Source: http://famguardian1.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/USNational.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:43:40+00:00

Document:
A "U.S. national" and a "national but not a citizen" are NOT the same thing in law!
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).
Getting a USA Passport as a "non-citizen national"
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"
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.
The word 'national' or 'national of the United States' is used only three times in the Internal Revenue Code.
"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"
IRS Form 1040NR: Note it identifies "U.S. nationals" as "nonresident aliens"!
TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 53 > Sec. 4309a.
This section shall not apply with respect to any United States national.
Note that the "United States" term as used in the above section refers to the federal United States, also called the "federal zone".
(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"
“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.
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.
"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[b], p. 93-42; id., § 93.04[d][viii], p. 93-49."
Jose Luis Perdomo-Padilla v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, 9th Cir, No. 01-71454, June 23, 2003-meaning of "national of the United States"
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.
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).
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.
Non-citizen nationals (people born in American Samoa or Swain’s Island).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Serving in the military or residing on a military base or occupied territory.
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.
Spending time in a military hospital.
Visiting federal property or a federal reservation within a state routinely as a contractor working for the federal government.
Working for the federal government on a military reservation or inside of a federal area.
Sleeping in a national park.
Spending time in a federal courthouse.
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.
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.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 241.

References: §1503
 § 1101
 § 93
 § 93
 v. 
 v. 
 §1408
 §1401
 §1401
 §1101
 §1401
 §1452
 §1408
 §1401
 §1408
 §1408
 §1
 §7701
 §1
 §1408
 §1401
 §1452