A "U.S. National" is defined in
A "national but not a citizen" defined in
1101(a)(22)(B) and 8 U.S.C. 1452
A "U.S. national" and a "national but
not a citizen" are NOT the same thing in law!
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
you are a "national" or a 'state national' and NOT a 'U.S. citizen'"
pamphlet for supporting details
IRS Website: Pay for Independent Personal Services (Income Code 16)
A U.S. national is an individual who owes his sole allegiance
to the United States, but who is not a
(a citizen of American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern
Click here for PDF version]
Getting a USA Passport as a "non-citizen national"
HTML-SEDM Form #09.007 (OFFSITE LINK. MEMBER ONLY FORM)
PDF -SEDM FORM #10.013 (OFFSITE LINK. MEMBER ONLY FORM)
8 U.S.C. §1503: Denial of rights and privileges as national
-use this statute if you are denied a passport as a "national" and
a "non-citizen national"
you are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory
Citizen. Article on our website based on sections
4.12.6 and 188.8.131.52 of the
Title 26: Internal
The word 'national' or 'national of the United States' is used
only three times in the Internal Revenue Code.
152 [Dependant Defined]
896 [Adjustments of tax on nationals, residents, and corporations
of certain foreign countries]
IRS Publication 519: Tax Guide
for Aliens, Year 2007, p. 43
"A U.S. national is an alien who, although not a U.S. citizen,
owes his or her allegiance to the United States. U.S. nationals
include American Samoans, and Northern Mariana Islanders who choose
to become U.S. nationals instead of U.S. citizens"
IRS Publication 519: Tax Guide
for Aliens, Year 2007, p. 43]
IRS Form 1040NR: Note it identifies "U.S. nationals" as "nonresident
3C Am Jur 2d, Aliens and
background on "U.S. national" status right from the American Jurisprudence
Citizenship Status under 8 U.S.C. v. Tax Status under 26 U.S.C
8 U.S.C. §1101:
CHAPTER 12 >
I > Sec. 1101.
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.
§4309a: United States responsibilities for employees of the United Nations
53 > 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.
"U.S. National" defined:
Means a person born
or naturalized outside the
federal United States (federal zone) but inside the country United
States and not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government
at the time of birth as the Fourteenth Amendment (illegally ratified)
requires. Typically, the U.S. government allows and even
encourages “U.S. nationals” to incorrectly declare that they are “U.S.
citizens” so that they can volunteer to become completely subject to
the jurisdiction of the federal courts and become the proper subjects
of the Internal Revenue Code, but technically, they are
not “U.S. citizens”
as legally defined. “U.S. nationals” are defined in
8 U.S.C. §1401.
8 U.S.C. §1408
defines who are “Nationals but not citizens of the United States at
birth”. The following portion of that section of Title 8 defines
the type of "U.S. National" that most Americans born in the 50 states
outside of the federal zone qualify as:
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1408.
- Nationals but not citizens
of the United States at birth
provided in section
this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the
United States at birth:
(2) A person born outside
the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom
are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had
a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions
prior to the birth of such person;
Note that the "United
States" term as used in the above section refers to the federal United
States, also called the "federal zone".
"national" defined in
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)
(21) The term ''national'' means a
person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
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
and a federal
government, and keep in mind that our government is called “federal
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.
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998):
and citizenship are not entirely synonymous; one can be a national of
the United States and yet not a citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22). The
distinction has little practical impact today, however, for the only
remaining noncitizen nationals are residents of American Samoa and Swains
Island. See T. Aleinikoff, D. Martin,
& H. Motomura, Immigration: Process and Policy 974-975, n. 2 (3d ed.
1995). The provision that a child born abroad out of wedlock to a United
States citizen mother gains her nationality has been interpreted to
mean that the child gains her citizenship as well; thus, if the mother
is not just a United States national, but also a United States citizen,
the child is a United States citizen. See
7 Gordon § 93.04[b], p. 93-42; id.,
§ 93.04[d][viii], p. 93-49."
v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)]
Jose Luis Perdomo-Padilla v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, 9th Cir,
No. 01-71454, June 23, 2003-meaning of "national of the United States"
Jose Napoleon Marquez-Almanzar v. Immigration
and Naturalization Service, 2nd Cir, No. 03-4395, August 8, 2005-meaning
of "U.S. national"
A few people have disagreed with our position on the “U.S. national”
citizenship status of persons born in states of the Union.
These people have sent us what appear to be contradictory information
from websites maintained by the federal government. We thank
them for taking the time to do so and we will devote this section
to rebutting all of their incorrect views. Below are some
of the arguments against our position on “U.S. national” citizenship
that we have received and enumerated to facilitate rebuttal.
We have boldfaced the relevant portions to make the information
easier to spot.
- U.S. Supreme Court, Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S.
and citizenship are not entirely synonymous; one can be a national
of the United States and yet not a citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22).
The distinction has little practical impact today, however,
for the only remaining noncitizen nationals are residents of
American Samoa and Swains Island.
T. Aleinikoff, D. Martin, & H. Motomura, Immigration: Process
and Policy 974-975, n. 2 (3d ed. 1995). The provision that a
child born abroad out of wedlock to a United States citizen
mother gains her nationality has been interpreted to mean that
the child gains her citizenship as well; thus, if the mother
is not just a United States national, but also a United States
citizen, the child is a United States citizen.
7 Gordon § 93.04[b], p. 93-42;
§ 93.04[d][viii], p. 93-49."
523 U.S. 420 (1998)]
- Volume 7 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) section 1111.3
published by the Dept. of States at
says the following about nationals but not citizens of the United
Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. nationality, but not
citizenship, to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired
by the United States through conquest or treaty. At one time
or other natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama
Canal Zone were U.S. non-citizen nationals.
current law (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as
amended through October 1994), only persons born in American
Samoa and the Swains Islands are U.S. nationals (Secs. 101(a)(29)
and 308(1) INA).
- The Social Security
Program Operations Manual System (POMS) at
says the following:
the agreements refer to “U.S. nationals.”
includes both U.S. citizens and persons who, though not citizens,
owe permanent allegiance to the United States. As noted in
RS 02640.005 D., the only persons who are nationals but not
citizens are American Samoans and natives of Swain's Island.
- The USDA Food Stamp Service, website says at
Non-citizens who qualify
There are some immigrants who are immediately eligible for food
stamps without having to meet other immigrant requirements,
as long as they meet the normal food stamp requirements:
- Non-citizen nationals (people born in American Samoa
or Swain’s Island).
- American Indians born in Canada.
- Members (born outside the U.S.) of Indian tribes under
Section 450b(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
- Members of Hmong or Highland Laotian tribes that helped
the U.S. military during the Vietnam era, and who are legally
living in the U.S., and their spouses or surviving spouses
and dependent children.
The defects that our detractors
fail to realize about the above information are the following points:
- The term “United States” as used in
§1408 means the federal zone based on the definitions provided
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(36),
§1101(a)(38), and 8 CFR §215.1(f). See our
Tax Deposition Questions,
section 14, questions 77 through 82 at the following address
for more details:
- The federal government is not authorized under our Constitution
or under international law to prescribe the citizenship status
of persons who neither reside within nor were born within its
territorial jurisdiction. The only thing that federal
statutes can address are the status of persons who either reside
in, were born in, or resided in the past within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States. People born within
states of the Union do not satisfy this requirement and their
citizenship status is determined under state and not federal
law. The quote below confirms this, keeping in mind that
Title 8 of the U.S. Code qualifies as “legislation”:
are not sovereign in true sense of term but only quasi sovereign,
yet in respect of all powers reserved to them [including the
citizenship status of people born but not naturalized there]
they are supreme and independent of federal government as that
government within its sphere is independent of the states.”
no longer open to question that the general government, unlike
the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart,
247 U.S. 251, 275
, 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses
no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the
states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation."
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co.,
298 U.S. 238, 56
S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
- The quotes of our detractors above recognize only one
of the four different ways of becoming a “national but
not citizen of the United States” described in
- Information derived from informal publications or advice
of employees of federal agencies are not admissible in a court
of law as evidence upon which to base a good faith belief.
The only basis for good-faith belief is a reading of the actual
statute or regulation that implements it. The reason for
this is that employees of the government are frequently wrong,
and frequently not only say wrong things, but in many cases
the people who said them had no lawful delegated authority to
say such things. See
for an excellent treatise from an attorney on why this is.
- People writing the contradictory information falsely “presume”
that the term “citizen” in a general sense that most Americans
use is the same as the term “citizen” as used in the definition
of “citizens and nationals of the United States” found in
§1401. In fact, we conclusively prove later in section
5.2.14 that this is emphatically not the case. A “citizen”
as used in the Internal Revenue Code and most federal statutes
means a person born in a territory or possession of the United
States, and not
in a state of the Union. Americans born in states of the
Union are a different type of “citizen”, and we show in section
5.2.14 that these types of people are “U.S. nationals” and not
“citizens” or “U.S. citizens” in the context of any federal
statute. We therefore challenge those who make this unwarranted
presumption to provide law and evidence proving us wrong on
this point. We request that you read section 4.11.10
before you prepare your rebuttal, because it clarifies
several important definitions that you might otherwise be inclined
to overlook that may result in misunderstanding.
- Whatever citizenship we enjoy we are entitled to abandon.
This is our right, as declared both by the Congress and the
Supreme Court. See Revised Statutes, section 1999, page.
350, 1868 and section 4.11.9. “citizens
of the United States” as defined in
§1401 have two statuses: “citizen” and “national”.
We are entitled to abandon either of these two. If we
abandon nationality, then we automatically lose the “citizen”
part, because nationality is where we obtain our allegiance.
But if we abandon the “citizen” part, then we still retain our
§1101(a)(22)(B). This is the approach we advocated
earlier in section 184.108.40.206. Because all citizenship must
be consensual, then the government must respect our ability
to abandon those types of citizenship we find objectionable.
Consequently, if either you or the government believe that you
are a “citizen and national of the United States” under
§1401, then you are entitled by law to abandon only the
“citizen” portion and retain the “national” portion, and
§1452 tells you how to have that choice recognized by the
Department of State.
Item 2 above is important, because it establishes that the federal
government has no authority to write law that prescribes the citizenship
status of persons born outside of federal territorial
jurisdiction and within the states of the Union.
The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 empowers
Congress to write “an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, but “naturalization”
is only one of two ways of acquiring citizenship.
Birth is the other way, and the states have exclusive jurisdiction
and legislative authority over the citizenship status of those people
who acquire their federal citizenship by virtue of birth within
states of the Union. Here is what the Supreme Court said on
“The power of
naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a power
to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized
citizen,' said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the
society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing,
in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native.
The constitution does not
authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple
power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule
of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so
far as respects the individual.” [U.S. v. Wong
169 U.S. 649 (1898)]
The rules of comity prescribe whether or how this citizenship
is recognized by the federal government, and by reading
§1408, it is evident that the federal government chose not
directly recognize within Title 8 of the U.S.C. the citizenship
status of persons born within states of the Union to parents neither
of whom were “U.S. citizens” under
§1401 and neither of whom “resided” inside the federal zone
prior to the birth of the child. We suspect that this is because
not only does the Constitution not give them this authority, but
more importantly because doing so would spill the beans on the true
citizenship of persons born in states of the Union and result in
a mass exodus from the tax system by most Americans.
As we said, there are four ways identified in
§1408 that a person may be a “national but not citizen of the
United States” at birth. We have highlighted the section that
our detractors are ignoring, and which we quote frequently on our
treatment of the subject of citizenship.
CHAPTER 12 >
Part I > Sec. 1408.
Sec. 1408. -
Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
Unless otherwise provided in section
1401 of this title,
the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United
States at birth:
(1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United
States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;
(2) A person born
outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents
both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States,
and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying
possessions prior to the birth of such person;
(3) A person of unknown parentage found in an outlying
possession of the United States while under the age of five years,
until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years,
not to have been born in such outlying possession; and
(4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a
national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States
or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not
less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years -
(A) during which the national parent was not outside the
United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period
of more than one year, and
(B) at least five years of which were after attaining the
age of fourteen years.
1401(g) of this title
shall apply to the national parent under this paragraph in the same
manner as it applies to the citizen parent under that section
Subsections (1), (3), and (4) above deal with persons who are
born in outlying possessions of the United States, and Swain’s Island
and American Samoa would certainly be included within these subsections.
These people would be the people who are addressed by the information
cited by our detractors from federal websites above. Subsection
(2), however, deals with persons who are born
outside of the
States (federal zone) to parents who are “U.S. nationals” and who
resided at one time in the
States. Anyone born overseas to American parents is a “non-citizen
U.S. national” under this section and this status is one that is
not recognized in any of the cites provided by our detractors but
is recognized by the law itself. Since states of the Union
are outside the federal
United States and outside the “United States” used in Title 8, then
parents born in states of the Union satisfy the requirement for
“national but not citizen of the United States” status found in
One of the complaints we get from our readers is something like
you’re right and that
§1408(2) prescribes the citizenship status of persons born in
a state of the Union. The problem I have with that view is
that ‘United States’ means the federal zone in that section, and
subsection (2) requires that the parents must reside within the
‘United States’ prior to the birth of the child. This means
they must have ‘resided’ in the federal zone before the child was
born, and most people don’t satisfy that requirement.”
Let us explain why the above concern
is unfounded. According to
§1408(2), the parents must also reside in the
States prior to the birth of the child. We assert that most
people born in states of the Union do in fact meet this requirement
and we will now explain why. They can meet this requirement
by any one of the following ways:
Serving in the military or residing on a military base or occupied
- Filing an IRS form 1040 (not a 1040NR, but a 1040).
The federal 1040 form says “U.S. individual” at the top left.
A “U.S. individual” is defined in 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3) as
either an “alien” residing within the federal zone or a “nonresident
alien” with income from within the federal zone. Since
“nonresident aliens” file the 1040NR form, the only thing that
a person who files a 1040 form can be is a “resident alien”
as defined in
U.S.C. §7701(b) and 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) or a “citizen”
residing abroad who attaches a form 2555 to the 1040.
See section 5.2.11 for further details on this if you are curious.
Consequently, being a “resident alien” qualifies you as a “resident”.
You are not, in fact a resident because you didn’t physically
occupy the federal zone for the year covered by the tax return,
but if the government is going to treat you as a “resident”
by accepting and processing your tax return, then they have
an obligation to treat either you or your parents as “residents”
in all respects, including those related to citizenship.
To do otherwise would be inconsistent and hypocritical.
- Spending time in a military hospital.
- Visiting federal property or a federal reservation within
a state routinely as a contractor working for the federal government.
- Working for the federal government on a military reservation
or inside of a federal area.
- Sleeping in a national park.
- Spending time in a federal courthouse.
The reason why items 3 through 7 above satisfy the requirement
to be a “resident” of the federal United States is because the term
“resident” is nowhere defined in Title 8 of the U.S. Code, and because
of the definition of “resident” in Black’s Law Dictionary:
Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State, has a present
intent to remain within the State for a period of time, and manifests
the genuineness of that intent by establishing an ongoing physical
presence within the State together with indicia that his presence
within the State is something other than merely transitory in nature.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1309]
The key word in the above is “permanent”, which is defined as
it pertains to citizenship in
CHAPTER 12 >
I > Sec. 1101
1101. - Definitions
(31) The term
''permanent'' means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature,
as distinguished from temporary, but a relationship may be permanent
even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance
either of the United States or of the individual, in accordance
Since Title 8 does not define the term “lasting” or “ongoing”
or “transitory”, we referred to the regular dictionary, which says:
existing or continuing a long while: ENDURING.” [Webster’s
Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, p. 675]
1. being actually in process 2: continuously moving forward;
GROWING” [Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X,
1: tending to pass away: not persistent 2: of brief duration:
TEMPORARY syn see TRANSIENT.”
No period of time is specified in order to meet the criteria
for “permanent”, so even if we lived there a day or a few hours,
we were still there “permanently”. The Bible also says in
Matt. 6:26-31 that we should not be anxious or presumptuous
about tomorrow and take each day as a new day. The last verse
in that sequence says:
do not worry about tomorrow,
for tomorrow will worry about its own trouble.” [Matt.
6:31, Bible, NKJV]
In fact, we are not allowed to be presumptuous at all, which
means we aren’t allowed to assume or intend anything about the future.
Our future is in the hands of a sovereign Lord, and we exist by
His good graces alone.
“Come now, you
who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city,
spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit’; whereas you
do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life?
It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes
away. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we shall
live and do this or that.’ But now you boast in your arrogance.
All such boasting is evil.” [James
4:13-16, Bible, NKJV]
the person who does anything
presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one
brings reproach on the Lord, and he shall be cut off from among
his people.” [Numbers 15:30, Bible, NKJV]
Consequently, the Christian’s definition of “permanent” is anything
that relates to what we intend for today only and
does not include
anything that might happen starting tomorrow or at any time in the
future beyond tomorrow. Being presumptuous about the future
is “boastful” and “evil”, according to the Bible! The future
is uncertain and our lives are definitely not “permanent” in God’s
unlimited sense of eternity. Therefore, wherever we are is
where we “intend” to permanently reside as Christians.
Even if you don’t like the above analysis of why most Americans
born in states of the Union are “nationals but not citizens of the
United States” under
§1408(2), we still explained above that you have the right to
abandon only the “citizen” portion and retain the “national” portion
of any imputed dual citizenship status under
§1401. We also show you how to have that choice formally
recognized bye the U.S. Department of State in section 220.127.116.11
of our Sovereignty Forms
and Instructions Manual under the authority of
§1452, and we know people who have successfully employed this
strategy, so it must be valid.
Furthermore, even if you don’t want to believe that any of the
preceding discussion is valid, we also explained that the federal
government cannot directly prescribe the citizenship status of persons
born within states of the Union under international law. To
illustrate this fact, consider the following extension of a popular
“If a tree fell
in the forest, and Congress refused to pass a law recognizing that
it fell and forced the agencies in the executive branch to refuse
to acknowledge that it fell because doing so would mean an end to
income tax revenues, then did it really fall?”
The answer to the above questions is emphatically “yes”.
We said that the rules of comity prevail in that case the federal
government recognizing the citizenship status of those born in states
of the Union. But what indeed is their status under federal
§1101(a)(21) defines a “national” as:
CHAPTER 12 >
I > Sec. 1101.
Sec. 1101. - Definitions
(21) The term
''national'' means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
If you were born in a state of the Union, you are a “national
of the United States” because the “state” that you have allegiance
to is the confederation of states called the “United States”.
As further confirmation of this fact, if “naturalization” is defined
as the process of conferring “nationality” under
§1101(a)(23), and “expatriation” is defined as the process of
abandoning “nationality and allegiance” by the Supreme
Court in Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939), then “nationality” is the key that determines
citizenship status. What makes a person a “national” is “allegiance”
to a state. The only type of citizenship which carries with
it the notion of “allegiance” is that of “U.S. national”, as shown
in 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)(B). You will not find “allegiance” mentioned
anywhere in Title 8 in connection with those persons who claim to
be “citizens and nationals of the United States” as defined in
CHAPTER 12 >
I > Sec. 1101.
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.
People born in states of the Union can and most often do have
allegiance to the confederation of states called the “United States”
just as readily as people who were born on federal property, and
the federal government under the rules of comity should be willing
to recognize that allegiance
that such persons surrender their sovereignty, become tax slaves,
and come under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal statutes by
pretending to be people who live in the federal zone. Not
doing so would be an injury and oppression of their rights, and
would be a criminal conspiracy against rights, because remember,
people who live inside the federal zone have no rights, by the admission
of the Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901):
PART I >
13 > Sec. 241.
- Conspiracy against rights
If two or more
persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any
person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District
in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured
to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because
of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more
persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another,
with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment
of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation
of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt
to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both,
or may be sentenced to death
It would certainly constitute a conspiracy against rights to
force or compel a person to give up their true citizenship status
in order to acquire any kind of citizenship recognition from a corrupted
federal government. The following ruling by the Supreme Court
plainly agrees with these conclusions:
“It would be
a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation
which, by words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen
of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold
an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise
of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which
the state threatens otherwise to withhold.
It is not necessary to
challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having
power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions
as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that
respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it
may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of Constitutional
rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional
right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel
a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded
in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated
out of existence.” [Frost v. Railroad Commission,
271 U.S. 583; 46 S.Ct. 605 (1926)]