CITES BY TOPIC:  "National" (citizenship)

IMPORTANT NOTE!: 

  1. A "U.S. National" or "national of the United States" is defined in 8 U.S.C. 1408, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B), and 8 U.S.C.  1452.

  2. A "national but not a citizen" defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. 1452

  3. A "U.S. national" and a "non-citizen national" are NOT the same thing in law!

  4. In terms of tax status under the Internal Revenue Code, however, "U.S. nationals" and "nationals but not citizens" are equivalent, and both are "nonresident aliens" defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(B)

  5. See "Why you are a "national" or a 'state national' and NOT a 'U.S. citizen'" pamphlet for supporting details


PDF  Why you are a "national" or a "state national" and NOT a "U.S. citizen".  Article on our website based on sections 4.12.6 and 4.12.6.1 of the Great IRS Hoax book.


United States Style Manual, Sections 5.22 to 5.23, U.S. Government Printing Office

Nationalities, etc.

  5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used
for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.
  5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the
following forms will be used.
Alabamian
Alaskan
Arizonan
Arkansan
Californian
Coloradan
Connecticuter
Delawarean
Floridian
Georgian
Hawaiian
Idahoan
Illinoisan
Indianian
Iowan
Kansan
Kentuckian
Louisianian
Mainer
Marylander
Massachusettsan
Michiganian
Minnesotan
Mississippian
Missourian
Montanan
Nebraskan
Nevadan
New Hampshirite
New Jerseyan
New Mexican
New Yorker
North Carolinian
North Dakotan
Ohioan
Oklahoman
Oregonian
Pennsylvanian
Rhode Islander
South Carolinian
South Dakotan
Tennessean
Texan
Utahn
Vermonter
Virginian
Washingtonian
West Virginian
Wisconsinite
Wyomingite
 


Title 26: Internal Revenue Code:

The word 'national' or 'national of the United States' is used only three times in the Internal Revenue Code.

  • Section 152 [Dependant Defined]
  • Section 896 [Adjustments of tax on nationals, residents, and corporations of certain foreign countries]

Citizenship Status under 8 U.S.C. v. Tax Status under 26 U.S.C


TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101.

Sec. 1101. - Definitions

(a) (22) The term ''national of the United States'' means

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent [but not necessarily exclusive] allegiance to the United States. 


22 CFR 50.1: Definitions

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 22, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2006]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 22CFR50.1]
[Page 233]

TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS

CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF STATE
PART 50_NATIONALITY PROCEDURES--Table of Contents
Sec.  50.1  Definitions.
50.1 Definitions.
Subpart A_Procedures for Determination of United States Nationality of a
              Person Abroad

50.2 Determination of U.S. nationality of persons abroad.
50.3 Application for registration.
50.4 Application for passport.
50.5 Application for registration of birth abroad.
50.6 Registration at the Department of birth abroad.
50.7 Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States
          of America.
50.8 Certification of Report of Birth Abroad of a United States Citizen.
50.9 Card of identity.
50.10 Certificate of nationality.
50.11 Certificate of identity for travel to the United States to apply
          for admission.

Subpart B_Retention and Resumption of Nationality
50.20 Retention of nationality.
50.30 Resumption of nationality.
 

                     Subpart C_Loss of Nationality

50.40 Certification of loss of U.S. nationality.
50.50 Renunciation of nationality.
50.51 Notice of right to appeal

    Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 8 U.S.C. 1104, 1502, 1503 and 1504.
    Source: 31 FR 13537, Oct. 20, 1966, unless otherwise noted.

    The following definitions shall be applicable to this part:

    (a) United States means the continental United States, the State of  Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, the Canal Zone, American Samoa, Guam and any other islands or territory over which the United States exercises jurisdiction.
[. . .]

    (d) National means a citizen of the United States or a noncitizen owing permanent allegiance to the United States.


TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 53 > Sec. 4309a.

Sec. 4309a. - United States responsibilities for employees of the United Nations

(d) United States nationals

This section shall not apply with respect to any United States national.


"national" defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21)

(a) (21) The term ''national'' means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.


Great IRS Hoax, Section 4.6: The Three Definitions of "United States"

...

Another important distinction needs to be made.  Definition 1 [in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] refers to the country “United States”, but this country is not a “nation”, in the sense of international law.  This very important point was made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1794  in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794), when it said:

This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State; certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this 'do the people of the United States form a Nation?

A cause so conspicuous and interesting, should be carefully and accurately viewed from every possible point of sight. I shall examine it; 1st. By the principles of general jurisprudence. 2nd. By the laws and practice of particular States and Kingdoms. From the law of nations little or no illustration of this subject can be expected. By that law the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a NATION. It has only been by a very few comprehensive minds, such as those of Elizabeth and the Fourth Henry, that this last great idea has been even contemplated. 3rdly. and chiefly, I shall examine the important question before us, by the Constitution of the United States, and the legitimate result of that valuable instrument.
[Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794)]

Black’s Law Dictionary further clarifies the distinction between a nation and a society by clarifying the the differences between a national government and a federal government, and keep in mind that our government is called “federal government”:

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  The government of a whole nation, as distinguished form that of a local or territorial division of the nation, and also as distinguished form that of a league or confederation.

“A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government.  A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.”  Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 393.” 
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, p. 1176]

So the “United States*” the country is a “society” and a “sovereignty” but not a “nation” under the law of nations, by the Supreme Court’s own admission.  Because the supreme Court has ruled on this matter, it is now incumbent upon each of us to always remember it and to apply it in all of our dealings with the Federal Government.  If not, we lose our individual Sovereignty by default and the Federal Government assumes jurisdiction over us.  So, while a sovereign Citizen will want to be the third type of Citizen and on occasion the first, he would never want to be the second.


Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 - Supreme Court 1939-state citizens are are referred to as "nationals". Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York and was a state citizen/national

*345 "It thus becomes important to note how far these differing claims of American nationality are fairly operative with respect to persons living abroad, whether they were born abroad or were born in the United States of alien parents and taken during minority to reside in the territory of States to which the parents owed allegiance. It is logical that, while the child remains or resides in territory of the foreign State claiming him as a national, the United States should respect its claim to allegiance. The important point to observe is that the doctrine of dual allegiance ceases, in American contemplation, to be fully applicable after the child has reached adult years. Thereafter two States may in fact claim him as a national. Those claims are not, however, regarded as of equal merit, because one of the States may then justly assert that his relationship to itself as a national is, by reason of circumstances that have arisen, inconsistent with, and reasonably superior to, any claim of allegiance asserted by any other State. Ordinarily the State in which the individual retains his residence after attaining his majority has the superior claim. The statutory law of the United States affords some guidance but not all that could be desired, because it fails to announce the circumstances when the child who resides abroad within the territory of a State reasonably claiming his allegiance forfeits completely the right to perfect his inchoate right to retain American citizenship. The department must, therefore, be reluctant to declare that particular conduct on the part of a person after reaching adult years in foreign territory produces a forfeiture or something equivalent to expatriation.

"The statute does, however, make a distinction between the burden imposed upon the person born in the United States of foreign parents and the person born abroad of American parents. With respect to the latter, section 6 of the Act of March 2, 1907, lays down the requirement 346*346 that, as a condition to the protection of the United States, the individual must, upon reaching the age of 18, record at an American consulate an intention to remain a citizen of the United States, and must also take an oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining his majority.

[Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 - Supreme Court 1939]


Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F. 3d 507 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2004

Only aliens are deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227. The INA defines "alien" as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States". 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3). Alwan contends that he is not an alien, but a national, which the INA defines as "(A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States". 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22).

513*513 The INA is silent as to what constitutes a "a person who ... owes permanent allegiance to the United States". As noted supra, however, the BIA's determination that Alwan fails to meet this criterion is not subject to Chevron deference. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A). As such, we review it de novo, and conclude that the BIA did not err in rejecting Alwan's claim of national status.

The Government appears to advance the position, adopted by the Ninth Circuit, that the term "national" refers only to United States citizens and inhabitants of U.S. territories "not ... given full political equality with citizens", a designation now only applicable to residents of American Samoa and Swains Island. See Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2003). By contrast, Alwan argues in his brief that a person may demonstrate "permanent allegiance to the United States", and thus attain national status, by applying for citizenship and "compl[e]menting said application with objective demonstrations of allegiance." See Lee v. Ashcroft, 216 F.Supp.2d 51 (E.D.N.Y.2002).

Because Alwan's claim of national status fails under either standard, we decline to decide here which definition of "national" is correct. We therefore assume, arguendo, that an alien may attain national status through sufficient objective demonstrations of allegiance to the United States. Alwan claims that he has objectively demonstrated his allegiance by (1) applying for derivative citizenship on his parents' applications for naturalization; (2) registering with the Selective Service; and (3) taking an oath of allegiance during a 1995 interview with an INS officer.

Alwan's petition for naturalization was denied. His claims of having registered with the Selective Service and of having taken an oath of allegiance are not supported by any citations to evidence in the record. Nonetheless, we will further assume, arguendo, that the latter two events did occur, and find that the "objective demonstrations of allegiance" proffered by Alwan are insufficient to confer national status.

Alwan's claim of nationality hangs on a single premise: that his situation is similar to that of the petitioner in Lee v. Ashcroft, a case from the Eastern District of New York. Id. In Lee, a citizen of Hong Kong successfully challenged a final order of removal on the grounds that he was a national of the United States. The petitioner in Lee, however, demonstrated far more permanent ties to the United States than Alwan. He had lived in the United States since early childhood, had married a United States citizen, and had two citizen children. More importantly, he maintained no ties with his native Hong Kong, which, in any event, was under different political authority than during his brief residency there. Id. at 58. This absence of ties is in stark contrast to Alwan, who made regular extended visits to the West Bank, initially for the purpose of meeting and marrying a Palestinian woman, and later to visit his wife and child.

In sum, though Lee perhaps presents a permissive interpretation of the requirements of national status, even it would not include Alwan under its aegis. We therefore hold that Alwan has not demonstrated the "permanent allegiance to the United States" required to attain national status under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22). As such, the BIA did not err in classifying him as an alien, deportable under the provisions of the INA.

[Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F. 3d 507 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2004]


PDF Jose Luis Perdomo-Padilla v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, 9th Cir, No. 01-71454, June 23, 2003-meaning of "national of the United States"


Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998):

*345 "It thus becomes important to note how far these differing claims of American nationality are fairly operative with respect to persons living abroad, whether they were born abroad or were born in the United States of alien parents and taken during minority to reside in the territory of States to which the parents owed allegiance. It is logical that, while the child remains or resides in territory of the foreign State claiming him as a national, the United States should respect its claim to allegiance. The important point to observe is that the doctrine of dual allegiance ceases, in American contemplation, to be fully applicable after the child has reached adult years. Thereafter two States may in fact claim him as a national. Those claims are not, however, regarded as of equal merit, because one of the States may then justly assert that his relationship to itself as a national is, by reason of circumstances that have arisen, inconsistent with, and reasonably superior to, any claim of allegiance asserted by any other State. Ordinarily the State in which the individual retains his residence after attaining his majority has the superior claim. The statutory law of the United States affords some guidance but not all that could be desired, because it fails to announce the circumstances when the child who resides abroad within the territory of a State reasonably claiming his allegiance forfeits completely the right to perfect his inchoate right to retain American citizenship. The department must, therefore, be reluctant to declare that particular conduct on the part of a person after reaching adult years in foreign territory produces a forfeiture or something equivalent to expatriation.

[Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)]


Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1950:

Appellant here does not claim American citizenship, and no one owes American allegiance save either a citizen or a national. The statute covering passports is limited to persons owing allegiance to the United States. The privilege, therefore, of a passport to Guam depends upon whether this applicant is a United States national. We shall hereinafter see that Cabebe was a United States national immediately prior to Philippine independence and that immediately thereafter, the fact upon which such status (inclusive of allegiance) was based having ceased to exist, the inclusive status ceased to exist with it.

Appellant contends that his United States nationality was not affected by the proclamation of Philippine independence and hence that he is entitled to the passport denied to him.

"Nationality" is a term denoting a relationship between an individual and a nation "involving the duty of obedience [or "allegiance"] on the part of the subject and protection on the part of the state."[7] And, it is domestic rather than international law which in most circumstances determines acquisition or loss of nationality.[8] United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation.

With the cession of populated areas by the Crown of Spain to the United States, however, persons collectively became nationalized but not naturalized, Spanish subjects residing in ceded territory becoming nationals of the United States unless it was otherwise provided by treaty.[9] Accordingly, it was realized that while all citizens of the United States were nationals, not all nationals were citizens. A hybrid 798*798 status appeared, the so-called "non-citizen national".

The Nationality Act of 1940 defines the phrase "national of the United States" as meaning "(1) a citizen of the United States, or (2) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. It does not include an alien." 8 U.S.C.A. § 501(b).[10]

The archipelago known as the Philippine Islands was ceded to the United States by Spain effective April 11, 1899.[11] Treaty provisions gave the then Spanish subjects who were "natives of the Peninsula" (i. e., born in Spain) residing in the ceded territory the option of retaining Spanish nationality either by removing therefrom or by remaining therein and making a prescribed declaration of desire to preserve such allegiance before a court of record within a certain time. It was further declared in the same Treaty that the "civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress" of the United States. These treaty provisions have been interpreted as effecting a transition nolens volens of Spanish subjects inhabiting the Islands at the effective date of such treaty into United States nationals except for "natives of the Peninsula" who acted upon the option to preserve their Spanish nationality. See Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 1901, 183 U.S. 176, 179, 22 S.Ct. 59, 46 L.Ed. 138.

By the Act of July 1, 1902,[12] "all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein, who were Spanish subjects on" April 11, 1899, "and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto" were deemed and held to be "citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States" except such as pursuant to the Treaty of Paris were authorized and had elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain. To such provisions Congress in 1912 added a proviso authorizing the enactment of a naturalization law by the Philippine legislature to permit the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by certain enumerated classes of non-citizens.[13] The 1902 provisions and the 1912 proviso were restated and continued in Section 2 of the Jones or Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916.[14] The Philippine legislature enacted a naturalization law on March 26, 1920, which, conforming to the above mentioned proviso, provided in part as follows: "Who may become Philippine citizens. — Philippine citizenship may be acquired by: (a) natives of the Philippines who are not citizens thereof under the Jones law [act of August 29, 1916][15]; (b) natives of the other insular possessions of the United States; (c) citizens of the United States, or foreigners who under the laws of the United States may become citizens of said country if residing therein."[16]

The preamble to the Jones Act, supra, the organic act with respect to Philippine independence, declared the following: "[I]t is, as it has always been, the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw 799*799 their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein; * * *." In pursuance of this policy Congress passed the Philippine Independence Act, Tydings-McDuffie Act, of 1934,[17] which stated the procedure by which the complete independence of the Philippine Islands was to be accomplished. In short, it authorized a constitutional convention to draft a constitution for the government of the newly named Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands, specified certain required provisions, and provided that after the President of the United States certified its conformance thereto the proposed constitution be submitted for ratification to Philippine voters. It was further declared that on July 4th next following the expiration of a period of 10 years from the date of inauguration of the new government under such constitution, the President of the United States would proclaim the complete independence of the Philippine Islands and the people thereof. By its terms the Act was not effective until accepted by concurrent resolution of the Philippine legislature or by a convention called for the purpose of passing upon such question. As of the date of such acceptance (which occurred in fact on May 1, 1934), it was provided in Section 8(a) (1) of the Act[18] that "[f]or the purposes of the Immigration Act of 1917, the Immigration Act of 1924 [with an exception not pertinent here] * * *, this section, and all other laws of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens, citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens." Compare Del Guercio v. Gabot, 9 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 559.

On July 4, 1946, as above stated, after all of the conditions precedent to independence stated in the Independence Act of 1934 had been met and the people of the Philippines had "clearly demonstrated their capacity for self-government," the President of the United States proclaimed that the "United States of America hereby withdraws and surrenders all rights of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty now existing and exercised by the United States of America in and over the territory and people of the Philippines" and that he for the United States thereby recognized "the independence of the Philippines as a separate and self-governing nation" and acknowledged "the authority and control over the same of the government instituted by the people thereof, under the constitution now in force." 60 Stat. 1352, 1353. A treaty to such effect was entered upon with the Republic of the Philippines.[19]

The constitution drafted, certified, and ratified in conformity with the Independence Act of 1934, under which the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines operated, thus continued in force for the independent Republic of the Philippines. It provides that the following persons are "citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." It is not disputed but that appellant was a citizen of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of such constitution. Hence he was a citizen of the Philippines thereunder. See footnote 5, ante.

Filipinos were not made citizens of the United States by the Treaty of Paris. And, 800*800 they have never been collectively naturalized by legislation as, for example, in the case of Puerto Ricans.[20]

Until July 2, 1946, Filipinos (except for the narrow class mentioned below which did not include appellant) were not eligible for naturalization as citizens of the United States. Although by the Act of June 29, 1906,[21] naturalization laws of the United States were made applicable to and were declared to authorize "the admission to citizenship of all persons not citizens who owe permanent allegiance to the United States, and who may become residents of any State or organized Territory of the United States * * *," it has been ruled that Filipino-non-citizen-nationals were not eligible for naturalization because of racial limitations on the right thereof.[22] See Toyota v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 402, 45 S.Ct. 563, 69 L.Ed. 1016. During World War I, the admission to citizenship of Filipinos who had served honorably in the armed forces of the United States for a requisite period was authorized.[23] On July 2, 1946, Congress declared[24] that the "right to become a naturalized citizen * * * shall extend * * * to — * * * Filipino persons or persons of Filipino descent," and amended[25] the Nationality Act of 1940 so as not to require certificates of arrival or declarations of intention "of Filipino persons or persons of Filipino descent who are citizens of the Commonwealth of the Philippines on the date of the enactment of this section, and who entered the United States prior to May 1, 1934, and have since continuously resided in the United States." We assume that under such provisions appellant is eligible for naturalization, if otherwise qualified.[26] Compare Application of Viloria, D. C., Hawaii, 1949, 84 F. Supp. 584.

It is well established that the United States has the power to acquire territory as a necessary and proper adjunct of sovereignty and of the power to declare and carry on war and to make treaties. See American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1828, 1 Pet. 511, 26 U.S. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242; Fleming v. Page, 1852, 9 How. 602, 50 U.S. 602, 13 L.Ed. 276. The Supreme Court has declared: "The incidents of these powers are those of national sovereignty, and belong to all independent governments. The power to make acquisitions of territory by conquest, by treaty, and by cession, is an incident of national sovereignty." Mormon Church v. United States, 1890, 136 U.S. 1, 42, 10 S.Ct. 792, 802, 34 L.Ed. 481. "By the law of nations, recognized by all civilized states, dominion of new territory may be acquired * * * by cession or conquest." Jones v. United States, 1890, 137 U.S. 202, 212, 11 S.Ct. 80, 83, 34 L.Ed. 691. And, the "right to acquire territory involves the right to govern and dispose of it [i. e., relinquish sovereignty over it]." De Lima v. Bidwell, 1901, 182 U.S. 1, 196, 21 S.Ct. 743, 753, 45 L.Ed. 1041; United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.

As we have set out above, the Philippine Islands came to the United States by cession. And, by such acquisition many individuals became nationals of the United States. Later, the United States relinquished its sovereignty over them and their country. It follows that Filipino nationals of the United States inhabiting the Islands at the date of such relinquishment lost the status of nationality. The narrower question follows: 801*801 Does such loss also occur as to Filipino-nationals of the United States domiciled in the United States?

We find no solution to the question in the fact that such individuals became citizens of the Philippines. While Congress, by declaring that such persons became Philippine citizens, contributed to the national dignity of the Philippine people, the status had no international effect prior to the relinquishment of United States sovereignty but rather served a useful internal American function. The status of United States nationality for Filipinos was the direct result of the United States' assumption of sovereignty over the Islands. When the United States relinquished its sovereignty, there remained no basis for such status.

The United States had it desired it, could have provided that Filipinos permanently residing in the United States would not lose their United States nationality upon the recognition of Philippine independence. There is a precedent. By the Treaty of Paris[27] Spain relinquished her sovereignty over Cuba and the people thereof just as in 1946 the United States surrendered sovereignty over the Philippines and the people thereof. The situations are comparable but of course different in motivation. By the Royal Decree of May 11, 1901 (see footnote 15, ante), Spain declared that: "Natives of the territories ceded or relinquished who at the date of the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of the 10th of December, 1898, as aforesaid, were residing outside of the country of their birth and who at the time of the promulgation of this decree are found to be inscribed in the registers of the legations or consulates of Spain abroad, or who were holding public office under the Spanish administration or were domiciled within the actual dominions of Spain, shall be held to have retained their Spanish citizenship, unless within the period of a year from this date they shall make an express declaration to the contrary before the proper authorities." Such proclamation was necessary only if the effect of Spain's relinquishment of sovereignty was loss of Spanish nationality by natives not then residing in the territory relinquished. The question here is, What did the United States intend as to Filipinos so situated?

The question is not directly answered (but, as we think, it was inferentially answered) by the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, the Presidential proclamation of Philippine independence or the Treaty of July 4, 1946, with the Republic of the Philippines. While there is no special reference of inclusion or exclusion in any of these acts to Filipinos who were no longer residing in the Islands on the date of their independence, it was, from the ceding from Spain, contemplated and finally accomplished that the United States would surrender all sovereignty "over the territory and the people of the Philippines". In the light of the undeviating non-imperialistic policy of the government of the United States, it seems to us that the expression "people of the Philippines" is all-inclusive excepting only those who have by their own volition taken authorized steps to separate themselves from a national relation to the government of the Philippines. All of the Congressional acts are consistent with this interpretation.

[Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1950]


PDF Jose Luis Perdomo-Padilla v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, 9th Cir, No. 01-71454, June 23, 2003-meaning of "national of the United States"


Iowa Administrative Code 871-24.60 (96) Alien. 

* * * A national is defined as a person who lives in mandates or trust territories administered by the United States and owes permanent allegiance to the United States. An alien is a person owing allegiance to another country or government. * * * 


Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976)

[ Footnote 1 ] The Civil Service Commission's regulations, 5 CFR 338.101 (1976), provide in pertinent part:
    "(a) A person may be admitted to competitive examination only if he is a citizen of or owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
    "(b) A person may be given appointment only if he is a citizen of or owes permanent allegiance to the United States. However, a noncitizen may be given (1) a limited executive assignment under section 305.509 of this chapter in the absence of qualified citizens or (2) an appointment in rare cases under section 316.601 of this chapter, unless the appointment is prohibited by statute."
Apparently the only persons other than citizens who owe permanent allegiance to the United States are noncitizen "nationals." See 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (21), (22), 1408. The Solicitor General has advised us that the Commission construes the phrase as covering only natives of American Samoa. Brief for Petitioners 81 n. 67.