This chart extrapolates the concept of having "eligibility" to carry some type of U.S. passport back to earlier eras, even though most persons did not carry passports before the 1950’s. The special circumstances of (1) trust territories, or (2) Indian reservations in the fifty states may overlap with insular law to some extent, but are not considered. Foreign Territory held by U.S. military forces under belligerent occupation (without any territorial cession) may be said to be under the jurisdiction and administrative control of the USA, but is not "insular" and hence is not considered here either.
| [Note 1]: |
A person who is a dual citizen of his/her home country and the USA would of course be qualified to carry a US passport.
|
| [Note 2]: |
The terminology of "domestic country" and "island citizen" comes from the ruling in Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1 (1904).
|
| [Note 3]: |
Cuba and Taiwan were both "limbo cessions" with the USA as principal occupying power and qualify as U.S. insular areas. U.S. Insular Law applies to Taiwan and Cuba because they are "inside" the principle of cession by conquest which was confirmed by cession by treaty. In DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 1 (1901), while recognizing that Cuba was foreign territory, it was held that "Cuba is under the dominion of the United States."
|
| [Note 4]: |
There are no Articles or clauses in the SFPT or the TRA which can be interpreted to recognize the Republic of China as the legal government of Taiwan. In accordance with the One China Policy of the United States, no paperwork issued by ROC officials which can be reasonably expected to be inspected or viewed by U.S. officials should include "Republic of China" markings.
|
| [Note 5]: |
The people of Puerto Rico were collectively naturalized as U.S. citizens in March 1917. The people of Guam were collectively naturalized as U.S. citizens in August 1950.
|
| [Note 6]: |
In the Insular Cases (beginning 1901) the U.S. Supreme Court held that even without any action by the U.S. Congress, "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution apply in all unincorporated territories. Among others, so-called "fundamental rights" include life, liberty, property, and due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. According to the precedent in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), and subsequent INS, USCIS and DHS interpretations, the right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen, or other person owing allegiance to the United States (or, if in occupied territory, at minimum owing "obedience" to the United States), cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. The right to travel also includes the right to obtain a passport. Hence, the Taiwanese are entitled to carry U.S. national non-citizen passports or something similar -- such as the travel documents (certificates of identity) issued in the Ryukyu Islands 1952 to 1972.
|
| [Note 7]: |
The San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) came into effect in 1952, and in Article 2(b) Japan renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) came into effect in early 1979, and is a domestic law of the United States. However, there is no mandate under either the SFPT or the TRA for the Republic of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue passports to native Taiwanese people, in the areas of Formosa and the Pescadores. As defined in INA 101(a)(30), the ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot be construed as the "competent authority" for issuing passports to these persons. Hence, it can be maintained that under U.S. law the Taiwan governing authorities are counterfeiting "Republic of China passports." As the principal occupying power of the SFPT, it is the USA which, through its Dept. of State, is the "competent authority" for issuing ID documentation to native Taiwanese people under 8 USC 1101 (a)(30).
|
N/A is used to indicate "Not Applicable."
|
|
