, section 4.11.5, ver. 4.53
Within federal law, two words are used to describe
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
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
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]
Based on the above definition, being a “citizen” therefore involves the following FOUR individual components, EACH of which require your individual consent in some form. Any attempt to remove the requirement for consent in the case of EACH SPECIFIC component makes the government doing so UNJUST as defined by the Declaration of Independence, and produces involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment:
Table 19: Mandatory components of being a "citizen"
||How consented to
||What happens when you don’t consent
||Allegiance to the sovereign within the community, which in our country is the “state” and is legally defined as the PEOPLE occupying a fixed territory RATHER than the government or anyone serving them IN the government.
||Requesting to be naturalized and taking a naturalization oath.
||Allegiance acquired by birth is INVOLUNTARY.
||VOLUNTARY political association and membership in a political community.
||Registering to vote or serve on jury duty.
||If you don’t register to vote or serve on jury duty, you are NOT a “citizen”, even if ELIGIBLE to do either.
||Enjoyment of full CIVIL rights.
||Choosing a domicile
||You can’t be a statutory “citizen” unless you voluntarily choose a domicile.
||Submission to CIVIL authority.
||Choosing a domicile
||You can’t be a statutory “citizen” unless you voluntarily choose a domicile.
From the above, we can see that simply calling oneself a “citizen” or not qualifying which SUBSET of each of the above we consent to is extremely hazardous to your freedom! Watch out! The main questions in our mind about the above chart is:
- Must we expressly consent to ALL of the above as indicated in the third column from the left above in order to truthfully be called a “citizen” as legally defined?
- Which components in the above table are MANDATORY in order to be called a “citizen”?
- What if we don’t consent to the “benefits” domicile protection franchise? Does that NOT make us a “citizen” under the civil statutory laws of that jurisdiction?
- What if we choose a domicile in the place, but refuse to register to vote and make ourselves ineligible to serve on jury duty. Does that make us NOT a “citizen”?
- If we AREN’T a “citizen” as defined above because we don’t consent to ALL of the components, then what would we be called under the statutes of that jurisdiction?
If the common law is true, then refusing to consent to ANY ONE OR MORE of the above four prerequisits of BEING a “citizen” makes us ineligible to be called a “citizen” under the laws of that jurisdiction.
Invito beneficium non datur.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.
Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856,
The Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.) identifies TWO components of being a “citizen” with the following language. It acknowledges that one can be a “national of the United States” WITHOUT being a “citizen”, thus implying that those who are NOT “citizens” or who do not consent to ALL the obligations of being a “citizen” automatically become “non-citizen nationals of the United States”:
Department of State
Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.), Volume 7, Section 1111
b. National vs. Citizen: While most people and countries use the terms “citizenship” and “nationality” interchangeably, U.S. law differentiates between the two. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. The term “national of the United States”, as defined by statute (INA 101 (a)(22) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted the privilege of citizenship.
(1) Nationals of the United States who are not citizens owe allegiance to the United States and are entitled to the consular protection of the United States when abroad, and to U.S. documentation, such as U.S. passports with appropriate endorsements. They are not entitled to voting representation in Congress and, under most state laws, are not entitled to vote in Federal, state, or local elections except in their place of birth. (See 7 FAM 012; 7 FAM 1300 Appendix B Endorsement 09.)
(2) Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. non-citizen nationality 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. (See 7 FAM 1120.)
(3) Under current law, only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are U.S. non-citizen nationals (INA 101(a)(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29) and INA 308(1) (8 U.S.C. 1408)). (See 7 FAM 1125.)
The first thing we notice about the above is the use of the phrase “privileges of citizenship”. Both voting and serving on jury duty are and always have been PRIVILEGES that can be taken away, not RIGHTS that are inalienable. The fact that they are privileges is the reason why convicted felons can’t vote or serve on jury duty, in fact. Those who refuse to be enfranchised or privileged in any way therefore cannot consent to or exericse the obligations or accept the “benefits” of such privileges, and they have a RIGHT to do so. To suggest otherwise is to sanction involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
It would therefore seem based on 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.) 1100(b)(1) that those who refuse to register to vote or serve on jury duty would satisfy the requirement above of being a “non-citizen national”. Hence, withdrawing consent to be jurist or voter alone would seem to demote us from being a “citizen” to being a “non-citizen national”. However, there is no congressional act that grants this substandard status to anyone OTHER than those in federal possessions such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island. Hence, claiming the status of “non-citizen national” would have to be done delicately with care so as not to confuse yourself with those born in or domiciled in the federal possessions of American Samoa and Swain’s Island, who are described in 8 U.S.C. §1408 and 8 U.S.C. §1452.
STATUTORY “non-citizen nationals” are described in 8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1452, and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B). However, these statutes only define civil statuses of those situated on federal territory. Those physically situated in a constitutional state would not be described in those statutes but would still appear to be eligible to be “non-citizen nationals” from a COMMON LAW or CONSTITUTIONAL, rather than a STATUTORY standpoint.
Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. See, e.g., Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922) (Holmes, J.) ("If a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it[.]"); Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) ("It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use . . . . Yet an unbroken practice . . . is not something to be lightly cast aside."). And while Congress cannot take away the citizenship of individuals covered by the Citizenship Clause, it can bestow citizenship upon those not within the Constitution's breadth. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 ("Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory belonging to the United States."); id. at art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Congress may "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . .."). To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.16
[Tuana v. USA, Case No. 12-01143 (District of Columbia District Court)]
Those among our readers who do NOT want to be “citizens”, do not want to abandon their nationality, and yet who also do not want to call themselves “non-citizen nationals” may therefore instead refer to themselves simply as “non-resident non-persons” under federal law. Below is our definition of that term from the SEDM Disclaimer:
4. MEANINGS OF WORDS
The term "non-person" as used on this site we define to be a human not domiciled on federal territory, not engaged in a public office, and not "purposefully and consensually availing themself" of commerce within the jurisdiction of the United States government. We invented this term. The term does not appear in federal statutes because statutes cannot even define things or people who are not subject to them and therefore foreign and sovereign. The term "non-individual" used on this site is equivalent to and a synonym for "non-person" on this site, even though STATUTORY "individuals" are a SUBSET of "persons" within the Internal Revenue Code. Likewise, the term "private human" is also synonymous with "non-person". Hence, a "non-person":
- Retains their sovereign immunity. They do not waive it under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 or the longarm statutes of the state they occupy.
- Is protected by the United States Constitution and not federal statutory civil law.
- May not have federal statutory civil law cited against them. If they were, a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and a constitutional tort would result if they were physcially present on land protected by the United States Constitution within the exterior limits of states of the Union.
- Is on an equal footing with the United States government in court. "Persons" would be on an UNEQUAL, INFERIOR, and subservient level if they were subject to federal territorial law.
Don't expect vain public servants to willingly admit that there is such a thing as a human who satisfies the above criteria because it would undermine their systematic and treasonous plunder and enslavement of people they are supposed to be protecting. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the "right to be left alone" is the purpose of the constitution. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. A so-called "government" that refuses to leave you alone or respect or protect your sovereignty and equality in relation to them is no government at all and has violated the purpose of its creation described in the Declaration of Independence.
[SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4; SOURCE: http://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]
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
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
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
jurisdiction" rather than "subject to
"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
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
U.S.C. §1101: Definitions
(a) The term ''national'' means
a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
A “state” is then
defined as follows:
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
§1101(a)(22)(B), 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”
if we were born in and are domiciled in a state of the Union.
- “nationals but not citizens” under 8 U.S.C. §1452 if we were born in U.S. possessions such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island.
Here is the definition
of a “national of the United States**” that demonstrates this, and note
TITLE 8 >
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
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,
§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”.
CHAPTER 12 >
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;