neo
Forum Replies Created
Quote:I disagree partially with your statement. Those domiciled in states of the Union CANNOT have the civil status of “citizen” under federal law without being SUBJECT to federal civil law. The separation of powers forbids federal civil jurisdiction within the borders of a state of the Union. Hence, the only thing one can be is a non-citizen national.Yes, they have jurisdiction over constitutional aliens everywhere, but not over non-citizen nationals.We have already agreed that statutory civil status connects with domicile. We also agree that the Constitution attaches to the land. If a Union state Citizen takes up a domicile on Federal Territory, that is his right under the Constitution; the First Amendment guarantees this right. His unalienable rights are still there, he just needs to reclaim them by relocating his domicile back on sovereign Union state territory. If a Union state Citizen makes his or her domicile on Federal Territory, then ipso facto he is subject to Federal Civil Law, just like every time I go on base, I may not talk on a cell phone without a hands-free device. As soon as I pass through the gate, that baby is coming on, and the Feds have nothing to say to me!
The statuses in Title 8 apply within the context of “nationality”, not domicile. We can apply the same concepts to issues of domicile, and they are depicted beautifully in the Venn Diagram. But that is a separate issue.
Happy Memorial Day Weekend!! Will you not also receive your lot of plunder and booty?
It has always been the goal of this ministry, and mine, that we abide by all laws, and that we hold the government and the companies for whom we work to that same standard.
That being said, my strategy regarding the Form I-9 will be as follows:
I will mark “A citizen of the United States” as the proper designation to describe me. My Form I-9 submission will state at the top, “Incomplete and invalid without attached addendum.”
In the attached addendum, I will state how the I-9 is being deployed unnecessarily in the private-sector, as “employment in the United States” means “employment for the Federal Government.” I will also state that the designations provided by me are to be used ONLY within the realm of confirming my “nationality” and thus, my political status within the nation of the United States of America.
I will state emphatically that the proffered information on Form I-9 is NOT to be regarded in areas of statutory civil status imputed by domicile. Domicile is a free choice, and the statutory civil statuses resulting from that choice are mutually exclusive to my political status as a Citizen of the United States of America.
Nationality = Political Status
Domicile = Civil Status
I love this stuff!!!
jb,
Regarding Title 8 and Title 22, I now have come to the conclusion that we ARE “citizens and nationals of the United States” pursuant to 8 USC 1401. I have come to this conclusion because the passport and Title 8 itself deal in the realm of “nationality”, which is determinative of one's political status.
Title 26 on the other hand, is dealing with domicile within the nation itself — not nationality. Domicile deals with civil status, not political status. Nationality deals with political status, not civil status. The two contexts are mutually exclusive, and must not be abused in abrogating the rights of the Citizen in favor of the government. A classic example of this would be the misapplication of the information on the I-9, which again, deals in the realm of “nationality”, and using that information for the purposes of determining tax status. A “citizen of the United States” on the Form I-9 can have a tax status of “nonresident alien” because said Citizen is domiciled on a political subdivision of the United States* which is foreign to the United States**– and that is the United States***.
It's my firm belief now that there is no infirmity whatsoever in marking “U.S. Citizen” on the DS-11 Passport application. Because in the context of Title 8 and Title 22, we are dealing with the “United States*”– The United States of America. The statement of “…whether citizens or not of the United States*” in 22 USC 212 is referring to those from the “outlying possessions of the United States*”–American Samoa and Swains Island.
It just dawned on me. Form I-9 Instructions have a subsection entitled:
Quote:“When Should Form I-9 Be Used?”All employees (citizens and noncitizens) hired after November 6, 1986, and working in the United States must complete Form I-9.
This entire Form applies to the “United States” in its non-geographical meaning — “Employment Eligibility Verification” in the course of working for the United States Government!
This form does not apply to jobs in the private sector, which do not constitute “employment.”
Why? Because the Feds have no authority to dictate the terms of private conduct. This is the only possible explanation for the meaning behind the terms “United States” and “Employment”.
There is nothing in the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” nor the Federal Register which imposes its provisions upon the Citizens of the 50 Union states.
Just keep in mind, the designations on the Form are authored in the context of nationality and not statutory civil status imputed through domicile on a political subdivision. But since an unwitting HR department is going to misapply the form, an addendum with proper definitions will have to be given.
Good!! I feel better now! I wasn't going to be able to function until I wrapped my brain around this one!!! I've got a handle on it now!!
In view of my previous post about why the DOS does not issue a “non-citizen national” endorsement, I have concluded that the reason is based on the fact that the DOS is dealing solely with the “Nationality” issue — nothing more.
In fact, Title 8 is entitled “Aliens and Nationality.” Therefore, the whole Title deals with “Nationality” and not at all with statutory civil status by virtue of choice of domicile.
This presents a conundrum. The authority for issuing the I-9 comes from Title 8. Thus the statutory statuses proffered on the I-9 are also in terms of “Nationality”, and NOT domicile.
So it would appear, that a Union state Citizen really is justified in selecting “A citizen of the United States” when filling out and submitting Form I-9.
They don't define the term “employment” in Title 8, because it is simply not necessary. Congress has jurisdiction over all resident aliens throughout the nation. Thus, any work they perform constitutes “employment”, and they will be referred to Title 26 and issued knee pads accordingly.
The problem is, however, payers in the private-sector will not allow you to submit a W-8 if you have an I-9 on file indicating you are “a citizen of the United States”, even though this has to do with questions of “Nationality”, and not questions of domicile within a political subdivision of the nation itself.
You are then left with a “Gordian knot”. The I-9 indicates you are “a citizen of the United States”, thus securing in the minds of HR folks, that you are also a “U.S. person”. This will preclude the company from allowing your W-8 submission.
I think the only way around this, is to attach an addendum to the I-9, and say something to the effect of:
Quote:“Whereas this form is utilized by 'Company X' for the purposes of determining United States tax status, the designations proffered on this Form I-9 are to be construed in the context of statutory civil status imputed through domicile upon a political subdivision of the nation, versus political status imputed through Nationality itself.”I cannot find any definition of “employment” in the 'Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986'. Thus, the worst case meaning can be presumed. And that meaning applies to all 'resident aliens' anywhere in the nation, because they are a “U.S. person,” and thus in a “legal employer-employee relationship” — “employment”.
Regarding the I-9, and 8 USC 1324a — the Form and the statute make reference to “employment.”
I can't seem to find where they define this term. I would think that somewhere in the statute it would read, “The term 'employment', when used in this chapter, shall be given the meaning so defined in Title 26.” Or something to that effect.
I have read material on famguardian that states that the I-9 ONLY applies to
Quote:“certain employers involving the use of agricultural workers; the I-9 Form has no other application and is not authorized for use with natural citizens of the United States.”I disagree with the above premise. Here's why: 1324a.(a)(1) states:
Quote:“It is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection(h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment.”So the key here is the term “employment” and an alien (resident or nonresident). ANYBODY can enter into “employment.” 26 USC 3402(p)(3) allows anybody; a “U.S. person” or a “nonresident alien” to volunteer to be treated AS IF he were an “employee” being paid “wages” by an “employer.” “Employment” is defined as a “legal employer-employee relationship.” If one submits a W-4 voluntarily, one is LEGALLY in “employment” because the “legal employer – employee relationship” exists by virtue of the voluntary agreement.
So I submit the Form I-9 applies to anyone and everyone who enters into “employment”, either actual through public office, or through voluntary agreement.
I just can't tie the term “employment” as used in 8 USC to 26 USC. I'm certain it means the same thing, but I can't find a definition for “employment” in Title 8.
Admin,
Thanks for the reply. I spent no less than 8 hours on this topic today. I've got a very firm grasp on this now!!
Thanks again for your patience, and long-suffering in helping me and others with my education.
These efforts are absolutely going to bear fruit!!!
Suppose a foreign “national” — such as German “national”, decides to relocate to the USVI (future domicile). The German “national” expatriates and abandons his German “national” status in favor of being “naturalized” as a “national” of the United States of America.
My question is this: Is that German “national” afforded ALL constitutional protections first and foremost by virtue of his “naturalization” — only to abandon those protections by virtue of his choice of domicile?
It would appear that every “national” of the United States of America is NOT provided the same constitutional protections. For example, a Citizen of American Samoa is an American “national” precisely in the same manner as a Citizen of Oklahoma. However, American Samoa has their own immigration laws, and a different political status compared to that of the Citizen of Oklahoma. Thus, their respective “nationality” has different characteristics, thus “naturalization” can have different characteristics.
How can a foreign “national” from outside the United States of America, be “naturalized” and receive ALL of the constitutional protections of a natural born American “national” from the Union, when said person never even sets foot, or intends to set foot in the 50 Union states, by virtue of his domicile in Guam, USVI, CNMI, PR, or American Samoa or Guam?
I've taken a very close look at this.
In fact, the correct choice is “alien,” and NOT “non-citizen national of the United States.” A person from American Samoa and Swains Island is a “non-citizen national” AND a “non-citizen national of the United States.” A Citizen of the 50 Union states is a “national,” a “non-citizen national,” and an “alien”— NOT a “non-citizen national of the United States.”
They very cleverly disqualify a Citizen of the 50 Union states from selecting “non-citizen national” — which would normally be correct — by adding the additional disqualifying words “of the United States.” They are disqualifying because of the meaning of “United States” used.
“Alien” is the proper selection on the I-9. The problem is that it then requests an “Alien #” or “Admission #.” I would put — “N/A, Natural born American Citizen domiciled in (Union state).”
The real issue is whether or not, as an “alien,” one is a “resident alien,” or a “nonresident alien.”
While we are on the topic of “alien.” I can't seem to find a definition of “alien” other than a definition that is a half-truth. The legal dictionaries describe an “alien” as someone who is from a foreign country and who has not been naturalized. Even Bouvier's takes this route.
I would think there would be a definition somewhere that would define an “alien” as a person that is foreign with regard to the jurisdiction in question. Has anyone here found a definition of “alien” that says anything like this?
It's hard to be credible in educating others when the only definition available matches that of people's already pre-conceived notions of what “alien” means.
My rebuttal to the answer above is:
The courts have now abandoned the truth, and are simply, at best, just remaining silent when challenged. As are banks and HR departments.
A lien hurts. It would appear that Tim Turner and others are able to get things resolved in the same way they do it to us . . . through economic and commercial pressure. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If this works, why not use it?
There has got to be a very good reason why they banned these materials. That would tell me that there is some truth or value in those materials.
I'm sure people on this forum have heard about Tim Turner, from the Restore America Plan, and how they are using, among other things, Negative Averments to bring judges and courts into either contractual honor, or ruin. My understanding is that just weeks ago, three judges “suddenly retired” from the bench in Alabama, Tim's home state.
Now, I don't know if he had anything to do with this or not, but that is the implication.
Folks are getting frivolous penalties “zeroed-out” and other debts released according to the audios I'm hearing online.
Does anyone have an opinion of this? For example, if bank or HR personnel will not permit lawful “nonresident alien” declarations, could one use the “Negative Averment” process as a means to promote lawful behavior? This sounds reasonable to me.
I know the truth, but others do not, and they will NOT permit the truth to be declared. It seems as if this type of commercial remedy would be a strong motivator to ensure lawful behavior.
Thoughts?
That's a great synopsis! Thanks for that!
When I applied for my passport as a “non-citizen national,” I quoted the Administrative Procedures Act and the Federal Register Act as proof that the mandate to disclose a Social Security Number did not apply to me, 26 USC 6039E has no implementing regulation, thus, the statutory mandate of 6039E applies only to federal instrumentalities.
What I was trying to do was accomplish the same thing with regard to 8 USC 1401, by basically showing that there was no implementing regulation for this status. My thinking was that this would prove that they can't be talking about the 50 Union states protected by the Constitution, but that the “Nationals and citizens of the United States” must be domiciliaries of the Federal Zone.
Is there in fact anyway to reconcile this vis-a-vis the definitions of Title 8, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Federal Register Act, and the Federal Register? How would one use the FR to show, perhaps a “gatekeeper” at the DOS, that the terms do not apply to American Citizens of the 50 Union states?
I know they should know this . . . but they do not. And if there is any way to apply the constraints of the FR as proof, I think that just helps put the puzzle back together a little more clearly.
So . . . I'm more confused than ever now. I thought the purpose of the FR was to indicate which Regulations had general applicability and legal effect to ALL Americans. Is this not the case?
The Administrative Procedures Act and the Federal Register Act seem to imply that statutes with no regs are only binding on government entities, but a statute with a regulation, published in the FR applies to every single American.
Is this not the case? Is it still all a matter of context? And if so, then what is the purpose of the FR other than that of a basic “Local Blotter” which serves to act as a venue for public notice and comment?
Admin,
Thanks. No . . . I understood all of that. I guess what I am having problems with is using this information as a means to prove that a given “Act of Congress,” as defined in Rule 54(c ) of the FRCP in fact does NOT apply to the 50 Union states.
For example, the Dept of State quotes the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), specifically Sections 101 and 308 in denying a “non-citizen national” endorsement.
The INA Sections correspond to Title 8 in the following manner:
INA Sec. 101 = 8 USC 1101
INA Sec. 301 = 8 USC 1401
INA Sec. 308 = 8 USC 1408
Let's look at 8 CFR Part 301 — Nationals and Citizens ofthe United States at Birth
In 8 CFR Part 301 it states the following:
Authority: 8 USC 1103, 1401; 8 CFR Part 2
Source: 62 FR 39927, July 25, 1997, unless otherwise noted.
So, this tells me that Part 301 has general applicability and effect across the entire country . . . including the 50 Union states.
I want to use the Administrative Procedures Act and the Federal Register Act as evidence that the INA is an “Act of Congress” with limited territorial applicability.
What am I missing?
It looks like there is a fairly forthright admission in 26 USC 871(i)(2)(A). This doesn't seem to be the passage I thought that I had seen — but it seems to accomplish the same purpose.
