The transferring of the title of Taiwan

[raymondaliasapollyon]

... c. United States Does Not Recognize Assertion of Sovereignty: Historically, there are circumstances in which the United States does not recognize the annexation of territory by another country. When this occurs, the Department will provide specific guidance to passport authorizing officers and the 7 FAM 1300 Appendix D will be amended accordingly. Do not enter in the passport the name of any independent country listed as place of birth on a passport application or birthplace evidence whose incorporation into another nation is not recognized by the United States as the country of birth.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in a Government document.
If I write Columbia as place of birth, then the State Department can't enter it because the independent country Columbia's "incorporation into another nation has not been recognized by the US"!

I think the author meant to say "Do no enter as the country of birth the name of any State whose incorporation of a territory is not recognized by the United States."
After all, the original statement does not fit well with the example on p.5:

For Example: The United States never recognized the annexation of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia by the U.S.S.R. The United States did not authorize entry of “U.S.S.R” or the “Soviet Union” as a place of birth name in a U.S. passport for a person born in Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia, even if the evidence of birth listed U.S.S.R.

Here, the USSR was the annexor State, and Latvia, Lituania, Estonia were the annexees. A person born in any of the latter three places cannot write 'USSR' as his/her place of birth, because the incorporation was not recognized by the USA.

In reagrds to Taiwan, was Taiwan a former country that is "recognized as having been incorporated into another nation" for people born between 1895 and 1945??

If my reworked version is on the right track, the fact that 'China' is a permisslble option suggests that the incorporation of Taiwan by China is recognized by the USA.

On Page 44
United States citizens born abroad may list the city or town, rather than the country, of their birth in United States passports when there is an objection to the country listing as established by the Department of State.

Oddly enough, my daughter's US Passport reads:
Place of birth: TAIWAN
[no "R.O.C."]

Does this mean that Taiwan is now a "city or town", or that it is a "country", or was it a country that was incorporated into another nation?

None of the above.

In the document, the US expressly denies the Statehood of Taiwan on top of p.9.
It is not regarded as a 'city or town' either; in fact, on p.9, it is shown that the Taiwanese-born applicant has three options: 1. Taiwan 2. China 3. city of birth.

....
(e) The city of birth only option (7 FAM 1380 Appendix D) is an available alternative.
....

[TaiwanTeacher]

I think the author meant to say "Do no enter as the country of birth the name of any State whose incorporation of a territory is not recognized by the United States."
After all, the original statement does not fit well with the example on p.5: [1]

If my reworked version is on the right track, the fact that 'China' is a permisslble option suggests that the incorporation of Taiwan by China is recognized by the USA. [2]


In the document, the US expressly denies the Statehood of Taiwan on top of p.9. [3]
It is not regarded as a 'city or town' either; in fact, on p.9, it is shown that the Taiwanese-born applicant has three options: 1. Taiwan 2. China 3. city of birth.

....
(e) The city of birth only option (7 FAM 1380 Appendix D) is an available alternative.
....

[1] I see you are attempting to reword State Department documents. Maybe you should take it up with them before doing so.
[2] Nope. You are reaching. In fact, the USA does NOT recognize the incorporation of Taiwan by China, or it would have used such specific terminology in paragraph (f).
All the US does is ACKNOWLEDGE the "Chinese" position...
To wit:
"(f) One China Policy: Passports may not be issued showing place of birth as “Taiwan, China”, “Taiwan, Republic of China” or “Taiwan ROC”. The United States recognizes the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China."

Look at that statement from another angle, and one could derive from it that persons who do not side with the position of "One China" and "Taiwan is a part of China" are thus excluded, and therefore acknowledged as being "NOT Chinese" in the eyes of the State Department. Interesting...

[3] Again, you are reaching. The US does not "deny" statehood to Taiwan; it only expresses the position of being one of several countries which do not RECOGNIZE Taiwan's statehood. It may be inferred that they support a distinction between China and Taiwan, as they clearly allow the word TAIWAN to be used as a place of birth while at the same time denying Tibetans (in that fictitiously named "Autonomous Region") the same right.

"NOTE: The United States does not officially recognize Taiwan as a “state” or “country,” although passport issuing officers may enter “Taiwan” as a place of birth."

Hmmm... TAIWAN, not a recognized country/state, certainly not a city, and not likely a province (Canadians/Aussies, etc. can't list a Province name in lieu of their country's name and no exclusion to this practice has been stipulated as applicable to Taiwan). So what IS it? Just a "PLACE"???
What's next? A person born in Taiwan is allowed to use the word "EARTH" as "Place of Birth"? hahaha

Are we having fun yet?

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I think the author meant to say "Do no enter as the country of birth the name of any State whose incorporation of a territory is not recognized by the United States."
After all, the original statement does not fit well with the example on p.5: [1]

If my reworked version is on the right track, the fact that 'China' is a permisslble option suggests that the incorporation of Taiwan by China is recognized by the USA. [2]


In the document, the US expressly denies the Statehood of Taiwan on top of p.9. [3]
It is not regarded as a 'city or town' either; in fact, on p.9, it is shown that the Taiwanese-born applicant has three options: 1. Taiwan 2. China 3. city of birth.

....
(e) The city of birth only option (7 FAM 1380 Appendix D) is an available alternative.
....

[1] I see you are attempting to reword State Department documents. Maybe you should take it up with them before doing so.

How would you make sense of the sheer inconsistency between the USSR example and the original statement, if my reworded statement isn't adopted?

[2] Nope. You are reaching. In fact, the USA does NOT recognize the incorporation of Taiwan by China, or it would have used such specific terminology in paragraph (f).
All the US does is ACKNOWLEDGE the "Chinese" position...
To wit:
"(f) One China Policy: Passports may not be issued showing place of birth as “Taiwan, China”, “Taiwan, Republic of China” or “Taiwan ROC”. The United States recognizes the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China."

Look at that statement from another angle, and one could derive from it that persons who do not side with the position of "One China" and "Taiwan is a part of China" are thus excluded, and therefore acknowledged as being "NOT Chinese" in the eyes of the State Department. Interesting...

"Taiwan, China" is excluded for a simple reason; it's too wordy; note that "Guangdong, China", "Hong Kong, China" or "Tibet, China" is not used either. But you wouldn't say the USA does NOT recognize HK, Tibet, Guangdong, etc. as parts of China.

The point is that the Shanghai communqie forbids the US to challenge the Chinese position. If the option China were not offered, that would consitute a challenge to the position, in light of the fact that the names of other countries can be printed as place of birth.

To put it simply, the US ACKNOWLEDGES the Chinese positin, but at that time it cannot challenge that position. The fact that other countries can be used as place of birth put the US in a position to offer the 'China' option.

Let' say the US is unwilling to put China there, because it is bound by the Shanghai communque to do so. But at the same time offering this option amounts to reluctantly regarding Taiwan as part of China, or at least acquiescing in this position.

[3] Again, you are reaching. The US does not "deny" statehood to Taiwan; it only expresses the position of being one of several countries which do not RECOGNIZE Taiwan's statehood. It may be inferred that they support a distinction between China and Taiwan, as they clearly allow the word TAIWAN to be used as a place of birth while at the same time denying Tibetans (in that fictitiously named "Autonomous Region") the same right.

"NOTE: The United States does not officially recognize Taiwan as a “state” or “country,” although passport issuing officers may enter “Taiwan” as a place of birth."

Hmmm... TAIWAN, not a recognized country/state, certainly not a city, and not likely a province (Canadians/Aussies, etc. can't list a Province name in lieu of their country's name and no exclusion to this practice has been stipulated as applicable to Taiwan). So what IS it? Just a "PLACE"??? hahaha

Are we having fun yet?

The US does deny Taiwan is a State. Not recognzing the statehood of Taiwan is equal to denying its Statehood. If the wording in the document is not clear enough, you can look at the statements by US official Dennis Wilder:

"Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not a state in the international Community."

http://datelinetaipei.blogspot.tw/2007/ ... joice.html

It's true that the US wants a distinction to be made between Taiwan and China. After all, its de facto independence is different from, say, HK or Tibet.
Also, the option 'Taiwan' was an innovation introduced by a Public Law in 1994. Really curious to see what options were granted to Taiwanese-born applicants prior to that year.

[Hartzell]

Hmmm... TAIWAN, not a recognized country/state, certainly not a city, and not likely a province (Canadians/Aussies, etc. can't list a Province name in lieu of their country's name and no exclusion to this practice has been stipulated as applicable to Taiwan). So what IS it? Just a "PLACE"???

Taiwan is occupied territory.

For those who are familiar with laws of war studies, a review of the content of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, shows that Taiwan's status as occupied territory is clearly specified.

For the rest of you, . . . . . . well, I am sorry that you cannot understand the treaty. You need to improve your knowledge of international law. The following Chart will help get you started --
http://www.civil-taiwan.org/chart-int1law.htm

[Dog's_Breakfast]

Taiwan is occupied territory.

For those who are familiar with laws of war studies, a review of the content of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, shows that Taiwan's status as occupied territory is clearly specified.

For the rest of you, . . . . . . well, I am sorry that you cannot understand the treaty. You need to improve your knowledge of international law. The following Chart will help get you started --
http://www.civil-taiwan.org/chart-int1law.htm

Richard, may I just ask a question? Why are you working so hard to get Taiwan declared an "occupied territory?" Is it your goal to make this place into another Guam or Puerto Rico?

[printlessfoot]

Richard, may I just ask a question? Why are you working so hard to get Taiwan declared an "occupied territory?" Is it your goal to make this place into another Guam or Puerto Rico?

I am not here to speak for Richard Hartzell but for myself. The reason that I agree with Richard Hartzell's declaration is because Hartzell and Lin had submitted sufficient critical evidences to support their claim and they convinced me.

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Hmmm... TAIWAN, not a recognized country/state, certainly not a city, and not likely a province (Canadians/Aussies, etc. can't list a Province name in lieu of their country's name and no exclusion to this practice has been stipulated as applicable to Taiwan). So what IS it? Just a "PLACE"???

Taiwan is occupied territory.

For those who are familiar with laws of war studies, a review of the content of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, shows that Taiwan's status as occupied territory is clearly specified.

For the rest of you, . . . . . . well, I am sorry that you cannot understand the treaty. You need to improve your knowledge of international law. The following Chart will help get you started --
http://www.civil-taiwan.org/chart-int1law.htm

Which part of the SFPT and law of war unambiguously specify that Taiwan is occupied territory of the US?

[printlessfoot]

For the rest of you, . . . . . . well, I am sorry that you cannot understand the treaty. You need to improve your knowledge of international law. The following Chart will help get you started --
http://www.civil-taiwan.org/chart-int1law.htm

I was and still am one of those who doese not fully understand the intricacies of international law. However thanks to Harzell & Lin (Don't they sound like a real law firm?), I started to be enlightened. Hartzell will be to Formosan as Paine to American. Both fostered the birth of a new identy, which pursued their own cultural, national, and ethnic destiny under the guidance of higher values.

[printlessfoot]

Which part of the SFPT and law of war unambiguously specify that Taiwan is occupied territory of the US?

When are you going to sit down and start reading the SFPT sincerely?

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Which part of the SFPT and law of war unambiguously specify that Taiwan is occupied territory of the US?

When are you going to sit down and start reading the SFPT sincerely?

Instead of accusing me of failing to read the SFPT 'sincerely', you could show exactly which parts thereof support the claim that Taiwan is occupied territory by the US.