a constitutional monopoly of the executive branch, but the Carter derecognition of the ROC as the juridical person of Taiwan territory was a political exercise of power under Article 4 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. In conjunction with the Article 4 derecognition of the ROC, Carter also then terminated the Mutual Defense Treaty. If this executive branch termination of treaties was truly constitutional was the debated issue in Goldwater v. Carter and the Supreme Court upheld the Carter decision. There are little grounds to successfully challenge a political question of the Taiwan status, but the exercise of such Presidential political powers do carry political rights never before exercised by Taiwanese still under a peace treaty cession.

The recent accension of Taiwan to the WTO was as a 'separate customs territory', not as an independent country. This separate trade zone around Taiwan is also a constitutional firewall of the Taiwan status under SFPT because of the Insular Cases of 1900 (Downs v. Bidwell, Neely v. Henkel). The constitutional ramification of WTO membership has legally enhanced the TRA for Taiwan useage to resist the looming political coersions arising from the new direct links with China.

Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the territory of Taiwan is officially treated as a 'foreign state equivalent' by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In the absence of diplomatic recognition and derecognition as a juridical person under laws of nations, Taiwan is not considered an 'independent country' under its peace treaty cession by Japan under US law. It is the publicly stated policy of USA that it does not support Taiwan membership in international organizations requiring any status of "independent foreign state", despite the continued support for membership of Taiwan in international organizations under a TRA clause. The legal disqualification of Taiwan as a "country", or any similar legal requirements being potentially applied to Taiwan with regards to any official or diplomatic requirements of US law was made inapplicable to Taiwan in 1979. TRA is specifically clear for avoiding confusion of Nuclear Export regulations concerning Taiwan and in general to all similar diplomatic matters relating to Taiwan under US law.

Taiwan's treaty status under TRA is not one of a political union with the USA, as any future diplomatic relations with Taiwan are not expressly precluded by TRA. But the longstanding official absence of them further compounds the simple arguments that Taiwan is already a sovereign state. Without any recognizable status of independent foreign state under international treaty, nor any transfer of previous Japanese sovereignty over Taiwan, the remaining legal equivalents of foreign state are "self-governing dominion, mandate territory, or trust territory" as specifically defined by the INA and TRA. Under this particular legal citation of INA, Taiwan is outside the "green card zone" of the USA. However, Taiwan is not explicitly outside the dominion of the USA itself. This situation is due to the military occupational authority of Formosa and the surrender of Japanese sovereignty over Formosa by peace treaty.

Taiwan was surrendered by Japan in 1951 under Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.  Under Article 4, the soveriegnty of Taiwan is officially held in the trust of the US Military Government under this multilateral peace treaty as the "law of nations" as unambiguiously defined by jus feciale. Simply stated, Taiwan is foreign territory under administrative authority of the SFPT. The USA has the peace treaty powers of Article 4 to solely determine "whom" is the sovereign government of Taiwan territory. It is an enduring US policy not to exercise this treaty power, but instead to follow a One China policy of an executive agreement between it and the PRC. The status negotiations for a Taiwan handover are between the ROC and PRC according to US policy. Self-determination by Taiwanese voters is not a binding legal component of the equation as Taiwan is not a full-fledged "trust territory" under the UN Charter. Under international law, it is solely a question of whom is the juridical person of Taiwan territorial sovereignty. Constitutionally, however, Taiwan status can be viewed as a legal condition of being a "domestic country" which carries with it Congressionally "undefined" political rights, or the more judicially defined basic civil rights of an occupation by peace treaty cession. (Downes v. Bidwell)The Hague Convention of 1907 and Geneva Conventions of 1949, as annotated and officially interpreted by US military regulations, does clearly provide for the specific circumstances and timeframe of ending a "hostile" military occupation. However, as peace treaty cession ends the "hostilities", it does not automatically end the occupational authority in the interim period after the official signing. In particular, this method of conquest can actually prolong the jurisdictional period of military occupation according to US Army regulations (Art. 353, FM 27-10) and the legal definition of 'effective military control' for an occupation to be valid is most elastic in its conditions of troop deployments to congruently fit the implementation clauses of TRA. Skeptical civilians should be aware of the American deployment abilities of modern warfare in this respect. Ground troop deployments are most conveniently absent in this studied geopolitical aspect of strategic ambiguity. Complete "troop withdrawal" from Taiwan is quite simply illusionary, given the American abilities of regional projection of naval and air military power. Deployment in defense of "Taiwan independence" is not an option for Taipei, but it is a policy issue of strategic denial against China which is a most studied option for Washington. The indefinite retention of an un-incorporated territory under a peace treaty cession, originally intended as a temporary or interim status, has been ruled constitutional. (Downes v. Bidwell) The interim status continues to this very day in many precedent cases of being 'un-incorporated territory'.

Under Geneva Convention, the mischievious, past practices of "proxies" or "surrogates" of a hostile occupation, like a KMT-in-exile, are banned and any injurious actions of these proxies are regarded as being the direct liability of the higher contracting party. The laws of occupation also expressly forbid the attempted blocking or dismissal of court cases brought by "occupied nationals" in the domestic court jurisdiction of the higher contracting party.

In the many years of the ensuing aftermath of the KMT's 2-28 Incident, a massacare of over 30,000 Taiwanese in 1947, the western press including the New York Times reported on the expressed desires of Formosan separatists to become a "UN mandate territory under the administration of the United States." (Mandate territories were the predecessors of the trust territory as the formulations of post-colonial concepts.) The Formosan leadership were turned away from participating in the negotiations of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. It should also be pointed out that neither the ROC or PRC were invited to participate or sign the peace treaty. However, both of these feuding Chinese authorities did later negotiate separate bilateral peace treaties with Japan.

In 1978, the Japanese government officially terminated their 1952 bilateral peace treaty with the ROC and signed a new "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with the People's Republic of China. Under this treaty, Japan recognized that Taiwan was an inalienable part of China. This policy was part of their 1972 agreement for establishing diplomatic relations.

Under Article 26 of the SFPT, the more favorable terms of any bilateral peace treaty later made by Japan will automatically be made applicable to the signers of the SPFT. Regardless of any these vague and conflicting Japanese policies on Taiwan, the future fate of the Taiwan territory remains secured by the USA under Article 4 of the SFPT.

Acquisition of territorial soveriegnty by a country can occur in many recognized methods of international law. For the ROC, theirs is the weakest claim of soveriegnty to Taiwan which is based upon 'retrocession' or 'reoccupation' of "Chinese" territory previously lost to Japan in 1985 Shimonoseki Treaty (Taiwan) or like under the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (Shangdong Pennisula). Mainland China claims Taiwan under a 'successor government' argument rooted in the historic claims to Formosa by Imperial China, or only really by the Qing Dynasty whom only briefly legally gained Taiwan in the 19th Century to only lose it to Japan in 1895. However, whenever a peace treaty becomes involved, it often displaces sovereign claims of the weaker methods as treaties are much like "contract law" for countries as legal persons. Treaties do take the legal centerstage for often subordinating the competing interests of countries or conflicting philosophies of international law. For more complete information on this topic, see the linked websites like Taiwan Documents Project.

Under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the ROC government was officially recognized as the administering authorities of Taiwan following their diplomatic downgrade by their US allies in 1979. There was a simultaneous derecognition of the ROC as a juridical person of Taiwan territory under international law in accordance with US administrative authority in SFPT.
Following this dejure downgrade, they are now simply treated as the military occupational governors of Taiwan quite ultimately coming under the Supreme Command of Allied Powers, the authority originally mandating the US Military Government of the SFPT. While only "government-to-government" relations are unofficial, there is a joint occupational authority of Taiwan. Such American practices of "joint-trusteeship" was a common proposal of jus feciale in the post-war period (eg. Berlin Zone inside East Germany, failures of "joint-trusteeship" of Korean Pennisula before 1950). In the Exchange of Notes for the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty, Dulles had hoped to lay to rest speculation on the handover of Taiwan to Red China. There was no transfer of soveriegnty by MDT but just a concession of the 'effective territorial control' of Formosa. State Department archives state that these Notes forbade the use of Formosa by Chiang Kai-shek to attack the China mainland withou any mutual consultation.

With the President Carter termination of the US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty in 1978, the Congress overwhelmingly passed the TRA, and it became the  indisputably highest legally authority for the protection of Taiwan by the US Commander-in-Chief under American domestic law. Carter retracted the MDT, but the occupational status was reaffirmed by TRA as officially recognizing the ROC as the "governing authorities", not as the national government of a foreign state. The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention have specified requirements of the various protections of Commander-in-Chiefs for occupied areas held under the Laws of Occupation.

It is also noteworthy to mention that the implementation clauses of TRA policies mirror the language of Article 73 of the UN Charter. The Taiwan question has not been officially resolved as a post-colonial issue within the context of Article 73 despite a present reality of a 'self-government' on Taiwan. There has been no referendum of self-determinaion. A self-government of military occupational authority is not a very appealing mechanism for any true democratic development of Taiwan. For these technical reasons, however, Taiwan territory is legally qualified to be treated as a 'non-selfgoverning territory' or more specifically as a foreign state equivalent under TRA. Taiwan was not included as a UN Trust Territory under SFPT, thus it does not specifically come under separate Chapters of the UN Charter for the UN Trusteeship Council because of TRA.

As for the continuing legal validity of SFPT, it has been repeatedly recognized as the valid 'deed title of Taiwan' under international law and there is a specific treaty clause upholding this validity in the TRA.

So who owns Taiwan now?

With the surrender of Taiwan under SFPT, the involuntary allegiance of the inhabitants to their new sovereign was created. However, Japanese termination of the bilateral treaty with the ROC erased any "Chinese nationality" of the Taiwanese. In the absence of any provision for nationality, the inhabitants will gain the nationality of their ceded territory as an operation of international law.

Under international law, the above creation of a Taiwan nationality does not automatically create a "Taiwan Republic".  Under the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Article 4 clearly states "countries" must have equal standing under the law of nations as juridical persons.

Upon referring to Article 4 of the SFPT, the final authority on whom makes this determination for Taiwan is clear. There is explicit reference and scope made for determining the standing of juridical persons of Taiwan, and such determination is to be made solely by the US Military Government.  

Under the TRA and SFPT, Taiwan enjoys a dejure status of "defacto independence" while its soveriegnty is still legally held in the trust of the USA. In the book "Formosa Betrayed", it is clearly noted that the British foreign ministry even raised this very legal issue after the signing of the treaty (p. 466) and it has been long overlooked by Taiwan researchers that the author of the book, George Kerr, was a Civil Affairs Officer with the US Navy prior to WWII and was the senior editor of the volumes of Navy's Civil Affairs Regulations including the Area Studies Handbook on Formosa in the 1940's. Mr. Kerr actually drafted the English version of the Imperial Japanese Instrument of Surrender on Formosa on October 25,1945. The 'joint-occupation' of Formosa by the ROC and USA officially started in 1945 (p.79, 146) and this administrative authority was later reaffirmed in the 1951 Peace Treaty. The signing of the Japanese Surrender on the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945 states that the surrender of Japanese forces on Formosa would be taken by Chiang Kai-shek. Just as the Cairo Declaration of 1945 suggested the return of Formosa to China, the surrender of Formosa has left in a legal occupational status (p.146) The petty omission of the more pertinent and exact nature of the joint occupation in the Chinese translation of the October surrender of Formosa does not invalidate the English language text. Such is the more authoritative version as English is the widely recognized lingua franca of international law and diplomacy. In lingual semantics of law, it is the more legally binding version for properly defining the Joint Occupation of Formosa under international law. As the British have themselves previously noted the Allied authorization to occupy Formosa by the ROC especially in "The London Times" (c. 1955), they agreed that the Allied Powers never sanctioned the transfer of sovereignty to China under the SFPT. The role of 'administrative authority' and the Civil Affairs regulations of the US Military, as principle occupational authority under Article 25 of SFPT, have been grossly neglected with respects to their longstanding and manageable standards for most clearly illuminating the shady ambiguities of the TRA and SFPT. Few private attorneys are presently knowlegdeable of this most esoteric legal field of military and insular affairs. It is an important issue of jus feciale having an impact upon the private law practices of jus gentium under TRA.

Under the Insular Cases of 1900, any ceded territory coming under the administrative authority of the US Military Government are inalienably endowed with 'basic constitutional rights' by the US Supreme Court. These basic rights are 'life, liberty, and property' of the Fifth Amendment and the basic 'equal protections' of the 14th Amendment. These inalienable rights arise from a territorial status known as "un-incorporated territory" and categorically it has expressedly included all of "Occupied Cuba" in the past and only in part at the present location of Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. (Neely v. Henkel) "Gitmo" is currently a US military base, but the land itself is also an unincorporated territory stemming from its "cession" under the US-Cuban Treaty of 1934 (and reaffirmed in 1963). Even if this Cuban 'cession' is only 'undetermined', or just under the direct effective territorial control of the USA as the courts described it in 1994, it still currently enjoys these basic constitutional rights in US Courts stemming from its valid constitutional status. Residual claims of their territorial sovereignty by Cuba or China have little legal effect upon the status of un-incorporated territory as it is a constitutional firewall against these very claimants. The basic civil rights of ceded areas originated from the very same rights of Chinese aliens residing under the Chinese Exclusion Act. The "human rights" of TRA are not undefined and the time is ripe for their Congressionally mandated enhancement.

What is the legal role of the Chinese Exclusion Act and Taiwan status?

The Act was domestic federal legislation enacted to carry out the provisions of a US-China treaty on immigration into the USA. The 1882 law, however, actually imposed serious immigration law exclusions of Chinese aliens. Section 12 also authorized the legal deportation of Chinese aliens by an order of the executive branch. This act was extended several times until it was made permanent by the Chinese Exclusion Extension Act of 1904. The Extension Act also included specific new clauses for the use of island territory, under federal jurisdiction, as immigrant detention centers:

"...said laws shall also apply to the island territory under the jurisdiction of the United States, and prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers, not citizens of the United States, from such island territory to the mainland territory of the United States, whether in such island territory."

Such unincorporated territories included Ellis Island in New York and Angel Island in San Francisco. The mainland territories were integral parts of the Union itself, and thus they were fully incorporated or "enumerated" into the US Constitution by the facts of a state jurisdiction. If an incorporated territory is within the Union, it is a state like New York or California. This preferred membership status in the Union imposes constitutional limitations on the absolute power of the federal government. Union membership is automatically equated with incorporated territory, but Puerto Rico is not a member of the Union. That Carribbean island jurisdiction was made incorporated territory by Congress with the expressed intention of it becoming an eventual state. Thus it enjoys the fuller protections of the Constitution, unlike the reoccurring use of Gitmo as an alien detention center. In 1954, a detained alien was held at Ellis Island for over 18 months, as he was officially ordered deported back to Europe. However, his legal ineligibility for any status of Hungarian nationality created the circumstantial ambiguities of being a stateless person without any nationality. Thus he could not be deported despite the federal government maintaining that he was a "Hungarian national". His "release" from Ellis Island came with a parole status into the mainland territory as an "alien stopped on the border", or an alien having only the basic constitutional rights of one being physically detained on Ellis Island. This was the last non-criminal alien detainee to be held on there. However, the doctrine of "post-removal detention period" was recently ruled to be unconstitutional, if the ambiguities of nationality status made an alien previously ordered deported to become "permanently" ineligible for deportation. It is now unconstitutional for the permanent (indefinite) detention of both "criminal" and "non-criminal" aliens. This is now part of the basic constitutional rights of these currently detained "Chinese Aliens" under an executive deportation order, or even those having their permanent place of abode on an "Ellis Island" of the Pacific.

Because of the Joint Shanghai Communiques (1972, 1978, 1982), there is a longstanding conflict of American immigration law arising from an executive policy known as the "One China" policy which recognizes that "Chinese" are residing on both side of the Taiwan Straits. The only previous application of Chinese nationality to Taiwan was in the bilateral Treaty of Taipei which Japan officially terminated in 1972. The One China policy recognizes that Taiwan nationals are still the imperial subjects of Beijing. In short, this official executive agreement between governments has become a new "Chinese Exclusion Act" for Taiwan territory. The foreign affairs powers of the US Constitution applies to the governmental sphere of treaties and executive agreements which is virtually monopolized by the executive branch in the separation of powers of federal government. The Constitution does not sanction nor authorize those in the American executive branch to implement any racially descriminatory classifications which are so cleverly hidden in the perceived ambiguities of American nationality law. In the cycle of American legal history, this practice is not new. It is not particularly necessary to maliciously villify the executive branch implementations of "One China", but the continuation of this glaring breech of basic civil rights is regretable in light of present Taiwanese democratic "self-rule".

What about the legal doctrine of Political Questions and the Taiwan status?

Lest the dear reader becomes too enthused, the question of Taiwan is a political question for the political departments of US Government and no US Court will be able to unilaterally overturn it. The continuing US political practice of "no support for Taiwan independence" dates from the Nixon era which might be best summarized as the "Biden Doctrine". As current Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden has the jurisdictional oversight of the Taiwan status as set out under TRA. A recent speech reaffirmed his position on the "One China" policy and chided the Taiwan populace for not getting the clear message that the TRA does not recognize the present government of Taiwan territory as a "juridical person". There is little grounds to really contest or alter this present doctrine except that by overtly reminding Congress that when reaffirming Taiwan's political status under law, the Congress also sincerely intends to recognize or even further "enhance" the constitutionally inalienable civil rights of Taiwan under SFPT. In its proper legal sphere of political discretion under territorial powers of Article 2 in the US Constitution, the Congress sets out the political status of a peace treaty cession, and then it may further define the 'human rights' of that status. However, as the US State Department government archives have documented, defining such rights has proven diplomatically difficult with regard to the ROC in the past 56 years given the most enduring 'joint occupation' of Formosa. Under Article 4 of SFPT, President Carter derecognized the ROC as juridical person of Taiwan territory. But the constitutional rights for Taiwan are legal givens under TRA, and the failure to recognize that which is the most self-evident element of a political status by peace treaty for an insular area is a gross breech of the oath of office to the protect and defend the US Constitution.(Downes v. Bidwell)

Since the US Constitution requires that it be judicially interpreted in its proper legal context according to British common law, the nationality issue of "jus soli" or "law of the soil" must be utilized to determine the nationality of Taiwanese under the SFPT, TRA and "One China" policy.

The US Immigration and Nationality Act states that losses of US nationality shall not occur in contravention of treaties:

[8 U.S.C. 1489] Nothing in this title shall be applied in contravention of the provisions of any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party and which has been ratified by the Senate before December 25, 1952

The SFPT was ratified on April 28, 1952.

The bilateral ROC-Japan Peace Treaty was signed on the same day: April 28, 1952

The SFPT came into full force under US law before the ROC itself could even legally make a (terminated) treaty claim of Chinese nationality applicable to the "Japanese nationals" living on Taiwan.

In 1898, the US Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment with its right of citizenship by birthplace was applicable to Chinese aliens born "inside" the USA. If one is born in the Union or in an incorporated territory like Puerto Rico, there is little reason to cast doubts upon the 14th Amendment's applicability of jus soli.

However, Taiwan territory is an un-incorporated territory which is outside the full protections of the American constitution. Their basic constitutional rights, however, guarantee them some form of nationality lest they become stateless persons of the Taiwan status. Aliens may become denizens under federal common law by various means such as by the military occupational jurisdiction of a peace treaty cession. And such non-citizen nationality status is as a "subject of the Crown but without the law-making powers of natural-born subjects" (eg. full voting citizenship). Because of the indefinite military occupation of the Taiwan cession facilitating its current defacto independence as an unincorporated territory, the standard non-citizen nationality of INA does not specifically apply to Taiwan because it carries an automatic naturalization right of US citizenship with a 5 year residence within any territory of the Union.

Under the TRA, the Taiwanese are considered outside the "green card" zone which means they have not been collectively naturalized as US citizens nor as American non-citizen nationals of "outlying possessions" like in American Samoa or in limited numbers in the Mariana Islands (Saipan).  But the Taiwan island nationals are constitutionally entitled to a suitable form of non-citizen status of American nationality until the peaceful determination of Taiwan status. Such island nationality status in federal jurisprudence is very similar to the US Trust Territory Passport. Trust territory passports are not presently in general circulation as the particular SFPT ceded islands are now independent or politically integrated with the USA. But a continuing number of the Pacific island nationals of the SFPT have actually retained their legal rights to the US Trust Territory passport despite the dejure independence of their trust territorial homelands after 1986. The issuing authority is the US government, but the local island authorities currently handle the issuance of these official US passports. When abroad, they are still extended American consular protections as the legal equivalent of US Nationality.

Both the INA and TRA exclude Taiwan from being considered as an "outlying possession" like American Samoa for the purposes of determining non-citizen nationality with an automatic right of entry into the "green card zone". "Outlying possession" is a legal term of INA contextual origination and any official misuseage by others with respects to insular status issues does not understand its inherent limits of immigration law jurisdiction of the green card zone and the related official citizenship naturalization implications for non-citizen nationality. Beware that it is not a jurisdictional delineation of the "USA" in its broader constitutional totality as embodied by the legal doctrines of incorporated or un-incorporated territory. For Taiwan, however, the TRA's references to INA status does clearly stipulate "jus soli" as the only acceptable basis of its official determination for nationality status of those prospective immigrants coming from a 'foreign state equivalent' into the 'green card' zone.

Going back to 1898, the US Supreme Court applied the British common law intrepretations of jus soli of the 14th Amendment as the litmus test for determining the American nationality status for "Chinese subjects of the Emperor". The resolution of this conflict of immigration laws formed the foundation of the Court's constitutional intrepretation of jus soli and it was very definitive.  It held that "Chinese subjects" of the Emperor in Beijing could not be deemed to be Chinese aliens under US immigration law if they were born under the dominion of the USA.

British common law holds that anyone born, including the children of "Chinese aliens", in a birthplace coming under the dominion of the king is irrefutably deemed to be a natural-born subject by their place of birth. The dominion of the king over the subjects of a territory was determined by allegiance and protection thereof.

For Taiwan, the SPFT creates an involuntary allegiance of Taiwan nationals under the law of nations or jus feciale, and the protections of Taiwan are Congressionally mandated to be carried out by the US Commander-in-Chief under the TRA as the supreme law of the land as all ratified treaties are so legally elevated under the US Constitution.

The One China policy falsely classifies the Taiwan nationals of SFPT to be 'subjects of Beijing' while ignoring their basic rights of the 14th Amendment to equal protections including a jus soli determination of their present nationality under US immigration law.

Because of the present statusquo, the Taiwan national is constitutionally entitled to an inalienable right of the 5th Amendment of 'liberty' to travel abroad unhindered and to equal, full American consular protections. As US Nationals (Taiwan), an officially issued travel document should be made readily available in a fashion similar to the  inhabitants of other past "foriegn state equivalents" under INA, and only while indefinitely coming under the dominion of the USA. This proper legal authority, for the denizens of occupied areas, is found under Sec. 465 of FM 27-10 Rules of Land Warfare.

For legal citations, please see:

Insular Cases of 1900:
Downes v. Bidwell(Basic Constitutional Rights)
Neely v. Henkel (Occupied Cuba+Unincorporated Territory)
Downes v. De Lima (Separate Customs Territory)
Dooley v. USA (Separate Customs Territory)


USA v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (14th Amendment & jus soli of "Chinese alien" by Federal Common Law; Unconstitutional Descrimination of 1866 Civil Rights Law)

Yick Wo v. USA (14th Amendment rights of equal protections for Chinese Aliens residing under Chinese Exclusion Act)

Johnson v. Eigentrager (1950) (Paul, Citizen of Rome; "Paul's Rights" of Aliens under the Fifth Amendment; civis Romanus via Jus Feciale, Territoriality status jurisdiction v. extra-territoriality of Military Court Jurisdiction)

Johnson v. Dulles (1954) (Right to travel; Passport issuance denied by Sec. of State is unconstitutional under 5th Amendment rights)

Taiwan Relations Act (Inalienable Human Rights; foreign state equivalent under INA; Protection of Taiwan; Continuing Validity of Treaties)

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
(Foreign state equivalents vs. Dependent areas; Loss of US Nationality; US Trust Territory Passports)

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940

San Francisco Peace Treaty (Deed Title to Taiwan)

Treaty of Taipei (Terminated; bilateral ROC-Japan Treaty of Peace; "Chinese Nationality" for Taiwan nationals)

US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty (Terminated)

PRC-Japan Treaty of Friendship & Peace (1978)

Montevideo Convention of 1933
(Definition of "country"; juridicial persons standing under laws of nations)

Hague Convention of 1907; Geneva Convention (Laws of Occupation, Protections of local residents with their permanent abode in occupied or "hostile areas" by Commander-in-Chief; See FM 27-10)

Civil Affairs Regulations (eg FM 27-10 Laws of Land Warfare, FM 41-10 Civil Affairs Operations Manuals, Navy and Army c.1940-present)

FM 27-10 Laws of Land Warefare (Sec. 465 Military Passport Authority; Definition of "Effective Military Control"; Operations of Military Government; Inviolability of Rights for Inhabitants; Prohibited Resettlement of Occupied Area or "Mass Immigration" of US Nationals from "Green Card Zone"; Conquest by Peace Treaty for Continuation of Interim Occupational Authority; Allegiance Issues of Inhabitants; Prohibition against "inadmission" or similar jurisdictional issues for access to US Courts, protections of higher courts for occupied nationals)

POLITICAL QUESTIONS:

Goldwater v. Carter (Unconstitutional termination of treaties, like the MDT, may pierce the political question doctrine, only if Congress and President are stalemated or gridlock of constitutional powers)
Terlinden v. Ames, Charlton v. Kelly (judiciary recognition of tacit renewal of "expired" treaties, based upon "defacto" actions of political departments, is constitutional)

JONES v. U.S., 137 U.S. 202 (1890) (Determination of defacto or dejure ruler over territory is political question of executive actions, any form of unincorporated territorial status includes US judicial jurisdiction, Navassa was a Carribbean island not in possession of another government nor its citizens, despite "residual claims", terra nullius of Guano Act)
U S v. PALMER, 16 U.S. 610 (1818) (Non-recognition of an "Independent" colony fighting the Spanish Empire is executive power, Constitutional powers and Alien Tort Claims Act, non-recognition of sovereignty of "commissioned acts" under a purported legitimate authority belligerently fighting a "colonial status" is deemed to be stateless piracy)
FOSTER v. NEILSON, 27 U.S. 253 (1829)(Retrocession of "Lousianna Purchase" from Spain to France prior to US possession in 1803, 1800-1803 was "Interim" Spanish Administration of retroceded French territory and was not as "sovereign", Political Branch Power to establish the boundaries of "union territory" versus "non-union territory", Treaty cession legally equated with "Deed of Title")

NGIRAINGAS v. SANCHEZ ("non-person" status of Unincorporated Territory Government; Status as Federal Instrumentality; Sec. 1983 Liability under Civil Rights Laws of 1870);     

  

     

 
Interesting Links:
Taiwan Status in US Courts
REQUIRES ADOBE (PDF FILE)
Taiwan Documents Project
Formosa Betrayed
By George Kerr
Taiwan Independence Party
1