National citizenship

1. Introduction

National citizenship consists of POLITICAL membership in a NATION. The Constitution of the United States of America is a political document which applies to its political members. This political membership is referred to as “subject to THE jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment, in the case of state citizenship. All of the following are synonyms for national citizenship:

  1. Association with a body politic.
  2. Association with a nation.
  3. Political association.
  4. National (adjective) association
  5. Citizenship

2. Nationality

NATIONALITY (political status)=citizenship + allegiance.

2.1. Citizenship

“citizenship” above as a component of nationality can be acquired either through:

  1. The Fourteenth Amendment in the case of those born within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union or
  2. 8 U.S.C. §1401 in the case of those born:
    2.1. Within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. 8 U.S.C. §1401(a).
    2.1. Abroad to American parents.
    2.2 Within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government in territories, federal enclaves, and Indian reservations.
  3. 8 U.S.C. §1408 and §1452 in the case of those born in possessions.

Remember that Title 8 of the U.S. Code establishes POLITICAL membership, so the term “United States” as used there is the POLITICAL context for the word and refers to the NATION, not a specific geography.

Being a “citizen” in a political sense is ALWAYS a label associated with a political body—state or nation. And what is associated in a political association? : Land, people, and 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.”

[. . .]

“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.“

[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166-167 (1874);
SOURCE: https://ftsig.org/minor-v-happersett-88-u-s-162-1875/;
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5117525999793250938]

“[T]he privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgement by states of rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship.”

[Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 90-91 (1940);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1599685465547047898]

2.2. Allegiance

Allegiance ABOVE is established by taking an oath per 8 C.F.R. §337.1.

Once associated (citizenship) you can then *ADD* allegiance to your association.

  1. When you add citizenship and allegiance, you get nationality.
  2. Nationality is political status.
  3. Citizenship is NOT political status. It is one component of political status.

3. Relationship of “citizenship” to DOMICILE, Civil Jurisdiction, and Civil Status

To get a civil status, you have to add a CIVIL JURISDICTIONAL component to POLITICAL citizenship. That component is acquired by one or more of the following:

  1. Domicile (StateG jurisdiction) for state purposes. It is:
    1.1. A type of geographical election.
    1.2. Associated with a specific MUNICIPAL jurisdiction.
    1.3. Usually relevant only in the case of state income taxation per Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932) [SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613].
  2. United StatesG through a CONSENSUAL CIVIL franchise status election such as “U.S. person”.
    2.1. This occurs through election, thereby waiving and preempting StateG jurisdiction.
    2.2. The franchise status has a DOMESTIC geographical domicile while those FILLING the franchise status can have a FOREIGN domicile per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).
    2.3. The civil franchise status can be CONSENSUALLY EXERCISED by the officer filling said status within or without (United StatesG jurisdiction) for Federal purposes.
  3. Through unilateral and coerced identity theft on the part of a government for financial gain, whether by malice or mistake. See:
    Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
    https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

The CIVIL jurisdiction conferred through the above methods is worldwide because it is Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ, domestic1). StateG becomes United StatesG because of Federal pre-emption. At that point, domicile of the officer acquiring the FEDERAL civil status becomes IRRELEVANT in determining or exercising federal jurisdiction.

Throughout this site, we take great pains to try to distinguish between CIVIL and POLITICAL jurisdiction as follows:

  1. POLITICAL jurisdiction is not the same as CIVIL jurisdiction. See:
    Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf
  2. To avoid confusion and equivocation, it is sometimes helpful to put the words POLITICAL or CIVIL in front of the word “citizen”. In that scenario, invoking POLITICAL in front of the term “citizen” then:
    2.1. EXCLUDES the civil context.
    2.2. EXCLUDES all elections.
    2.3. EXCLUDES presumption of domicile of any kind.
    We do this to avoid the use of the use of the word “SOVEREIGN” in front of “citizen” and retain the ability to use the word “citizen” to avoid accusations of being frivolous. CIVIL NON-CITIZEN, PURELY POLITICAL, or EXCLUSIVELY POLITICAL would be the same thing.
  3. Since the CONSTITUTION is a political document, then replacing “POLITICAL” with “CONSTITUTIONAL” can sometimes be helpful to particularize the word “POLITICAL” so that STATE NATIONALS can be referenced by replacing it with CONSTITUTIONAL.
  4. ADDING “of the United StatesG” to the end of “citizen of United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A) is how the context changes from POLITICAL to CIVIL. To simplify things, you can AVOID having to preface citizenship terms with POLITICAL or CIVIL by employing United StatesG symbology and ALWAYS interpreting “citizen” in its political context.
  5. This site contains a mixture of the above approaches. We do this to avoid equivocation between POLITICAL and CIVIL terms or contexts.

The reason for the above approach is explained by the following court case:

“Citizenship and domicile are substantially synonymous. Residency and inhabitance are too often confused with the terms and have not the same significance. Citizenship implies more than residence. It carries with it the idea of identification with the state and a participation in its functions. As a citizen, one sustains social, political, and moral obligation to the state and possesses social and political rights under the Constitution and laws thereof. Harding v. Standard Oil Co. et al. (C.C.) 182 F. 421; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 763, 32 L.Ed. 766; Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 476, 15 L.Ed. 691.”

[Baker v. Keck, 13 F.Supp. 486, 487 (1936);
SOURCE:https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4204593481858326209]

You can’t PARTICIPATE in the functions of the state or have CIVIL obligations WITHOUT a CIVIL DOMICILE. If you never make any elections or domicile, you can’t vote or serve on jury duty because both of these are PRIVILEGES, not RIGHTS.

Therefore, being a POLITICAL citizen makes you a CANDIDATE to participate, but not an actual PARTICIPANT. You need the addition of a DOMICILE election to actually participate. Try registering to vote WITHOUT a domicile like we did. They will laugh you out of the registrar’s office.

On this website, the term “POLITICAL citizen” is equivalent to:

  1. CIVIL Non-Citizen
  2. EXCLUSIVELY POLITICAL citizen
  3. PURELY POLITICAL citizen
  4. TRANSIENT FOREIGNER
  5. Non-resident citizen
  6. American National

Those who HAVE made any elections, including domicile, and thereby surrendered all the above statuses are called “harlots” in the bible:

Are you “playing the harlot” with the government?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/are-you-playing-the-harlot/

For information about how to AVOID all such elections and AVOID producing legal evidence of consent in any form, see:

Acquiring a Civil Status, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/

We emphasize that POLITICAL “membership” and CIVIL “membership” operate completely independently of each other.

  1. POLITICAL membership is created by birth or naturalization, which are non-consensual beyond the point of acquiring them.
  2. CIVIL membership is created by elections/consent with or without domicile.
  3. Becoming a CIVIL member means you join the collective or “State” and owe CIVIL obligations that are PUBLIC property. See:
    Collectivism and How to Resist It, Form #12.024
    https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Collectivism.pdf
  4. You should NEVER join any collective, because you cease to absolutely own yourself or some portion of your property when you do.

The two forms of membership should NEVER be confused. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that BOTH of these forms of MEMBERSHIP DESTROY your constitutional rights!

When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. “A body politic,” as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, “is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively private, Thorpe v. R. & B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and 125*125 has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas. From this source come the police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Cases, 5 How. 583, “are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things.” Under these powers the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise it has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and in so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day, statutes are to be found in many of the States upon some or all these subjects; and we think it has never yet been successfully contended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional prohibitions against interference with private property. With the Fifth Amendment in force, Congress, in 1820, conferred power upon the city of Washington “to regulate . . . the rates of wharfage at private wharves, . . . the sweeping of chimneys, and to fix the rates of fees therefor, . . . and the weight and quality of bread,” 3 Stat. 587, sect. 7; and, in 1848, “to make all necessary regulations respecting hackney carriages and the rates of fare of the same, and the rates of hauling by cartmen, wagoners, carmen, and draymen, and the rates of commission of auctioneers,” 9 id. 224, sect. 2.

From this it is apparent that, down to the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was not supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of the use, of private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law. Under some circumstances they may, but not under all. The amendment does not change the law in this particular: it simply prevents the States from doing that which will operate as such a deprivation.

[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931]

More on the above at:

Membership in a Specific Class, Status, or Group As a Cause for Loss of Rights, SEDM
https://sedm.org/membership-in-a-specific-class-status-or-group-as-a-cause-for-loss-of-rights/