How the Government has Obfuscated the Citizenship Issue to Fool Us Into Falsely Admitting to be "U.S. citizens" under the Internal Revenue Code

This section builds on the content of section 4.11.3.7 earlier, where we talked about definitions of U.S. citizenship terms.  We state throughout this book that the definitions of terms used are extremely important, and that when the government wants to usurp additional jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution authorizes, it starts by confusing and obfuscating the definition of key terms.  The courts then use this confusion and uncertainty to stretch their interpretation of legislation in order to expand government jurisdiction, in what amounts to “judge-made law”.  This in turn transforms our government of “laws” into a government of “men” in violation of the intent of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)).  You will see in this section how this very process has been accomplished with the citizenship issue.  The purpose of this section is therefore to:

  • Provide definitions of the key and more common terms used both by the Federal judiciary courts and the Legislative branch in Title 8 so that you will no longer be deceived.
  • Show you how the government and the legal profession have obfuscated key citizenship terms over the years to expand their jurisdiction and control over Americans beyond what the Constitution authorizes.

The main prejudicial and usually invisible presumption that governments, courts and judges make which is most injurious to your rights is the association between the words “citizen” and “citizenship” with the term “domicile”.  Whenever either you or the government uses the word “citizen”, they are making the following presumptions:

  1. That you maintain a domicile within their civil legislative jurisdiction.  This means that if you are in a federal court, for instance, that you have a legal domicile on federal territory and not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any state of the Union.
  2. That you owe allegiance to them and are required as part of that allegiance to pay them “tribute” for the protection they afford.
  3. That you are qualified to participate in the affairs of the government as a voter or jurist, even though you may in fact not participate at that time.

The following legal authorities conclusively establish that the terms “citizen”, “citizenship”, and “domicile” are synonymous in federal courts.  They validate all of the above conclusive presumptions that government employees, officer, and judges habitually make when you appear before them or submit a government form to them, unless you specify or explain otherwise.  Government employees, officers, and judges just HATE to discuss or document these presumptions, which is why authorities to prove their existence are so difficult to locate.

 “Domicile and citizen are synonymous in federal courts, Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., D.C. Pa., 55 F.Supp. 981, 982; inhabitant, resident and citizen are synonymous, Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower, D.C.Md., 46 F.2d 678, 683.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 311]

The terms "citizen" and "citizenship" are distinguishable from "resident" or "inhabitant." Jeffcott v. Donovan, C.C.A.Ariz., 135 F.2d 213, 214; and from "domicile," Wheeler v. Burgess, 263 Ky. 693, 93 S.W.2d 351, 354; First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia v. New York Title & Mortgage Co., D.C.S.C., 59 F.2d 35j0, 351. The words "citizen" and citizenship," however, usually include the idea of domicile, Delaware, L.&W.R.Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.A.N.Y., 250 F. 554, 557; citizen inhabitant and resident often synonymous, Jonesboro Trust Co. v. Nutt, 118 Ark. 368, 176 S.W. 322, 324; Edgewater Realty Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., D.C.Md., 49 F.Supp. 807, 809; and citizenship and domicile are often synonymous.  Messick v. Southern Pa. Bus Co., D.C.Pa., 59 F.Supp. 799, 800.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 310]

"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 (1936)]

"The term ‘citizen‘, as used in the Judiciary Act with reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, is substantially synonymous with the term ‘domicile‘. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky, 2 Cir., 250 F. 554, 557."
[Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944)]

No person, may be compelled to choose a domicile or residence ANYWHERE.  By implication, no one but you can commit yourself to being a “citizen” or to accepting the responsibilities or liabilities that go with it.

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people.*946 The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
[City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 (1922)]

“Citizenship” and “residence”, as has often been declared by the courts, are not convertible terms. ... ”The better opinion seems to be that a citizen of the United States is, under the amendment [14th], prima facie a citizen of the state wherein he resides , cannot arbitrarily be excluded therefrom by such state, but that he does not become a citizen of the state against his will, and contrary to his purpose and intention to retain an already acquired citizenship elsewhere.  The amendment [14th] is a restraint on the power of the state, but not on the right of the person to choose and maintain his citizenship or domicile”“.
[Sharon v. Hill, 26 F. 337 (1885)]

Since “citizen”, “citizenship”, and “domicile” are all synonymous, then you can only be a “citizen” in ONE place at a time.  This is because you can only have a “domicile” in one place at a time. 

"domicile.  A person's legal home.  That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning.  Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310m 213 A.2d 94.  Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile" therein.  The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere.  A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile.  The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges."
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]

The implications of this revelation are significant.  It means that in relation to the state and federal governments and their mutually exclusive territorial jurisdictions, you can only be a statutory “citizen” of one of the two jurisdictions at a time.  Whichever one you choose to be a “citizen” of, you become a “national but not a citizen” in relation to the other.  You can therefore be subject to the civil laws of only one of the two jurisdictions at a time.  Whichever one of the two jurisdictions you choose your domicile within becomes your main source of protection.

Choice of domicile is an act of political affiliation protected by the First Amendment prohibition against compelled association:

Just as there is freedom to speak, to associate, and to believe, so also there is freedom not to speak, associate, or believe  "The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking [on a government tax return, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment  when coerced, for instance] are complementary components of the broader concept of 'individual freedom of mind.''  Wooley v. Maynard, [430 U.S. 703] (1977) .  Freedom of conscience dictates that no individual may be forced to espouse ideological causes with which he disagrees:

"[A]t the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that the individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and by his conscience rather than coerced by the State [through illegal enforcement of the revenue laws]."   Abood v. Detroit Board of Education [431 U.S. 209] (1977)

Freedom from compelled association is a vital component of freedom of expression.  Indeed, freedom from compelled association illustrates the significance of the liberty or personal autonomy model of the First Amendment.  As a general constitutional principle, it is for the individual and not for the state to choose one's associations and to define the persona which he holds out to the world.
[First Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-22677-X, pp. 266-267]

Beyond the above authorities, we then tried to locate credible legal authorities that explain the distinctions between the constitutional context and the statutory context for the term “United States”.  The basic deception results from the following:

  1. The differences in meaning of the term “United States” between the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes.  The term “United States” in the Constitution means “United States” the country, while in federal statutes, the term “United States” means the federal zone.
  2. Differences between citizenship definitions found in Title 8, the Aliens and Nationality Code, and those found in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code.  The term “nonresident alien” as used in Title 26, for instance, does not appear anywhere in Title 8 but is the equivalent of the term “non-citizen national” found in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).
  3. Differences between statutory citizenship definitions and the language of the courts.  The language of the courts is independent from the statutory definition so that it is difficult to correlate the term the courts are using and the related statutory definition.  We will include in this section separate definitions for the statutes and the courts to make these distinctions clear in your mind.

We will start off by showing that no authoritative definition of the term “citizen of the United States” existed before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.  This was revealed in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873):

“The 1st clause of the 14th article was primarily intended to confer citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the states, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a state and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.

“The 1st section of the 14th article, to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the states.  No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress.  It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals.  It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the state comprising the Union.  Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States, were not citizens.”

[…]

“To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a state, the 1st clause of the 1st section [of the Fourteenth Amendment] was framed:

‘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.’

“The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion.  It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular state, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.  That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt.  The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude form its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”

”The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case.  It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established.  Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter.  He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances of the individual.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]

A careful reading of Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892) helps clarify the true meaning of the term “citizen of the United States” in the context of the U.S. Constitution and the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.  It shows that a “citizen of the United States” is indeed a “national of the United States” in the context of federal statutes only:

"Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 'Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the [143 U.S. 135, 159] United States.' Section 1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice CURTIS, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States 'every free person, born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And Mr. Justice SWAYNE, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 126, declared that 'a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' But in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, Mr. Chief Justice TENEY, delivering the opinion of the court, said: '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. ... In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in [143 U.S. 135, 160]   which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.' “ 
[Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)]

Notice above that the term “citizen of the United States” and “rights of citizenship as a member of the Union” are described synonymously.  Therefore, a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, section 1 and a “non-citizen national” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1452 are synonymous.  As you will see in the following cite, people who were born in a state of the Union always were “citizens of the United States” by the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court, which made them “nationals of the United States” under federal statutes.  What the Fourteenth Amendment did was extend the privileges and immunities of “nationals of the United States” (defined under federal statutes) to those persons who were born in the District of Columbia and other federal territories.  The cite below helps confirm this:

“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the states.  No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress.  It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals.  It had been said my eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union.  Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States, were not citizens.  Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided.” 
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 395 (1873)]

We explained earlier in section 4.11.3 that the federal courts and especially the Supreme Court have done their best to confuse citizenship terms and the citizenship issue so that most Americans would be unable to distinguish between “U.S. national” and “U.S. citizen” status found in federal statutes.  This deliberate confusion has then been exploited by collusion of the Executive Branch, who have used their immigration and naturalization forms and publication and their ignorant clerk employees to deceive the average American into thinking they are “U.S. citizens” in the context of federal statutes.  Based on our careful reading of various citizenship cases mainly from the U.S. Supreme Court, Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Title 26 of the U.S. Code, as well as Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, below are some citizenship terms commonly used by the court and their correct and unambiguous meaning in relation to the statutes found in Title 8, which is the Aliens and Nationality Code:

Table 4-11: Citizenship terms used by the Supreme Court

# Term Context Meaning Authorities Notes
1 “nation” Everywhere In the context of the United States*** of America, a state of the union.  The federal government and all of its possessions and territories are not collectively a “nation”.  The “country” called the “United States*” is a “nation”, but our federal government and its territories and possessions are not collectively a “nation”.

1.  Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793)

2.  Black’s Law Dictionary, revised Fourth Edition, 1968, p. 1176 under “National Government”.

3.  Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945).

 The “United States*** of America” is a “federation” and not a “nation”.  Consequently, our government is called a “federal government” rather than a “national government”.  See section 4.6 of Great IRS Hoax for further explanation.
2 “national” or
”non-citizen National”		 Everywhere “national” is a person born abroad, or in one of the 50 union states and not in the federal zone or an outlying possession or territory of the United States**.  All “nationals” owe their permanent allegiance to the “United States***” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B).  Usually, either one or both of their parents are also “Nationals”.

1.  8 U.S.C. §1408.

2.  8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B).

3.  8 U.S.C. §1452.

4.  8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22).

5.  3C Am Jur 2d §2732-2752: Noncitizen nationality

 We could find no mention of the term “U.S. national ” by the Supreme Court.  We were told that this term was first introduced into federal statues in the 1930’s.
3 “naturalization” Everywhere The process of conferring nationality and “national” status only, but not “U.S. citizen” status.

1.  8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23):  “The term ‘'naturalization’' means the conferring of nationality [NOT "citizenship" or "U.S. citizenship", but "nationality", which means "national "] of a state [of the union] upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.”

2.        Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1063 under “naturalization”.

 The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is responsible for naturalization in the United States*** of America.  Their “Application for naturalization”, Form N-400, only uses the term “U.S. citizen” and never mentions “national ”.  On this form, the term “U.S. citizen” must therefore mean “national ” in the context of this form based on the definition of “naturalization”, but you can’t tell because the form doesn’t refer to a definition of what “U.S. citizen” means.
4 “expatriation” Everywhere “The voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality [not “U.S. citizenship” or “citizen of the United States***” status] and allegiance.”

1.   Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320 (1939)

2.  8 U.S.C. §1401.

3.  8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22).

 Renouncing one’s statutory “citizen of the United States**” status and reverting to a “national XE "CITIZENSHIP:national" ” is not “expatriation”, because both “citizens of the United States**” and “nationals but not citizens” are “nationals of the United States**” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22).
5 “citizenship” Everywhere Persons with a legal domicile within the jurisdiction of a sovereign and who were born SOMEWHERE within the country, although not necessarily within that specific jurisdiction..

1.  Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320 (1939)

2.        8 U.S.C.A. §1401, Notes.  See note 1 below.

3.        Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)

4.        3C Am Jur 2d §2732-2752: Noncitizen nationality

 Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) says: “To cause a loss of citizenship in the absence of treaty or statute having that effect, there must be a voluntary action and such action cannot be attributed to an infant whose removal to another country is beyond his control and who during minority is incapable of a binding choice.  By the Act of July 27, 1868, Congress declared that ‘the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people”.  Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance.”  This implies that “loss of citizenship” and “expatriation”, which is “loss of nationality” are equivalent.

 

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) says:  “The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case.  It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States[***] and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established [by the Fourteenth Amendment TA \s "Fourteenth Amendment" ].  Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States[***] without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter.  He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it but it is not necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the [country] United States[***] to be a citizen of the Union.

 

“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship [nationality] of the United States[***], and a citizenship [nationality]of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances of the individual.”
6 “citizen” used alone and without the term “U.S.**” in front or “of the United States**” after it

1.  U.S.*** Constitution

2.   U.S.** Supreme Court rulings

A “national of the United States**” in the context of federal statutes or a “citizen of the United States***” in the context of the Constitution or state statutes unless specifically identified otherwise.

1.  See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):

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." [Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)]

2.  See also Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892) , which says:

“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)]

1.  To figure this out, you have to look up federal court cases that use the terms “expatriation” and “naturalization” along with the term “citizen” and use the context to prove the meaning to yourself.

2.  In 26 CFR § 1.1-1, the term “citizen” as used means “U.S. citizen” rather than “national ”.  The opposite is true of Title 8 of the U.S.C. and most federal court rulings.  This is because of the definition of “United States**” within Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, which means the federal zone only.
7 “citizen” used alone and without the term “U.S.**” in front or “of the United States**” after it State statues Person with a legal domicile within th exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union who is NOT a “citizen” under federal statutory law. Law of Nations, Vattel, Section 212. Because states are “nations” under the law of nations and have police powers and exclusive legislative jurisdiction within their borders, then virtually all of their legislation is directed toward their own citizens exclusively.  See section 4.9 of the Great IRS Hoax TA \s "Great IRS Hoax"  earlier for further details on “police powers”.
8 “citizen” used alone and without the term “U.S.**” in front or “of the United States**” after it Federal statutes including Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code and Title 8, Aliens and Nationality Not defined anywhere in Title 8.  Persons with a legal domicile within the jurisdiction of a sovereign and who were born SOMEWHERE within the country, although not necessarily within that specific jurisdiction..

1.  Defined in 26 CFR §31.3121(e)-1.  See Note 2.

 This term is never defined anywhere in Title 8 but it is defined in 26 CFR §31.3121(e) -1.  You will see it most often on government passport applications, voter registration, and applications for naturalization.  These forms also don’t define the meaning of the term nor do they equate it to either “national ” or “citizen of the United States**”.  The person filling out the form therefore must define it himself on the form to eliminate the ambiguity or be presumed incorrectly to be a “citizen of the United States***” under section 1 of the 14th Amendment .
9 “United States citizenship” Everywhere The status of being a “national ”.  Note that the term “U.S. citizen ” looks similar but not identical and is not the same as this term, and this is especially true on federal forms. See “citizenship”. Same as “citizenship”.
10 “citizens of the United States” Everywhere A collection of people who are “nationals” and who in most cases are not a “citizen of the United States**” or a “U.S.** citizen ” under “acts of Congress” or federal statutes unless at some point after becoming “nationals”, they incorrectly declared their status to be a “citizen of the United States**” under 8 U.S.C. §1401  or changed their domicile to federal territory. See “citizenship”. Note that the definition of “citizen of the United States” and “citizens of the United States” are different.
11 “citizen of the United States”

Federal statutes

 Persons with a legal domicile on federal territory that is no part of the exclusive jurisdiction of any state of the Union.  Born SOMEWHERE within the country, although not necessarily within that specific jurisdiction.

1.  8 U.S.C.A. §1401.

2.  3C AmJur.2d §2689 (“U.S. citizen”).

3.  26 CFR §31.3121(e)-1.

4.  United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)

5.  Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923)

 Term “United States**” in federal statutes is defined as federal zone so a “citizen of the United States**” is a citizen of the federal zone only.  According to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873), this term was not defined before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment TA \s "Fourteenth Amendment"  in 1868.  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment  established the circumstances under which a person was a “citizen of the United States***”.  Note that the terms “citizens of the United States” and “citizen of the United States” are nowhere made equivalent in Title 8, and we define “citizens of the United States” above differently.
12 “citizen of the United States” State statutes

U.S. Supreme Court

Constitution

 Person who maintains a legal domicile within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union.  A “national” and a “non-citizen national” as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)  and 8 U.S.C. §1452.

1.  8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).

2.  8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B)

3.  Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)

4.  3C Am Jur 2d §2732-2752: Noncitizen nationality

 8 U.S.C.A. §1401 notes indicates: “The basis of citizenship in the United States[**] is the English doctrine under which nationality meant birth within allegiance to the king.”
13 “citizen of the Union” Everywhere A “national of the United States***” or a “national”

1.   Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)

 “Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) says:  “The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case.  It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States[***] and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established [by the Fourteenth Amendment TA \s "Fourteenth Amendment" ].  Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States[***] without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter.  He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it but it is not necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the [country] United States[***] to be a citizen of the Union.”
14 “U.S. citizen” Title 26: Internal Revenue Code (which is a federal statute or “act of Congress) Not defined anywhere in Title 8 that we could find.  Defined in 26 CFR §31.3121(e) -1, and there it means a person with a domicile on federal territory that is not part of the exclusive jurisdiction of any state of the Union.

1.  Defined in 26 CFR §31.3121(e) TA \s "26 CFR §31.3121(e)" -1.  See Note 2.

 This term is never defined anywhere in Title 8 but it is defined in 26 CFR §31.3121(e)-1.  You will see it most often on government passport applications, voter registration, and applications for naturalization.  These forms also don’t define the meaning of the term nor do they equate it to either “national” or “citizen of the United States**”.  The person filling out the form therefore must define it himself on the form to eliminate the ambiguity or be presumed incorrectly to be a “citizen of the United States***” under section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

NOTES FROM THE ABOVE TABLE:

1.  8 U.S.C.A. §1401 under “Notes”, says the following:

“The right of citizenship, as distinguished from alienage, is a national right or condition, and it pertains to the confederated sovereignty, the United States, and not to the individual states.  Lynch v. Clarke, N.Y.1844, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583”

“By ‘citizen of the state” is meant a citizen of the United States whose domicile is in such state.  Prowd v. Gore, 1922, 207 P. 490, 57 Cal.App. 458”

“One who becomes citizen of United States by reason of birth retains it, even though by law of another country he is also citizen of it.”

“The basis of citizenship in the United States is the English doctrine under which nationality meant birth within allegiance to the king.”

2.  26 CFR § 31.3121(e) defines “U.S. citizen” as follows:

26 CFR 31.3121 State, United States, and citizen.

(e)…The term 'citizen of the United States' includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

We put the term “U.S. citizen” last in the above table because we would now like to expand upon it.  We surveyed the election laws of all 50 states to determine which states require persons to be either “U.S. citizens” or “citizen of the United States” in order to vote.  The results of our study are found on our website below at:

If you look through all the state statutes on voting above, you will find that only California, Indiana, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin require you to be either a “U.S. citizen” or a “United States citizen” in order to vote, and none of these five states even define in their election code what these terms mean!  26 other states require you to be a “citizen of the United States” and don’t define that term in their election code either!  This means that a total of 31 of the 50 states positively require some type of citizenship related to the term “United States” in order to be eligible to vote and none of them define what it means.  Because none of the state election laws define the term, then the legal dictionary definition applies.  We looked in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and found no definition for either “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States”.  Therefore, we must rely only on the common definition rather than any legal definition.  We then looked for “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States” in Webster’s Dictionary and they weren’t defined there either.  Then we looked for the term “citizen” and found the following interesting definition in Webster’s:

“citizen.  1:  an inhabitant of a city or town; esp: one  entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman.  2 a: a member of a state b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it 3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state—citizenry

syn CITIZEN, SUBJECT, NATIONAL mean a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state.  CITIZEN is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people; SUBJECT implies allegiance to a personal sovereign such as a monarch; NATIONAL designates one who may claim the protection of a state and applies esp. to one living or traveling outside that state.”
[Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, p. 243]

Note in the above that the key to being a citizen under definition 2(b) is the requirement for allegiance.  The only federal citizenship status that uses the term “allegiance” is that of a “national” as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B) respectively.  Consequently, we are forced to conclude that the generic term “citizen” and the statutory definition of “U.S. citizen” in 8 U.S.C. §1401 are equivalent.

We also looked up the term “citizen” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and found the following:

“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, American 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]

So the key requirement to be a “citizen” is to “owe allegiance” to a political community according to Black’s Law Dictionary.  Under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B), one can “owe allegiance” to the “United States” as a political community only by being a “national” without being a statutory “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States” as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401.  Therefore, we must conclude once again, that “citizen of the United States” status under federal statutes is a political privilege that few people are born into and most acquire by mistake or fraud or both.  Most of us are “non-citizen nationals” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1452 and constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment "Citizens" by birth and we volunteer to become statutory “citizens of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 by lying at worst or committing a mistake at best when we fill out federal government forms.  That process of misrepresenting our citizenship status is how we “volunteer” to become “U.S. citizens” subject to federal statutes, and of course our covetous government is more than willing to overlook the mistake because that is how they manufacture “taxpayers” and make people “subject” to their corrupt laws.  Remember, however, what the term “subject” means from Webster’s above under the definition of the term “citizen”:

“SUBJECT implies allegiance to a personal sovereign such as a monarch;”
[Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, p. 243]

Therefore, to be “subject” to the federal government’s legislation and statutes and “Acts of Congress” is to be subservient to them, which means that you voluntarily gave up your sovereignty and recognized that they have now become your “monarch” and you are their “servant”.  You have turned the Natural Order and hierarchy of sovereignty described in section 4.1 upside down and made yourself into a voluntary slave, which violates of the Thirteenth Amendment if your consent in so doing was not fully informed and the government didn’t apprise you of the rights that you were voluntarily giving up by becoming a “citizen of the United States”.

"Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."
[Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970)]

In conclusion, because there isn’t even a common definition of “citizen of the United States” or “U.S. citizen” in the standard dictionary, then the definition of “U.S. citizen” in all the state statutes and on all government forms is up to us!  Therefore, once again, whenever you fill out any kind of form that specifies either “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States”, you should be very careful to clarify that it means “national but not a citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1452 or you will be “presumed” to be a federal citizen and a statutory and not constitutional “citizen of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401, and this is one of the biggest injuries to your rights that you could ever inflict.  Watch out folks!  Here is the definition we recommend that you use on any government form that uses these terms that makes the meaning perfectly clear and unambiguous:

“U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States”: A “national but not a citizen” defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1452 who owes their allegiance to the confederation of states called the “United States” but not to the government who serves them.  Someone who was not born in the federal “United States” as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(38).  See sections 4.11.6 and  4.11.9 of the Great IRS Hoax book available for free downloading at:

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm