 Statement of Historical and Legal Evidence for US Nationality Status provided in accompaniment with Application for US nationality non-citizen PASSPORT by native Taiwanese person born in Taiwan FN #1: In Article 2 of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty of Aug. 5, 1952, it is recognized that in the SFPT Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores). Obviously, if Japan did not possess all such right, title, and claim after 1895, and up to the coming into force of the SFPT in 1952, the signatories of the treaty would not be agreeing to such a renunciation, and Article 2 would be meaningless. FN #2: In particular, see On the Law of War and Peace, Book 2, Chapter XI, Sec. XII: "We are obliged to confirm the engagements made by others, acting in our name, if it is evident that they had special, or general instructions from us to do so. And in granting a commission with full powers to any one, it may so happen that we are bound by the conduct of that agent, even if he exceed the secret instructions which he has received. For he acts upon that ostensible authority, by which we are bound to ratify whatever he does, although we may have bound him to do nothing but according to his private instructions." FN #3: In the present document, the verb "cede," and the noun "cession" are used in their broad original senses to denote the "surrendering of possession of," "relinquishment of sovereignty over," "renouncing of all right, title and claim to," etc. FN #4: The significance of the designation of a "receiving country" for a territorial cession in a peace treaty is explained as follows: The designation of a "receiving country" serves to authorize the Legislature of that country to pass legislation to establish civil government for the territory. Importantly however, before the beginning of civil government operations, the territory remains under the administrative authority of the (principal) occupying power. More explicitly, it should be noted that after the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris, the four areas of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and Cuba are all in exactly the same relationship to the United States. In other words, they are all under United States Military Government. This is despite the fact that Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam were ceded to the United States, and Cuba was not. Cuba was a "limbo cession." Hence in regard to the criteria for the designation of a TYPE 1 Insular Area of the United States (Insular Areas Acquired by Conquest), it is not necessary that the United States be designated as the "receiving country" for the territorial cession in the peace treaty, but only that the following three conditions be met: (1) conquest by US military forces, (2) the United States as "the (principal) occupying power," and (3) territorial cession in the peace treaty. FN #5: A fundamental requirement of due process is "the opportunity to be heard." See Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. FN #6: It is noted that no unincorporated territories of the United States have initiated their own mandatory military conscription policies, as such policies would be in violation of their status under the federal dominion. At the present time, Taiwanese males are subject to mandatory military conscription under the authority of the subordinate occupying power and government in exile "Republic of China." The imposition of these mandatory military conscription policies and related travel restrictions over the male Taiwanese populace beginning in the early 1950's are a denial of "liberty" under the US Constitution, and in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. This is because any activity prohibited for the principal occupying power is certainly prohibited for a subordinate occupying power. See -- Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, (1949.08.12), Article 51 and as codified in FM 27-10, paragraph 418:In Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), the US Supreme Court held that "FM 27-10 (1940), . . . states the principal offenses under the laws of war recognized by the United States." FN #7: The standard US Supreme Court references for the doctrine of "temporary allegiance" under the law of occupation are United States v. Rice (1819) and Fleming v. Page (1850). The first involved the British occupation of Castine, Maine, during the War of 1812. The second involved the US occupation of the port of Tampico, in the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, during the Mexican - American War. However, both were during periods of belligerent occupation, and were not followed by territorial cession in the peace treaty. In contrast, Taiwan is currently under a civil affairs administration of United States Military Government, which is after peace treaty cession. As a result of the peace treaty cession, under US Constitutional law, Taiwan has been elevated to the position of "unincorporated territory under USMG," and the allegiance of native Taiwanese persons has been raised to a more permanent condition. |