Source: https://whatinquiringmindswanttoknow.wordpress.com/2018/05/13/citizens-v-nationals/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:08:02+00:00

Document:
What if I don’t consent to receive ANY of the “benefits” or “privileges” of being a “citizen”? What would I be called?
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. SeeCitizenship.
“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, Amierican 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.
1 Allegiance to the sovereign within the community, which in our country is the “state” and is legally defined as the PEOPLE occupying a fixed territory RATHER than the government or anyone serving them IN the government. Requesting to be naturalized and taking a naturalization oath. Allegiance acquired by birth is INVOLUNTARY.
2 VOLUNTARY political association and membership in a political community. Registering to vote or serve on jury duty. If you don’t register to vote or serve on jury duty, you are NOT a “citizen”, even if ELIGIBLE to do either.
3 Enjoyment of full CIVIL rights. Choosing a domicile You can’t be a statutory “citizen” unless you voluntarily choose a domicile.
4 Submission to CIVIL authority. Choosing a domicile You can’t be a statutory “citizen” unless you voluntarily choose a domicile.
Must we expressly consent to ALL of the above as indicated in the third column from the left above in order to truthfully be called a “citizen” as legally defined?
Which components in the above table are MANDATORY in order to be called a “citizen”?
What if we don’t consent to the “benefits” domicile protection franchise? Does that NOT make us a “citizen” under the civil statutory laws of that jurisdiction?
What if we choose a domicile in the place, but refuse to register to vote and make ourselves ineligible to serve on jury duty. Does that make us NOT a “citizen”?
5.2 Under the statutes of the jurisdiction we are NOT a “citizen” of?
2. What if I don’t consent to receive ANY of the “benefits” or “privileges” of being a “citizen”? What would I be called?
Under maxims of the common law, refusing to consent to ANY ONE OR MORE of the above four prerequisites of BEING a “citizen” makes us ineligible to be called a “citizen” under the laws of that jurisdiction.
Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
b. National vs. Citizen: While most people and countries use the terms “citizenship” and “nationality” interchangeably, U.S. law differentiates between the two. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. The term “national of the United States”, as defined by statute (INA 101 (a)(22) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted the privilege of citizenship.
There are many good reasons for the above distinction between NATIONALITY (POLITICAL) status and CITIZEN (CIVIL) status, the most important of which is the ability of the courts to legally distinguish those born in the country but domiciled outside their jurisdiction from those who are domiciled in their jurisdiction. For instance, those domiciled abroad an outside the geographical “United States” are usually called “nationals of the United States” rather than “citizens of the United States”. An example of this phenomenon is described in the following U.S. Supreme Court case, in which an American born in the country is domiciled in Venezuela and therefore is referred to as a “stateless person” not subject to and immune from the civil laws of his country!
Petitioner Newman-Green, Inc., an Illinois corporation, brought this state law contract action in District Court against a Venezuelan corporation, four Venezuelan citizens, and William L. Bettison, a United States citizen domiciled in Caracas, Venezuela. Newman-Green’s complaint alleged that the Venezuelan corporation had breached a licensing agreement, and that the individual defendants, joint and several guarantors of royalty payments due under the agreement, owed money to Newman-Green. Several years of discovery and pretrial motions followed. The District Court ultimately granted partial summary judgment for the guarantors and partial summary judgment for Newman-Green. 590 F.Supp. 1083 (ND Ill.1984). Only Newman-Green appealed.
The U.S. Supreme Court above was trying to deceive the audience by not clarifying WHAT type of “citizen” Bettison was. They refer to CONSTITUTIONAL citizens and STATUTORY citizens with the same name, which indirectly causes the audience to believe that NATIONALITY and DOMICILE are synonymous. They do this to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand their importance and jurisdiction. Bettison in fact was a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen but not a STATUTORY citizen, so the CIVIL case against him under the STATUTORY codes had to either be dismissed or he had to be removed because he couldn’t lawfully be a defendant! Imagine applying this same logic to a case involving the (illegal) enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code to Americans abroad.
The first thing we notice about the above is the use of the phrase “privileges of citizenship”. Both voting and serving on jury duty are and always have been PRIVILEGES that can be taken away, not RIGHTS that are inalienable. The fact that they are privileges is the reason why convicted felons can’t vote or serve on jury duty, in fact. Those who refuse to be enfranchised or privileged in any way therefore cannot consent to or exericse the obligations or accept the “benefits” of such privileges, and they have a RIGHT to do so. To suggest otherwise is to sanction involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
It is clearly an absurd and irrational usurpation to say that “nationality” is synonymous with being a PRIVILEGED STATUTORY “citizen” and that we can abandon or expatriate our nationality to evade or avoid the privileges. Under the English monarchy, “nationality” and “citizen” status are synonymous and EVERYONE is a “subject” whether they want to be or not. In America, they are not synonymous and you cannot be compelled to become a subject without violating the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. Forcing people to abandon their nationality to become unenfranchised actually accomplishes the OPPOSITE and makes them MORE enfranchised, in fact. That is because by doing so they become YET ANOTHER type of enfranchised entity called an “alien” who is a slave to a whole different set of “privileges”.
It would therefore seem based on 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.) 1100(b)(1) that those who refuse to register to vote or serve on jury duty would satisfy the requirement above of being a “non-citizen national”. Hence, withdrawing consent to be jurist or voter alone would seem to demote us from being a “citizen” to being a “non-citizen national”. However, there is no congressional act that grants this substandard status to anyone OTHER than those in federal possessions such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island. Hence, claiming the status of “non-citizen national” would have to be done delicately with care so as not to confuse yourself with those born in or domiciled in the federal possessions of American Samoa and Swain’s Island, who are described in 8 U.S.C. §1408 and 8 U.S.C. §1452.
STATUTORY “non-citizen nationals” are described in 8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1452, and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B). However, these statutes only define civil statuses of those situated on federal territory. Those physically situated in a constitutional state would not be described in those statutes but would still appear to be eligible to be “non-citizen nationals” from a COMMON LAW or CONSTITUTIONAL, rather than a STATUTORY standpoint.
Retains their sovereign immunity. They do not waive it under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 or the longarm statutes of the state they occupy.
Is protected by the United States Constitution and not federal statutory civil law.
May not have federal statutory civil law cited against them. If they were, a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and a constitutional tort would result if they were physcially present on land protected by the United States Constitution within the exterior limits of states of the Union.
Is on an equal footing with the United States government in court. “Persons” would be on an UNEQUAL, INFERIOR, and subservient level if they were subject to federal territorial law.
Don’t expect vain public servants to willingly admit that there is such a thing as a human who satisfies the above criteria because it would undermine their systematic and treasonous plunder and enslavement of people they are supposed to be protecting. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the “right to be left alone” is the purpose of the constitution. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. A so-called “government” that refuses to leave you alone or respect or protect your sovereignty and equality in relation to them is no government at all and has violated the purpose of its creation described in the Declaration of Independence.
All just powers of CIVIL government derive from the CONSENT of the governed per the Declaration of Independence.
Any civil statutory power wielded by government against your consent is inherently UNJUST.
PAULSEN, ETHICS (Thilly’s translation), chap. 9.
The government can only CIVILLY govern people with statutes who consent to become STATUTORY “citizens”.
You have a RIGHT to NOT participate in franchises or privileges.
You can choose NOT to be a privileged “citizen” WITHOUT abandoning your nationality. Only in a monarchy where everyone is a “subject” regardless of their consent can a government NOT allow this.
They can only CIVILLY government people who consent to become “citizens”.
All men and all creations of men such as government are equal. Hence, an entire government of men has no more power than a single human as a legal “person”.
If government becomes abusive, you have a RIGHT and a DUTY under the Declaration of Independence to quit your public office as a “citizen”, and quit paying for the PRIVILEGE of occupying the position in the form of taxes.
If everyone knew the above, they would abandon a totally corrupted government, quit subsidizing it, and let it starve to death long enough to fire the bastards and PEACFULLY start over with no bloodshed and no violent revolution. Since they won’t recognize your right to PEACEFULLY institute such reforms and DUTIES under the Declaration of Independence, indirectly you could say they are anarchists because the inevitable final result of not having a peaceful remedy of this kind is and will be violence, social unrest, and bloodshed.
Like the Wizard of Oz, it’s time to pull back the curtain, ahem, or the “robe”, of these corrupt wizards on the federal bench and expose this FRAUD and confidence game for what it is. Let’s return to Kansas, Dorothy. There’s no place like home, and home is an accountable government that needs your explicit permission to do anything civil to you and which can be literally FIRED by all those who are mistreated.
Maintains a PHYSICAL civil domicile within a specific territory.
Participates in the functions of government by voting and serving on jury duty. Domicile, in fact, is a prerequisite for being eligible to vote in most jurisdictions.
“(c) Who is a citizen.
This area includes the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions of the United States, and the federal areas within states. If you were born in a state of the Union and are domiciled there, you are not subject to federal jurisdiction unless the land you maintain a domicile on was ceded by the state to the federal government. Therefore, you are not and cannot be a “citizen” under federal law. If you aren’t a “citizen”, then you also can’t be claiming your children as “citizens” on IRS returns either!
A “national”, on the other hand, is simply someone who claims allegiance to the political body formed within the geographical boundaries and territory that define a “state”.
(a) The term ”national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
The above “state” is lower case, which means it can describe a legislatively but not constitutionally foreign entity such as a state of the Union. If it had been UPPER case, it would have been a federal territory because the context is a statute rather than the constitution. We show this later in section 5.1.4.6.
“State. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201 207, 208. The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moralitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d 129, 130. In its largest sense, a “state” is a body politic or a society of men. Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp., 44 Misc.2d 636, 254 N.Y.S.2d 763, 765. A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government. State ex re. Maisano v. Mitchell, 155 Conn. 256, 231 A.2d 539, 542. A territorial unit with a distinct general body of law. Restatement, Second, Conflicts, §3. Term may refer either to body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or to an individual government unit of such nation (e.g. California).
Allegiance is NOT TERRITORIAL, but rather POLITICAL. You can have allegiance while situated ANYWHERE in the world. In fact, the doctrine of “jus sanguinis” grants NATIONALITY for people not born on the territory of the country they become nationals of.
“JUS SOLI. The law of the place of one’s birth as contrasted with jus sanguinis, the law of the place of one’s descent or parentage. It is of feudal origin. Hershey, Int. L. 237.
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
§51.2 Passport issued to nationals only.
(a) A United States passport shall be issued only to a national of the United States (22 U.S.C. 212).
(b) Unless authorized by the Department no person shall bear more than one valid or potentially valid U.S. passport at any one time.
Both jus soli and jus sanguinis are the only methods of acquiring NATIONALITY, meaning “national”, status. Jus sanguinis is implemented in 8 U.S.C. §1401 for those born outside of constitutional states. Jus soli is implemented by the Fourteenth Amendment and permits nationality by virtue of birth on land within a constitutional state.
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) – a rule of common law under which the place of a persons birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) – a concept of Roman or civil law under which a persons citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called citizenship by descent or derivative citizenship, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
b. National vs. Citizen: While most people and countries use the terms citizenship and nationality interchangeably, U.S. law differentiates between the two. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. The term national of the United States, as defined by statute (INA 101 (a)(22) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted the privilege of citizenship.
In the case of state/CONSTITUTIONAL citizens, the collection of all people within the constitutional states of the Union, who are the sovereigns within our system of government. This is called the “United States***”. People owing this kind of allegiance are called “subject to THE jurisdiction”.
In the case of territorial/STATUTORY citizens, the United States government or United States**. It is NOT any of the people on federal territory, because they are all SUBJECTS within what the U.S. Supreme Court called the equivalent of “a British Crown Colony” in Downes v. Bidwell. People owing this kind of allegiance are called “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
Since the federal GOVERNMENT in item 2 above is a representative of the Sovereign People in states of the Union and was created to SERVE them, then owing that government allegiance is ALSO equivalent to being a “national of the United States***” in the case of people born on federal territory. Therefore, the above two can be summarized as “national of the United States***”.
You cannot demand or expect CIVIL statutory protection from any government WITHOUT also becoming a “subject” of its CIVIL statutory franchise “codes”, because those law, in fact, are the METHOD of delivering said protection.
Also, Americans born abroad to American nationals take on the citizenship of their parents, no matter where born per 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 8 U.S.C. §1408. Hence, the “United States” we claim allegiance to is non-geographical because even people when abroad are called “subject to THE jurisdiction”, meaning the POLITICAL rather than CIVIL or STATUTORY jurisdiction.
“nationals of the United States**” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B), if we were born in a federal possession, such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island.
“nationals”, or “state nationals”, or “nationals of the United States*** of America” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) if we were born in and are domiciled in a state of the Union.
“nationals but not citizens” under 8 U.S.C. §1452 if we were born in U.S. possessions such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101.
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent [but not necessarily exclusive] allegiance to the United States.
Consequently, the only time a “national” can also be described as a “citizen” is when he is domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the political body. Being a “national” is therefore an attribute and a prerequisite of being a “citizen”, and the term can be used to describe “citizens”, as indicated above in paragraph (A). For instance, 8 U.S.C. §1401 describes the citizenship of those born within or residing within federal jurisdiction, and note that these people are identified as both “citizens” and “nationals”.
As is shown in the following article, the power to create is the power to tax and regulate.
Congress can only tax or regulate that which it legislatively creates. All such creations are CIVIL FRANCHISES of the national government.
Congress did NOT create human beings. God did. It also didn’t create CONSTITUTIONAL citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment or the nationality and “national” status they have by virtue of jus soli. We the People wrote the Constitution, not Congress. Hence, Congress can’t tax or regulate CONSTITUTIONAL citizens directly. By CONSTITUTIONAL citizens we also mean “state nationals”. Constitutional nationality (“national” status) is a PRIVATE RIGHT, not a revocable PUBLIC PRIVILEGE. The ability to tax or regulate PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights is repugnant to the Constitution.
STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 involves only federal territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. They therefore can tax and regulate all those with such status, regardless of where physically situated. That status is technically “property” of the national government that can be reclaimed or taken away on a whim. PRIVATE RIGHTS can’t be legislatively taken but PUBLIC PRIVILEGES can.
The Court today puts aside the Fourteenth Amendment as a standard by which to measure congressional action with respect to citizenship, and substitutes in its place the majority’s own vague notions of ‘fairness.’ The majority takes a new step with the recurring theme that the test of constitutionality is the Court’s own view of what is ‘fair, reasonable, and right.’ Despite the concession that Bellei was admittedly an American citizen, and despite the holding in Afroyim that the Fourteenth Amendment has put citizenship, once conferred, beyond the power of Congress to revoke, the majority today upholds the revocation of Bellei’s citizenship on the ground that the congressional action was not ‘irrational or arbitrary or unfair.’ The majority applies the ‘shock-the-conscience’ test to uphold, rather than strike, a federal statute. It is a dangerous concept of constitutional law that allows the majority to conclude that, because it cannot say the statute is ‘irrational or arbitrary or unfair,’ the statute must be constitutional.
Since the Court this Term has already downgraded citizens receiving public welfare, Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d. 408 (1971), and citizens having the misfortune to be illegitimate, Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 91 S.Ct. 1917, 28 L.Ed.2d. 288, I suppose today’s decision downgrading citizens born outside the United States should have been expected. Once again, as in James and Labine, the Court’s opinion makes evident that its holding is contrary to earlier decisions. Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute.
A state Citizen has the right to have any gun he/she wishes without being registered. A “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 does not. In the District of Columbia, it is a felony to own a handgun unless you are a police officer or a security guard or the hand gun was registered before 1978. The District of Columbia has not been admitted into the Union. Therefore the people of the District of Columbia are not protected by the Second Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights. Despite the lack of legal guns in DC, crime is rampant. It is called Murder Capital of the World. This should prove that gun control/victim disarmament laws do not work in America. Across the country, there is an assault on guns. If you are a “U.S.** citizen” and you are using Second Amendment arguments to protect your rights to keep your guns, I believe you are in for a surprise. First by registering gun owners then renaming guns ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Handguns’, those in power will take away your civil right to bear arms. Of course, they won’t tell you that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and not a natural right for a U.S. citizens. The Supreme court has ruled that you as an individual have no right to protection by the police. Their only obligation is to protect “society”. The real protection for state Citizens to keep their guns is not the Second Amendment but the Ninth Amendment.
A state Citizen has the right to travel on the public easements (public roads) without being registered. A statutory “U.S. citizen” does not. It is a privilege for a foreigner to travel in any of the several states. If you are a statutory U.S. citizen, you are a foreigner in a constitutional state. The state legislators can require foreigners and people involved in commerce (chauffeurs, freight haulers) to be licensed, insured, and to have their vehicles registered. When you register your car, you turn over power of attorney to the state. At that point, it becomes a motor vehicle. If it is not registered then it is not a motor vehicle and there are no motor vehicle statutes to break. There are common law rules of the road. If you don’t cause an injury to anybody then you cannot be tried.
If your car is registered, the state effectively owns your car. The state supplies a sticker to put on your license plate every time you re-register the motor vehicle. Look closely at the sticker on your plate right now. You may be surprised to see that it says “OFFICIAL USE ONLY”.(Note: In some states, they do not use stickers on the plate) You may have seen municipal vehicles that have signs on them saying “OFFICIAL USE ONLY” on them but why does yours? You do not own your car. You may have a Certificate of Title but you probably do not have the certificate of origin. You are leasing the state’s vehicle by paying the yearly registration fee. Because you are using their equipment, they can make rules up on how it can be used. If you break a rule, such as driving without a seatbelt, you have broken the contract and an administrative procedure will make you pay the penalty. A state Citizen must be able to explain to the police officers why they are not required to have the usual paperwork that most people have. They should carry copies of affidavits and other paperwork in their car. The state Citizen should also be prepared to go to traffic court and explain it to the judge.
The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1875)), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of “citizens of the United States” guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment.” West v. Louisianna, 194 U.S. 258 (1904).
The privileges and immunities [civil rights] of the 14th Amendment citizens were derived [taken] from….the Constitution, but are not identical to those referred to in Article IV, Sect. 2 of the Constitution [which recognizes the existence of state Citizens who were not citizens of the United States because there was no such animal in 1787]. Plainly spoken, RIGHTS in the constitution of the United States of America, which are recognized to be grants from our creator, are clearly different from the “civil rights” that were granted by Congress to its own brand of franchised statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401.
In summary, what we are talking about here is a Master-Servant relationship. Being a person with a domicile within federal jurisdiction makes us subject to federal laws and makes us into a statutory “citizen of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401. We become servants to our public servants. Those who file the IRS Form 1040 indicate a domicile in the District of Columbia, and have surrendered the protection of state law to become subject citizens. See IRS Document 7130  , which says that this form may only be filed by “citizens and residents” of the “United States”, which is defined as the District of Columbia in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).
Previous Previous post: CITIZENSHIP DEFINE. WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1408
 §1452
 §1408
 §1452
 §1101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §3

§51
 §1401
 v. 
 §1
 §1401
 §1408
 §1101
 §1101
 §1452
 §1401
 §1401
 v. 
 v. 
 §1401
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1401
 §1401
 §7701