Questions for Chairman or other Ranking Member of the House Committee on Resources
Are you familiar with the situation of Mexican American War in terms of the military attacks against the territory of Mexico by United States military forces? And when those Mexican troops surrendered, is there any basis is US law or international law for saying that the sovereignty of Mexico was transferred to the United States?
Are you aware that most of the upper half of what we today consider the country of Mexico was occupied by US troops?
And are you aware of why those US military troops left these regions of Mexico after the conclusion of the peace treaty on July 4, 1848?
Now turning to the situation of Taiwan, let’s overview some of the important legal documents in relation to the US government’s handling of the Taiwan issue. Originally, we know that it was General Douglas MacArthur who directed the Chiang Kai-shek to come to Taiwan and accept the surrender of Japanese troops in “General Order No. 1” of Sept. 2, 1945. Is there any basis under US law or international law for saying that when the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek accepted the surrender of Japanese troops, then the sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred to the Republic of China?
The Senate ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) is an important document in regard to the status of Taiwan under US law. Then of course we have the Taiwan Relations Act. Looking at these legal documents, can you see that the sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred to the Republic of China? Can you see that the United States recognizes the nomenclature of “Republic of China” as the legitimate government of Taiwan?
Well then, going back to the example of the US troops in Mexico after the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace after the Mexican – American War ...... is there any rationale under US law for the Republic of China to still be in Taiwan after the conclusion of the SFPT?
So, with reference to the Immigration and Naturalization Act --
INA, 101(a) (30) [ aka 8 USC 1101 (a)(30) ]
The term "passport" means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.
Why is the US Customs & Border Protection accepting passports issued by the “Republic of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs” as being issued by a competent authority and thus valid for entry to the United States? How can the Republic of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs be deemed under US law to be the competent authority for issuing passports to native persons in Taiwan?
Insular Issues
In terms of insular issues, are you aware of the American Insurance Company case (1828) case, where US Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall said: "The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty." and that this case is cited in Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), in his explanation of the scope of application of the "territorial clause" (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2):
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.... and has been repeatedly cited in later US Supreme Court cases such as Fleming v. Page (1850), Downes v. Bidwell (1901), Dorr v. US (1904), and others.
Do you have any reason to believe that the interpretation of the territorial clause is fundamentally different today than it was back in the early 1800’s?
And, after the Spanish American War, the earliest type of United States insular areas clearly appears to be those areas which were (1) conquered by US military forces, (2) held by the United States as the (principal) occupying power, and then actually (3) ceded by their original owners in the peace treaty ...... don’t these criteria define what we might call a Type 1 Insular Area?
If Taiwan meets these same criteria, isn’t Taiwan then a Type 1 insular area of the United States?
Are you aware of the fact that a precise determination of whether or not Taiwan is an insular area of the United States has a very great bearing on the rights of US citizens and US corporations in Taiwan? In the authoritative 1997 report compiled by the United States General Accounting Office for the House Committee on Resources, “US Insular Areas -- Application of the US Constitution,” on page 37 it is explained that: “The Congress has authority to impose income taxes on the worldwide income of US citizens and corporations, including income from the insular areas. However, federal individual and corporate income taxes as such are not currently imposed in the insular areas.” For Taiwan, this interpretation complies with Taiwan’s status as an independent customs territory. So, if Taiwan is an insular area of the United States, this means that US citizens and US corporations in Taiwan are now under an unfair tax burden. Is the House Committee on Resources investigating this matter?
Additionally, a determination of Taiwan’s insular status would have an effect on United States’ sales of military arms to Taiwan. None of the current US insular areas have their own standing armies, nor have they instituted their own military conscription policies over the local populace. This is because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress will provide for the “common defense,” and that is done through the operations of the Dept. of Defense in the Pentagon. Is the House Committee on Resources investigating this matter?
Moreover, a determination of Taiwan’s insular status would affect Taiwan’s entry into the World Health Organization. If Taiwan is a US insular area, then it should enter the WHO as an associate member under the USA. Is the House Committee on Resources investigating this matter?
And, of course, if Taiwan is an insular area of the USA, it would mean that the US Congress should take charge of the handling of Taiwan according to the provisions of the territorial clause of the US Constitution. In turn, that would mean that the members of Congress could authorize the Taiwanese people to call a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution under US administrative authority. Is the House Committee on Resources liaisoning with the members of the Taiwan Caucus about these matters?
THIS FILE -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/rogerlin/misc/Pombo-Ques.doc
3