A Subversive Congress...Citizenship...Eligibility Laws...Nationality...and more Birther talk...

originally posted by: theantediluvian


The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't repeal or change anything so it doesn't really play any role at all.

Incorrect:

SEC. 23. All Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act, whether passed by the legislature of said Territory or by Congress, are hereby repealed.

Link

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Kind of a moot point now but why wouldn't you think that 8 U.S. Code § 1401 applies to people born in Hawaii after it became a state in the same way as every other state? Because of 8 U.S. Code § 1405?

Because the Statehood Act says nothing in or about the laws making Hawaii a state shall operate to confer U.S. Nationality:

SEC. 19. Nothing contained in this Act shall operate to confer United States nationality, nor to terminate nationality heretofore lawfully acquired, or restore nationality heretofore lost under any law of the United States or under any treaty to which the United States is or was a party.

There's no other law through which the Statehood Act would "operate to confer U.S. Nationality" other than 8 U.S. Code § 1401.

It's plain as day what Congress intended. They intended NOT to confer nationality to people based solely on their birth in the State of Hawaii.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Fascinating thread and questions, MME! Was doing a little searching and thought this was interesting and perhaps will assist in understanding why Hawaii is different.

In 1993 Congress and the President decided they had something to apologize for. Most of Public Law 103-150 deals with the events of the 1893 overthrow and the 1898 annexation. But one important clause relates directly to 1959 and the present: "the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum." (emphasis added)

"National lands" means the entire archipelago of Hawaii.

"Inherent" means a birthright, given by Akua, that no one can take away.

"Sovereignty" means total authority and control over land and natural resources, and is virtually synonymous with independence under international law.

Sovereignty (partial definition): "The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent." - Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)

In other words, the United States Congress and President have acknowledged that the Hawaiian national population still maintains their birthright to control the land and natural resources of all of Hawaii as an independent country, despite the statehood vote.

Source link

In digging deeper, I am finding that America gained possession of Hawaii through a succession of illegal acts, in 1893, 1898, and 1959, and has admitted to the fact of these crimes. Hawaiian national sovereignty has never been extinguished. Essentially, the country of Hawaii is currently illegally occupied by a foreign military power.

The statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not legitimize the occupation. Hawaii has never legally been a state of the United States.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

After the overthrow, Native Hawaiians tried to fight back through the U.S. legal system in the following ways:

Requested an official investigation by the Cleveland administration. Hawai'i became a U.S. protectorate at the same time that an investigation was being done by U.S. President Grover Cleveland at the written request of Queen Lili'uokalani. Cleveland and his administration concluded that the overthrow had been illegal ("a grievous wrong has been done") and turned the issue over to Congress where it languished while the “straw government” in Hawai'i, who now had Sanford Dole as its President, continued to gain a stronger hold over the islands.

Launched a petition... Meanwhile, Native Hawaiians launched a massive petition to stop the formal annexation of Hawai'i to the U.S. They thought that if Congress realized that Native Hawaiians did not want to be part of the U.S., they would restore independence to Hawai'i.

Public meetings were held on the five major islands, and of the known population of 39,000 Native Hawaiians, 21,269 signed the petition. This is an incredible majority since many of the remaining number were children. ...and took it all the way to Washington D.C.

Queen Lili'uokalani traveled to Washington D.C. to present her protest and the petition to Congress. At the time, a trip of this distance took months by sea and land. Sadly, Queen Lili'uokalani's voyage proved to be a fruitless one.

Congress had not acted on President Cleveland’s request, and a new Congress had come in with the administration of President William McKinley. By that time, the Spanish American War was brewing, and the U.S. didn’t want to give up Hawai'i's prime location in the Pacific.

In spite of efforts of the Native Hawaiians and their queen, Hawai'i was illegally annexed as a U.S. territory in 1898, along with 1.2 million acres of Hawaiian crown lands that had belonged to the monarchy and to the nation of Hawai'i. No compensation was paid to anyone.

Source

I am definitely beginning to see why Hawaii has stipulations that differ from other states regarding nationality and citizenship.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I have been trying to find newer more current information that may have created change in the laws established regarding Hawaii. I did find One Supreme Court Case back in 2009, regarding public state lands, that pointed out that Clinton's and congress apology writ in 1993 basically are simply pretty flowery words and do not provide any actual legal standing as written when compared to other formal apologies given in the past!

Interestingly, more currently, is this Lawsuit Hawaii vs US filed in July 2018. I am curious what this case will bring out being filed during a trump administration.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Thanks, CC!

I am so glad you have given so much consideration to the fact that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the subsequent annexation are illegal acts and not even in dispute.

The federal government has acknowledged, admitted, and apologized for their illegal acts with regard to Hawaii. They've confessed!

It's obvious that between that illegal overthrow, in 1893, and the 1959 Statehood Act, Congress had to do a lot of thinking about how to handle the citizenship and nationality of the people of Hawaii considering the Kingdom of Hawaii's internationally recognized sovereignty.

However, the Supreme Court held that the apology resolution's "Whereas" clauses did not bear legal weight:

(b) The State Supreme Court’s conclusion that the 37 “whereas” clauses prefacing the Apology Resolution clearly recognize native Hawaiians’ “unrelinquished” claims over the ceded lands is wrong for at least three reasons. First, such “whereas” clauses cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them. See, e.g., District of Co- lumbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, ___, n. 3. Second, even if the clauses had some legal effect, they did not restructure Hawaii’s rights and obligations, as the lower court found. “[R]epeals by implication are not favored and will not be presumed unless the intention of the legislature to repeal [is] clear and manifest.” National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U. S. 644, ___. The Apology Resolution reveals no such intention, much less a clear and manifest one. Third, because the resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to “cloud” Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union, see, e.g., Idaho v. United States, 533 U. S. 262, 280, n. 9, the Court re- fuses to read the nonsubstantive “whereas” clauses to create such a “cloud” retroactively, see, e.g., Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 381– 382. Pp. 10–12.

Link

And yet the resolution annexing Hawaii as a territory of the United States is set out with 'Whereas:'

JOINT Resolution To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.

Whereas, the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America, all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States, the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining: Therefore, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singular the property and rights hereinbefore mentioned are vested in the United States of America.

Link

And you raise another important point...the people of Hawaii did not have the option to vote for Independence, as mandated by international law, during the Statehood Plebiscite vote.

The federal government really, really wanted their Pacific military hub and they didn't let the supremacy of international treaties get in their way.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I have been trying to find newer more current information that may have created change in the laws established regarding Hawaii. I did find one supreme court case back in 2009, regarding state lands, that pointed out that Clinton's and congress apology writ in 1993 basically are simply pretty flowery words and do not provide any actual legal standing as written when compared to other formal apologies given in the past!

Saw this after I posted my last comment...which addresses the above, too.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Truthfully, in digging, I am finding this most concerning due to China's interest in Hawaii's soveriegn status. This is more than a simple historical issue, it is very much a current event that can have a very negative impact amongst world powers.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Truthfully, in digging, I am finding this most concerning due to China's interest in Hawaii's soveriegn status. This is more than a simple historical issue, it is very much a current event that can have a very negative impact amongst world powers.

It is. It's always going to be relevant until it's settled and it is not. The federal government has admitted they were wrong, yet they continue to illegally occupy Hawaii.

The Kingdom of Hawaii stills exists and is in operation: Link

Welcome to the website of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands.

The U.S. government must relinquish any and all claims to Hawaii. There is no other way to proceed in the interest of national and global security.

I also want to reiterate that the separation of nationality from citizenship in U.S. nationality law SUBVERTS the eligibility clauses in the U.S. Constitution pertaining to citizenship...not just for President...but for Congress, too.

What's also disturbing is that the current residency requirements, within our nationality laws, are such that a 15 year old girl, who is a U.S. Citizen, could be exploited as an *incubator* to give birth to child that is a U.S. citizen and a national of a hostile nation, but NOT a U.S. National...and that person could be eligible to be Commander in Chief of our national military.

Letter to George Washington

John Jay
New York
July 25, 1787

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Link

Congress subverted every Constitutional eligibility clause and even if that wasn't intentional, they have had 60 years to make it right and haven't.

If I believed in globalist conspiracy theories....oh, wait...I do.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Ah ha...

Obama was NOT born "subject to jurisdiction of the U.S." Therefore, he was only made a citizen by 8 U.S. code Section 1405 and NOT by the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause.

I think I finally put my finger on this and I think it sheds some light on the 14th, too.

Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state.

Link

Notice that being born "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." is NOT a requirement for being born a U.S. citizen in Hawaii?

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

See? Jurisdiction isn't mentioned...

..because the U.S. has no legitimate jurisdiction, in Hawaii. Only tacit agreement from people to be subjected to U.S. jurisdiction. Freshly-born infants cannot tacitly agree to anything.

But, being born "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." IS required to be born a citizen under the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause:

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.

And it's also required in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

etc…

Link

The 14th Amendment defines a 'U.S. citizen at birth' and they are born "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S."

U.S. code defines a 'U.S. national at birth.'

However, creating 'citizenship laws' is NOT one of the powers enumerated to Congress, they have the power to create a "uniform rule of naturalization."

From the INA definitions:

(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Congress expressly did not confer U.S. nationality to people based solely on their birth in Hawaii and they don't have the power to create "citizenship laws" that lack the component of nationality. Obama is a U.S. Citizen by operation of a federal statute that is unconstitutional on its face, alone. And he was not born a U.S. National.

Again, it really brings context to what Fight The Smears published on Obama's citizenship status, in 2008:

Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Neither the U.S. Constitution nor federal law governed Obama's citizenship status at birth. He was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

a reply to: MotherMayEye


Hawaii is subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. Hawaii is one of the united state within the boundries of the United States of America.

Obama was born in Hawaii after its statehood. Therefore, Obama is a citizen of the United States of America through the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Hawaii is subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. Hawaii is one of the united state within the boundries of the United States of America.

Obama was born in Hawaii after its statehood. Therefore, Obama is a citizen of the United States of America.

If you want to ignore the numerous congressional resolutions, laws, AND violations of law that I have already outlined & sourced and prove otherwise, that's on you.

You want to settle with the conclusion you most prefer and I won't try to stand in your way of that.

a reply to: MotherMayEye


You're trying to say that Hawaii isn't legally a state, therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Right?


Sorry, Hawaii is a state, within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefore is a citizen of the United States of America, through the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Congress expressly did not confer U.S. nationality to people based solely on their birth in Hawaii and they don't have the power to create "citizenship laws" that lack the component of nationality. Obama is a U.S. Citizen by operation of a federal statute that is unconstitutional on its face, alone. And he was not born a U.S. National.

Nationality doesn't have anything to so with being declared a "U.S. National". All Americans are national citizens, as well as citizens of the state in which they reside. But, "U.S. Nationals" are defined:
U.S. National Definition
A U.S. national is a person born in American Samoa or in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Additionally, it also includes those born outside of U.S. territory to two U.S. national parents, or those born abroad to one alien parent and one U.S. national parent. All U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals. However there are some U.S. nationals that are not U.S. citizens.
U.S. nationals cannot vote or run for public office. However, U.S. nationals are allowed to work and reside anywhere in the United States without any restrictions. U.S. nationals may apply for U.S. citizenship through naturalization process. www.usimmigration.org...

Obama is NOT a U.S. National, because he was born within the jurisdiction of the USA, not in an outlying territory or commonwealth.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MotherMayEye


You're trying to say that Hawaii isn't legally a state, therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Right?

Well, there is that. But what I am saying is that even if it is legally a state, the very Act admitting Hawaii as a state says that nothing about its admission as a state shall operate to confer U.S. Nationality.

AND, it also says that any conflicting Congressional Acts or PARTS of Acts are repealed.

So the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act conferring 'U.S. Nationality' based on being born in the U.S. (specifically Hawaii, in this case) and born subject to U.S. jurisdiction is REPEALED.

It doesn't apply to Hawaii as it is in conflict with the 1959 Statehood Act provision regarding nationality.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Nationality doesn't have anything to so with being declared a "U.S. National". All Americans are national citizens, as well as citizens of the state in which they reside. But, "U.S. Nationals" are defined:
U.S. National Definition
A U.S. national is a person born in American Samoa or in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Additionally, it also includes those born outside of U.S. territory to two U.S. national parents, or those born abroad to one alien parent and one U.S. national parent. All U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals. However there are some U.S. nationals that are not U.S. citizens.
U.S. nationals cannot vote or run for public office. However, U.S. nationals are allowed to work and reside anywhere in the United States without any restrictions. U.S. nationals may apply for U.S. citizenship through naturalization process. www.usimmigration.org...

Obama is NOT a U.S. National, because he was born within the jurisdiction of the USA, not in an outlying territory or commonwealth.

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't confer 'U.S. Nationality.'

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act does.

And in 1959, Congress decided to not confer it to people based solely on their birth in the State of Hawaii when they passed the Act that 'makes' Hawaii 'part of the U.S:'



Again, you can show me all the definitions you want of a 'U.S. National'...but they aren't definitions of a 'U.S. Citizen.'

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't confer 'U.S. Nationality.'
The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act does.

And in 1959, Congress decided to not confer it to people based solely on their birth in the State of Hawaii when they passed the Act that 'makes' Hawaii 'part of the U.S:'

That's because, in 1959 Hawaii became a state, and travel to and from Hawaii was no longer an issue of migration and immigration. It became interstate travel and commerce. Hawaii residents no longer needed "U.S. National" conference, because they were now 100% American citizens, as well as of the State of Hawaii".

Those Hawaiians who clung to their tribal affiliations and adhered to the Kingdom of Hawaii, did not lose their U.S. National" status. As you pointed out, nothing changed.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Those Hawaiians who clung to their tribal affiliations and adhered to the Kingdom of Hawaii, did not lose their U.S. National" status. As you pointed out, nothing changed.

Correct. And, their children were not born U.S. Nationals based on their birth in Hawaii either.

No law operates to confer U.S. nationality 'at birth' to ANYONE based solely on their birth in the state of Hawaii.

U.S. nationality at birth has to be derived through descent -- from a qualifying parent having U.S. nationality -- pursuant to 8 U.S. Code Section 1401.

The 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act PROVIDED for the admission of Hawaii as a state in the U.S. and OPERATED to include Hawaii as part of the U.S. for the purposes of the 1952 INA.

But the Act also stipulated that NONE of the PROVISIONS shall OPERATE to confer U.S. Nationality.

8 U.S. Code Section 1401 excludes Hawaii.

8 U.S. Code Section 1405 is what makes people born in Hawaii, U.S. citizens at birth. And it does not confer nationality, nor does it require a citizen to be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What you are effectively suggesting is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to people born in Hawaii, like it does others born in the U.S., because people born in Hawaii don't actually have to be born "subject to U.S. jurisdiction" to acquire citizenship and de facto nationality at birth. They just have to be born in Hawaii -- subject to whatever jurisdiction -- and 8 U.S. Code Section 1405 operates to make them citizens and de facto nationals:

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

People born in Wisconsin can't point to any federal law that makes them born U.S. citizens without having to be born subject to U.S. jurisdiction.



Think about that...

***

ETA: Not to encourage anyone, but people coming to the U.S. illegally to have children who will be born U.S. citizens need to do it in Hawaii. Then they can just point to 8 U.S. Code § 1405 for proof of their U.S. citizenship at birth and skip the hassle of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." requirement in the 14th Amendment, alltogether.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No law operates to confer U.S. nationality 'at birth' to ANYONE based solely on their birth in the state of Hawaii.

This one does.

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

8 U.S. Code Section 1405 is what makes people born in Hawaii, U.S. citizens at birth. And it does not confer nationality, nor does it require a citizen to be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

§1405. Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

§1401 confirms that people born in Hawaii after 1900 are automatically citizens and nationals. §1405 doesn't nullify §1401 for Hawaiians.

The 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act PROVIDED for the admission of Hawaii as a state in the U.S. and OPERATED to include Hawaii as part of the U.S. for the purposes of the 1952 INA.

This statement makes no sense to me. Let me try to parse:

(for the admission of Hawaii as a state in the U.S) (as part of the U.S.)
In 1959, Hawaii Statehood Act PROVIDED, ^ and OPERATED to include Hawaii, ^ for the purposes of the 1952 INA.

What? Where do you get that Hawaii's statehood was enacted because of the 1952 INA?

Travel to and from Hawaii was no longer considered immigration. Hawaiians moving from Hawaii to California were not considered immigrants.

So, again, federal law §1401 confers citizenship AND national status to all people born in Hawaii.

As for jurisdiction:
31 CFR 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;

www.law.cornell.edu...

§ 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;
www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Those definitions apply to Title 31 in the Code of Federal Regulations - Money and Finance: Treasury.

That doesn't apply to the 8 US Code on Immigration and Nationality, nor does it apply to the 14th Amendment.