CITES BY TOPIC:  U.S. National

IMPORTANT NOTE!: 

  1. A "U.S. National" is defined in 8 U.S.C. 1408

  2. A "national but not a citizen" defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) or 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B) and 8 U.S.C.  1452

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

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

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


IRS Website: Pay for Independent Personal Services (Income Code 16)

U.S. National

A U.S. national is an individual who owes his sole allegiance to the United States, but who is not a U.S. citizen (a citizen of American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

[PDF 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"


PDF  Why you are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen.  Article on our website based on sections 4.12.6 and 4.12.6.1 of the Great IRS Hoax book.


Title 26: Internal Revenue Code:

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

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

PDF 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"

[PDF IRS Publication 519: Tax Guide for Aliens, Year 2007, p. 43]


PDF IRS Form 1040NR:  Note it identifies "U.S. nationals" as "nonresident aliens"!


PDF  3C Am Jur 2d, Aliens and Citizens, 2732-2752-detailed background on "U.S. national" status right from the American Jurisprudence legal encyclopedia


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


8 U.S.C. 1101: Definitions

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

Sec. 1101. - Definitions

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

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

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


22 U.S.C. 4309a: United States responsibilities for employees of the United Nations

TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 53 > Sec. 4309a.

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

(d) United States nationals

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


"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

Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of 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)

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


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

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

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

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

[Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794)]

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

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

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

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


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

"2. Nationality 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[2][b], p. 93-42; id., 93.04[2][d][viii], p. 93-49."

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


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


PDF Jose Napoleon Marquez-Almanzar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2nd Cir, No. 03-4395, August 8, 2005-meaning of "U.S. national"


Great IRS Hoax, section 4.11.6.5: Rebutted arguments against those who believe people born in the states of the Union are not "nationals"

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.

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

    "2. Nationality 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[2][b], p. 93-42; id., 93.04[2][d][viii], p. 93-49."

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

  2. Volume 7 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) section 1111.3 published by the Dept. of States at http://foia.state.gov/REGS/Search.asp says the following about nationals but not citizens of the United States:<

    c. Historically, 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.

    d. Under 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).

  3. The Social Security Program Operations Manual System (POMS) at http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/poms says the following:

    RS 02001.003 “U.S. Nationals”

    Most of the agreements refer to “U.S. nationals.”

    The term 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.

  4. The USDA Food Stamp Service, website says at http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Memo/Support/02/polimgrt.htm:

    Non-citizens who qualify outright

    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 Assistance Act.
    • 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:

  1. The term “United States” as used in 8 U.S.C. 1408 means the federal zone based on the definitions provided in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(36), 8 U.S.C. 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: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section 14.htm
  2. 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”:

    “While states 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.”

    "It is 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)]

  3. 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 8 U.S.C. 1408.
  4. 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 http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/reliance.htm for an excellent treatise from an attorney on why this is.
  5. 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 8 U.S.C. 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.
  6. 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 and nationals of the United States” as defined in 8 U.S.C. 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 nationality under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B).  This is the approach we advocated earlier in section 4.11.6.1.  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 8 U.S.C. 1401, then you are entitled by law to abandon only the “citizen” portion and retain the “national” portion, and 8 U.S.C. 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 this subject:

“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 Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]

The rules of comity prescribe whether or how this citizenship is recognized by the federal government, and by reading 8 U.S.C. 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 8 U.S.C. 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 8 U.S.C. 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.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > 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.

The proviso of section 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 federal United States (federal zone) to parents who are “U.S. nationals” and who resided at one time in the federal United 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 8 U.S.C. 1408(2).

One of the complaints we get from our readers is something like the following:

“Let’s assume you’re right and that 8 U.S.C. 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 8 U.S.C. 1408(2), the parents must also reside in the federal United 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:

  1. Serving in the military or residing on a military base or occupied territory.
  2. 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 26 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.
  3. Spending time in a military hospital.
  4. Visiting federal property or a federal reservation within a state routinely as a contractor working for the federal government.
  5. Working for the federal government on a military reservation or inside of a federal area.
  6. Sleeping in a national park.
  7. 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:

Resident.  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 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(31) below:

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

Sec. 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 with law.

Since Title 8 does not define the term “lasting” or “ongoing” or “transitory”, we referred to the regular dictionary, which says:

lasting:  existing or continuing a long while: ENDURING.”  [Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, p. 675]

ongoing: 1.  being actually in process 2: continuously moving forward; GROWING” [Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, p. 825]

transitory:  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:

“Therefore 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]

“But 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 8 U.S.C. 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 8 U.S.C. 1401.  We also show you how to have that choice formally recognized bye the U.S. Department of State in section 2.5.3.13 of our Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual  under the authority of 8 U.S.C. 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 metaphor:

“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 law?  8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) defines a “national” as:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER 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 8 U.S.C. 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 8 U.S.C. 1401:

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.

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 without demanding 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):

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 241.

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)]