SOURCE:
Great
IRS Hoax, section 4.11.5, ver. 4.53
Within federal law, two words are used to describe
citizenship: “citizen”
and “national”.
There is a world of difference between these two terms and it is extremely
important to understand the distinctions before we proceed further.
A “citizen” is someone who was born in and maintains a domicile within
a political jurisdiction, who owes allegiance to the “sovereign” within
that jurisdiction, and who participates in the functions of government
by voting and serving on jury duty.
citizen. One who, under the
Constitution
and laws of the
United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the
political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the
enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
U.S. Const., 14th Amend. See
Citizenship.
"Citizens" are
members of a political community who, in their associated capacity,
have established or
submitted themselves to
the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general
welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective
rights. Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d
48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.
The term may include or apply to children of alien parents
from in United States, Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, D.C.Md., 23 F.2d
862, 863; U.S. v. Minoru Yasui, D.C.Or., 48 F.Supp. 40, 54; children
of American citizens born outside United States, Haaland v. Attorney
General of United States, D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp. 13, 22; Indians, United
States v. Hester, C.C.A.Okl., 137 F.2d 145, 147; National Banks,
Amierican Surety Co. v. Bank of California, C.C.A.Or., 133 F.2d
160, 162; nonresident who has qualified as administratrix of estate
of deceased resident, Hunt v. Noll, C.C.A.Tenn., 112 F.2d 288, 289.
However, neither the United States nor a state is a citizen for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Jizemerjian v. Dept of
Air Force, 457 F.Supp. 820. On the other hand, municipalities
and other local governments are deemed to be citizens. Rieser
v. District of Columbia, 563 F.2d 462. A corporation is not
a citizen for purposes of privileges and immunities clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. D.D.B. Realty Corp. v. Merrill, 232
F.Supp. 629, 637.
Under diversity statute [28
U.S.C. §1332], which mirrors
U.S. Const, Article III's diversity clause, a person is a "citizen
of a state" if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a
domiciliary of a state of the United States. Gibbons v. Udaras
na Gaeltachta, D.C.N.Y., 549 F.Supp. 1094, 1116. “
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244]
The key thing to
notice is that those who are “citizens” within a political jurisdiction
are also subject to all
laws within that political jurisdiction. Note the phrase above:
“’Citizens’ are members of a political community who, in their
associated capacity,
have…submitted themselves
to the dominion of a government [and all its laws] for the promotion
of their general welfare and the protection of their
individual as well as collective rights.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244]
The only people who
are “subject to” federal law, and therefore “citizens” under federal
law, are those people who maintain a domicile where the federal government
has exclusive legislative jurisdiction, which exists only within the
federal zone,
under
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and 40
U.S.C. §§3111 and 3112. Within the Internal Revenue Code, people
born in the federal zone or living there are described as being "subject
to its
jurisdiction" rather than "subject to
the jurisdiction":
"c) Who is a citizen.
Every person born
or naturalized in the [federal] United States and subject to
its jurisdiction is a citizen.
For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters
1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1401–1459).
"
[26
CFR §1.1-1(c)]
This area includes
the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions of the United
States, and the federal areas within states. If you were born
in a state of the Union and are domiciled there, you are not subject
to federal jurisdiction unless the land you maintain a domicile on was
ceded by the state to the federal government. Therefore, you are
not and cannot be a “citizen” under federal law. If you aren’t
a “citizen”, then you also can’t be claiming your children as “citizens”
on IRS returns either!
A “national”, on
the other hand, is simply someone who claims allegiance to the political
body formed within the geographical boundaries and territory that define
a “state”.
8
U.S.C. §1101: Definitions
(a) (21) The term ''national'' means
a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
A “state” is then
defined as follows:
“State.
A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together
by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising,
through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty
and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable
of making war and peace and of entering into international relations
with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche,
D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201 207, 208. The organization of social
life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people.
Delany v. Moralitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d 129, 130. In its
largest sense, a “state” is a body politic or a society of men.
Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp., 44
Misc.2d 636, 254 N.Y.S.2d 763, 765. A body of people occupying
a definite territory and politically organized under one government.
State ex re. Maisano v. Mitchell, 155 Conn. 256, 231 A.2d
539, 542. A territorial unit with a distinct general body
of law. Restatement, Second, Conflicts, §3. Term may
refer either to body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or
to an individual government unit of such nation (e.g. California).
[…]
The people of a state, in their collective capacity,
considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public;
as in the title of a cause, “The State vs. A.B.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1407]
So when we claim
“allegiance” as a “national”, we are claiming allegiance to a “state”,
which is the collection of all people within the geographical boundaries
of a political jurisdiction. Note that as a “national”, we are
NOT claiming allegiance to the government or anyone serving us
within the government in their official capacity as “public servants”.
As a “national”, we are instead claiming allegiance to the People within
the legislative jurisdiction of the geographic region. This is
because in America, the People are the Sovereigns, and not the government
who serves them. All sovereignty and authority emanates from We
the People as individuals:
'The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are
synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the
political body who, according to our republican institutions, form
the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government
through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call
the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people,
and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ..."
[Boyd v. State of Nebraska,
143 U.S. 135 (1892)]
"From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties
and Government founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that
their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the
right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons
in whom that resides.
In Europe the sovereignty
is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people;
there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here,
never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the
people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign,
in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.
Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences,
our rulers have none
but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise,
or in any other capacity, than as private citizens."
[Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia,
2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.ed. 454, 457, 471, 472) (1794)]
The supreme Court
of the United States described and compared the differences between
“citizenship” and “allegiance” very succinctly in the case of
Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795):
“Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real
origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty,
rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect
to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal
system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the
new order of things.
Allegiance and citizenship,
differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the
effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.
Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.
Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of
inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.
Citizenship is freedom; allegiance
is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such
essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable
to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul,
nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations,
in which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the
law most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations
that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage,
which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the
inherent rights of man…..The
doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and
taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence
of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign….”
[Talbot v. Janson,
3 U.S. 133 (1795) ]
A “national” is not
subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction and general
sovereignty of the political body, but indirectly is protected by it
and may claim its protection. For instance, when we travel overseas,
we are known in foreign countries as “American Nationals” or:
- “nationals of the United States**” under
8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)(B) TA \l "8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B)" \s "8
U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B)" \c 2 , if we were born in a federal possession,
such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island.
- “nationals”, or “state nationals”, or “nationals of the United
States*** of America”
under 8
U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) TA \s "8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)"
if we were born in and are domiciled in a state of the Union.
- “nationals but not citizens” under 8 U.S.C. §1452 TA \s "8 U.S.C.
§1452" if we fit either of the previous two statuses.
Here is the definition
of a “national of the United States**” that demonstrates this, and note
paragraph (a)(22)(B):
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.
Consequently, the
only time a “national” can also be described as a “citizen” is when
he is domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the political
body. Being a “national” is therefore an attribute and a prerequisite
of being a “citizen”, and the term can be used to describe “citizens”,
as indicated above in paragraph (A). For instance,
8 U.S.C.
§1401 describes the citizenship of those born within or residing
within federal jurisdiction, and note that these people are identified
as both “citizens” and “nationals”.
TITLE
8 >
CHAPTER 12 >
SUBCHAPTER
III >
Part I > Sec. 1401.
Sec. 1401. - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United
States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States
to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal
tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection
shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of
such person to tribal or other property;
When “citizens” move
their domicile outside of the territorial limits of the “state” to which
they are a member and cease to participate directly in the political
functions of that “state”, however, they become “nationals” but not
“citizens” under federal law. This is confirmed by the definition
of “citizen of the United States” found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth
Amendment.:
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Section. 1. All persons
born or naturalized in
the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
As you will learn
later, the Supreme Court said in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898) that the term “subject to
the jurisdiction”
means “subject to the political
jurisdiction”, which is very different from “subject to the
legislative jurisdiction”.
Note from the above that being a “citizen” has two prerequisites: “born
within the [territorial] jurisdiction” and “subject to the [political
but not legislative] jurisdiction”. The other noteworthy point
to be made here is that the term "citizen" as used above is
not used in the
context of federal statutes or federal law, and therefore does
not imply one
is a "citizen"
under federal law. The
Constitution
is what grants the authority to the federal government to write federal
statutes, but it is not "federal law" or a "federal statute".
The term "citizen", in the context of the
Constitution,
simply refers to the political community created by that
Constitution,
which in this case is the federation of united states called the "United
States", and not the United States government itself.
When you move your
domicile outside the territorial jurisdiction of the political body
and do not participate in its political functions as a jurist or a voter,
then you are no longer “subject to the [political] jurisdiction”.
Likewise, because you are outside territorial limits of the political
body, you are also not
subject in any degree to its legislative jurisdiction either:
"Judge Story, in his treatise on the Conflicts of Laws, lays
down, as the basis upon which all reasonings on the law of comity
must necessarily rest, the following maxims: First 'that
every nation possesses
an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within its own territory';
secondly, 'that no state
or nation can by its laws directly affect or bind property out of
its own territory, or bind persons not resident therein, whether
they are natural born subjects or others.' The
learned judge then adds: 'From these two maxims or propositions
there follows a third, and that is that whatever force and obligation
the laws of one country have in another depend solely upon the laws
and municipal regulation of the latter; that is to say, upon its
own proper jurisdiction and polity, and upon its own express or
tacit consent." Story on Conflict of Laws §23."
[Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Chambers, 73 Ohio St. 16; 76 N.E.
91; 11 L.R.A., N.S., 1012 (1905)]
The word “territory”
above needs further illumination. States of the Union are NOT
considered “territories” or “territory” under federal law. This
is confirmed by the Corpus Juris Secundum legal encyclopedia, which
says on this subject the following:
Volume 86, Corpus Juris Secundum Legal
Encyclopedia
Territories
§1. Definitions, Nature, and Distinctions
The word 'territory,' when used to designate a political
organization has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the
political institutions of the United States, and does not necessarily
include all the territorial possessions of the United States, but
may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise
governmental functions under act of congress."
While the term 'territory' is often loosely used, and has
even been construed to include municipal subdivisions of a territory,
and 'territories of the' United States is sometimes used to refer
to the entire domain over which the United States exercises dominion,
the word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization,
has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political
institutions of the United States, and the term 'territory' or 'territories'
does not necessarily include only a portion or the portions thereof
which are organized and exercise government functions under acts
of congress. The term 'territories' has been defined to be
political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States,
and in this sense the term 'territory' is not a description of a
definite area of land but of a political unit governing and being
governed as such. The question whether a particular subdivision
or entity is a territory is not determined by the particular form
of government with which it is, more or less temporarily, invested.
‘Territories' or 'territory' as including 'state' or 'states."
While the term 'territories of the'
United States may, under certain circumstances, include the
states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in
ordinary acts of congress "territory" does not include a
foreign state.
As used in
this title, the term 'territories' generally refers to the political
subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries
of any of the several states.
[86 C.J.S. (Corpus, Juris, Secundum,
Legal Encyclopedia), Territories]
Notice that the above
legal encyclopedia definition of “territory” refers to states of the
Union as “foreign states”! A “foreign state” is a state that is
not subject to the legislative jurisdiction or laws of the state in
question, which in this case is the federal government. The Supreme
Court also agreed with the conclusions within this section so far, in
the cite next. Notice how they use the terms “citizenship” and
“nationality” or “national” interchangeably, because as you will learn
later in section 4.11.13, they are equivalent:
“The term 'dual nationality' needs exact appreciation. It
refers to the fact that two States make equal claim to the allegiance
of an individual at the same time. Thus, one State may claim his
allegiance because of his birth within its territory, and the other
because at the time of his birth in foreign territory his parents
were its nationals. The laws of the United States purport to clothe
persons with American citizenship by virtue of both principles.'
"And after referring to the Fourteenth
Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const., and the Act of February 10, 1855, R.S.
1993, 8 U.S.C.A. 6, the instructions continued:
[307 U.S. 325, 345]
'It thus becomes important
to note how far these differing claims of American nationality are
fairly operative with respect to persons living abroad [or in states
of the Union, which are ALSO foreign with respect to federal jurisdiction],
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 [a
state of the Union, in this case] 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."
[Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325; 49 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed 1320 (1939)]
So when a person
is domiciled outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction or “general
sovereignty” of a political body and does not participate
directly in its
political functions, then they are “nationals” but not “citizens” of
that political body. This is the condition of people born in and
domiciled within states of the Union in regards to their federal citizenship:
- State citizens maintain
a domicile that is outside the territorial and exclusive legislative
jurisdiction of the federal government. They are not
subject to the police powers of the federal government.
-
State citizens do not
participate directly in the political functions of the federal
government.
2.1. They are
not allowed to serve as jurists in federal court, because
they don’t reside in a federal area within their state.
They can only serve as jurists in state courts. Federal district
courts routinely violate this limitation by not ensuring that the
people who serve on federal courts come from federal areas.
If they observed the law on this matter, they wouldn’t have anyone
left to serve on federal petit or grand juries! Therefore,
they illegally use state DMV records to locate jurists and obfuscate
the jury summons forms by asking if people are “U.S. citizens” without
ever defining what it means!
2.2. They do not
participate directly in federal elections. There are
no separate federal elections and separate voting days and voting
precincts for federal elections. State citizens only participate
in state elections, and elect representatives who go to Washington
to “represent” their interests indirectly.
A prominent legal
publisher, West Publishing, agrees with the findings in this section.
Here is what they say in their publication entitled
Conflicts In A Nutshell, Second
Edition:
In the United States, “domicile” and “residence” are the two
major competitors for judicial attention, and the words are almost
invariably used to describe the relationship that the person has
to the state rather than the nation.
We use “citizenship” to
describe the national relationship, and we generally eschew “nationality”
(heard more frequently among European nations) as a descriptive
term.
[Conflicts
In A Nutshell, Second Edition, David D. Siegel, West Publishing,
1994, ISBN 0-314-02952, p. 15]
A person who is a
"national" with respect to a political jurisdiction and who does not
maintain a domicile within the territorial jurisdiction of the political
body is treated as a "nonresident
alien" within federal law. He is a "nonresident" because he
is not "resident" within the territorial limits. He is an alien,
because he is "alien" to that jurisdiction and not directly associated
with it.
26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(B) Definitions
An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is
neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the
United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).
At the same time,
a "national" and a "nonresident
alien" who is NOT an "individual" is
not an "alien"
under federal law, because a "nonresident
alien" is defined as a person who is neither a "citizen nor a resident",
and that is exactly what a "national but not citizen" is. Further
confirmation of this conclusion is found in the definition of "resident"
in 26 U.S.C.
§7701(b)(1)(A), which defines a "resident" as an "alien".
Since the definition of "nonresident alien" above excludes "residents",
then it also excludes "aliens".
A picture is worth
a thousand words. We’ll now summarize the results of the preceding
analysis to make it crystal clear for visually-minded readers:
Table 4‑10: Citizenship summary
The table below describes
the affect that changes in domicile have on citizenship status in the
case of both “foreign nationals” and “domestic nationals”. A “domestic
national” is anyone born anywhere within any one of the 50 states on
nonfederal land or who was born in any territory or possession of the
United States. A “foreign national” is someone who was born anywhere
outside of these areas. The jurisdiction mentioned in the right
three columns is the “federal zone”.
Table 5‑25: Affect of domicile on citizenship
status
|
|
CONDITION
|
|
Description |
Domicile WITHIN
the FEDERAL ZONE and located in FEDERAL ZONE |
Domicile WITHIN
the FEDERAL ZONE and temporarily located abroad in foreign
country |
Domicile WITHOUT the FEDERAL ZONE and located WITHOUT
the FEDERAL ZONE |
|
Location of domicile |
“United States” per
26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) ,
7701(a)(39),
7408(d), and
4 U.S.C. §110(d) |
“United States” per
26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) ,
7701(a)(39),
7408(d), and
4 U.S.C. §110(d) |
Without the “United States” per
26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a)(10),
7701(a)(39),
7408(d), and
4 U.S.C. §110(d) |
|
Physical location |
Federal territories, possessions, and the District of Columbia |
Foreign nations ONLY(NOT states of the Union) |
Foreign nations
states of the Union |
|
Tax Status
|
“U.S. Person”
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)
|
“U.S. Person”
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)
|
“Nonresident alien”
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)
|
|
Tax form(s) to file
|
IRS Form 1040
|
IRS Form 1040 plus
2555
|
IRS Form 1040NR:
“alien individuals”, “nonresident alien individuals”
No filing requirement:
“non-citizen nationals”
|
|
Status if DOMESTIC
national
|
Citizen
8 U.S.C. §1401
(Not required to
file if physically present in the “United
States” because no statute requires it)
|
Citizen abroad
26 U.S.C. §911
(Meets presence test)
|
“non-citizen National”
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B)
8 U.S.C. §1408
8 U.S.C. §1452
|
|
Status if FOREIGN
national
|
“Resident alien”
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)
|
“Resident alien abroad”
26 U.S.C. §911
(Meets presence test)
|
“Nonresident alien
individual”:
26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3)(ii)
“Alien”:
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(3)
“Alien individual”:
26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3)(i)
|
NOTES:
- “United States” is defined as the “District of Columbia” and
no part of any state of the Union within 26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9)
and (a)(10), 7701(a)(39), and 7408(d), and
4 U.S.C. §110(d).
- The “District of Columbia” is defined as a federal corporation
but not a physical place, a “body politic”, or a de jure “government”
within the District of Columbia Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419, 426,
Sec. 34. See:
Corporatization and Privatization
of the Government, Form #05.024;
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
- American nationals who are domiciled outside of federal jurisdiction,
either in a state of the Union or a foreign country, are “nationals”
but not “citizens” under federal law. They also qualify as
"nonresident aliens" under
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B). See sections 4.11.2 of the
Great
IRS Hoax for details.
- Temporary domicile in the middle column on the right must meet
the requirements of the “Presence test” documented in IRS publications.
- FEDERAL ZONE"=District of Columbia and the territories of the
United States in the above table.
- The term “individual”
as used on the IRS form 1040 means an “alien”
engaged in a “trade
or business”. All “taxpayers” are “aliens” engaged in
a “trade or business”. This is confirmed by 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c
)(3), 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii), and
5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2). Statutory “U.S.
citizens” as defined in
8 U.S.C. §1401 are not “individuals”
unless temporarily abroad pursuant to
26 U.S.C. §911 and subject to an income tax treaty with a foreign
country. In that capacity, statutory “U.S.
citizens” interface to the I.R.C. as “aliens” rather than
“U.S. citizens” through the tax treaty.
When a federal officer
asks you if you are a “citizen”, consider the context! The only
basis for him asking this is
federal law, because
he isn’t bound by state law. If you tell him you are a “citizen”
or a “U.S. citizen”, then indirectly, you are admitting that you are
subject to federal law, because that’s what it means to be a “citizen”
under federal law! Watch out! Therefore, as people born
in and living within a state of the union on land that is not owned
by the federal government, we need to be very careful how we describe
ourselves on government forms. Below is what we should say in
each of the various contexts to avoid misleading those asking the questions
on the forms. In this context, let’s assume you were born in California
and live there. This guidance also applies to questions that officers
of the government might ask you in each of the two contexts as well:
Table 4-11: Describing your citizenship
and status on government forms
|
|
|
Context
|
|
# |
Question on form |
State officer or form |
Federal officer or form |
|
1 |
Are you a “citizen”? |
Yes. Of California. |
No. Not under federal law. |
|
2 |
Are you a “national”? |
Yes. Of California. |
Yes. I’m a “national of the United States of America”
under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) but not under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)
|
|
3 |
Are you a “U.S. citizen” |
No. I’m a California “citizen” or simply a “national” |
No. I’m a California citizen or simply a “national”.
I am not
a federal “citizen” because I don’t reside on federal property. |
|
4 |
Are you subject to the political jurisdiction of the United
States? |
Yes. I’m a state voter who influences federal elections
indirectly by the representatives I elect. |
Yes. I’m a state voter who influences federal elections
indirectly by the representatives I elect. |
|
5 |
Are you subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United
States? |
No. I am only subject to the legislative jurisdiction
of California but not the “State” of California. The “State
of” California is a branch of the federal government that only
has jurisdiction in federal areas within the state. |
No. I am only subject to the laws and police powers of
California, and not the federal government, because I don’t
live on federal territory subject to “its” jurisdiction. |
|
6 |
Are you a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth
Amendment? |
Yes, but under federal law, I'm a "national". Being a
"citizen" under state law doesn’t make me subject to federal
legislative jurisdiction and police powers. That status
qualifies me to vote in any state election, but doesn’t make
me subject to federal law. |
Yes, but under federal law, I'm a "national". Being a
"citizen" under state law doesn’t make me subject to federal
legislative jurisdiction and police powers. That status
qualifies me to vote in any state election, but doesn’t make
me subject to federal law. |
In summary:
- A “national” is defined in 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(21) as
a person who has allegiance to a “state”. The existence of
that allegiance provides legal evidence that a person has politically
associated themselves with a “state” in order to procure its protection.
In return for said allegiance, the “national” is entitled to the
protection of the state. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.
162 (1874)
- The only thing you need in order to obtain a USA passport is
“allegiance”. 22 U.S.C. §212. If the federal government
is willing to issue you a passport, then they regard you as a “national”,
because the only type of citizenship that carries with it exclusively
allegiance is that of a “national”. 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).
See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/ApplyingForAPassport.htm
- In the constitution, “nationals” are called “citizens”.
- A “citizen” in the Constitution does not imply a legal domicile
on the territory of the “state” to whom we claim allegiance, but
under federal statutory law, both “citizens” and “residents” are
persons who have a legal domicile on the territory of the state
to which he claims allegiance.
- In federal statutory law, all “citizens” are also “nationals”
but not all nationals are “citizens”. For proof, see:
5.1. 8 U.S.C. §1401 defines a “citizen and national of the
United States”.
5.2. 8 U.S.C. §1452 defines a “non-citizen national”.
- Since being a “national” is a prerequisite to being a “citizen”,
then “citizens” within a country are a subset of those who are “nationals”.
- “subject to the
jurisdiction” is found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution. The Constitution is a political document
and the phrase “subject to
the jurisdiction”
means all of the following:
7.1. Being a member of a political group. Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea
of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an
[88 U.S. 162, 166]
association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare.
Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation
formed by the association.
He owes it allegiance
and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection
are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is
a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and
protection for allegiance.
“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a
name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title
the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this
purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,' and 'citizen' have
been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to
depend upon the form of the government.
Citizen is now more
commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better
suited to the description of one living under a republican government,
it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation
from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles
of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States.
When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea
of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”
“To determine,
then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption
of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally
associated themselves together to form the nation, and what
were afterwards admitted to membership.
[. . .]
“Whoever,
then, was one of the people of either of these States when the
Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto
a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He
was one of the persons associating together to form the nation,
and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this
there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether
or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part
of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship
if they were. “
[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)]
7.2. Being subject to the
political jurisdiction
but not legislative
jurisdiction of the state which we are a member of.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship,
and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons
declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject
in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United
States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular,
meaning states of the Union]
political jurisdiction,
and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate
allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the
one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of
naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot
become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually,
as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively,
as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
7.3. Being able to participate in the political affairs of
the state by being able to elect its members as a voter or direct
its activities as a jurist.
- “subject to its
jurisdiction” is found in federal statutes and regulations
and it means all of the following:
8.1. Having a legal domicile within the exclusive jurisdiction
of a “state”. Within federal law, this “state” means the “United
States” government and includes no part of any state of the Union.
8.2. Being subject to the
legislative
but not political jurisdiction
of a “state”.
- Political jurisdiction and political rights are the tools we
use to directly run and influence the government as voters and jurists.
- Legislative jurisdiction, on the other hand, is how the
government controls us using the laws it passes.
Now that we understand
the distinctions between “citizens” and “nationals” within federal law,
we are ready to tackle the citizenship issue head on.