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

a reply to: MotherMayEye

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:

No, I'm not suggesting that at all! All Americans and residents of the United States are subject to it's jurisdiction. Hawaiians born before statehood weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, because Hawaii wasn't a state. but they got citizenship just the same. After 1959, Hawaii was a state of the union, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

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.

All US laws have to comply with the US Constitution, in including the 14th Amendment. There is no state exempt from any constitutional amendments.

This applies: 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;

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.

Wisconsin became a state in 1848, before the Civil War and before the 14th Amendment was written. I assure you that Wisconsin and Hawaii are both states that are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Wisconsin became a state in 1848, before the Civil War and before the 14th Amendment was written. I assure you that Wisconsin and Hawaii are both states that are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

With different tests for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth.

If you are born in Wisconsin, you are a U.S. citizen at birth IF you are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

If you are born in Hawaii you are a U.S. citizen at birth.

I think that is meaningful. You don't.

Moving on now?

a reply to: MotherMayEye


The State of Hawaii and its residents, citizens and visitors are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. (Except foreign dignitaries)

I think that is meaningful. You don't.

I think your premise is a fallacy. There is no state of the undion that is exempt from any amendment of the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment, including all it's clauses, i.e. Due Process and Equal Protection under the Law, is in full force in the State of Hawaii.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MotherMayEye


The State of Hawaii and its residents, citizens and visitors are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. (Except foreign dignitaries)

It doesn't matter if they are or aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

People born in Hawaii are U.S. citizens at birth. Full Stop.

By virtue of 8 US Code Section 1405.


People born in Wisconsin are U.S. citizens at birth provided they are also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Full Stop.

By virtue of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
There is no state of the undion that is exempt from any amendment of the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment, including all it's clauses, i.e. Due Process and Equal Protection under the Law, is in full force in the State of Hawaii.

The 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit/exclude someone born in the U.S. and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof from being born a U.S. citizen via the operation of federal law.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

You are disagreeing with the State Department and the IRS about what the laws I cited say.

I am disagreeing with them. Neither of the links you posted define citizens as being nationals.

The first one says this:

U.S. Citizen

An individual born in the United States.
An individual whose parent is a U.S. citizen. (NOTE: There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18. For more information, refer to the USCIS Citizenship Through Parents.
A former alien who has been naturalized as a U.S. citizen
An individual born in Puerto Rico
An individual born in Guam
An individual born in the U.S. Virgin Islands

Nothing there about citizens being nationals.

Your second link refers to the definition of a 'National of the United States' again. No definition of a citizen, at all.

So, I have to disagree...unless we can agree that it defies natural law and doesn't need to be written. I could get on board with that. But then the conclusion is that Obama was not born a U.S. Citizen and his citizenship and nationality come solely through his father.

***

And once again...this statute doesn't apply to Obama:

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:

THIS one does:

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.

You are not thinking about this right and I don't know how it can be made any more clear.

If you are a U.S. Citizen, then you are a U.S. National.

That is literally what the law says - again, as I posted on the first page, Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a) 21 and 22:

(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

If you are a U.S. Citizen, then you are a U.S. National.

The end. There is no way to be a U.S. Citizen but not a U.S. National.

originally posted by: Greven
If you are a U.S. Citizen, then you are a U.S. National.

That is literally what the law says - again, Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a) 21 and 22:

"(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

If you are a U.S. Citizen, then you are a U.S. National.

The end.

That does not define a U.S. Citizen. That defines a U.S. National. And it says some U.S. Nationals are citizens and some are not.

It does NOT say this:

(22) The term "citizen of the United States" means:

(A) a national of the United States

Congress did not provide that the Hawaii Statehood Act would operate to confer nationality. Period.

The definition of a U.S. national is not relevant to people born citizens by virtue of 8 U.S. Code Section 1405, alone.

The end.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
If you are a U.S. Citizen, then you are a U.S. National.

That is literally what the law says - again, Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a) 21 and 22:

"(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

If you are a U.S. Citizen, then you are a U.S. National.

The end.

That does not define a U.S. Citizen. That defines a U.S. National. And it says some U.S. Nationals are citizens and some are not.

It does NOT say this:

(22) The term "citizen of the United States" means:

(A) a national of the United States

Congress did not provide that the Hawaii Statehood Act would operate to confer nationality. Period.

The definition of a U.S. national is not relevant to people born citizens by virtue of 8 U.S. Code Section 1405, alone.

The end

So what if it defines a U.S. National?

You are arguing that someone born in Hawaii can be a U.S. Citizen but not a U.S. National.

The law literally says that anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National.

originally posted by: Greven


The law literally says that anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National.

No. It literally says:

"The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven


The law literally says that anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National.

No. It literally says:

"The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

Yeah lemme just shorten that for you (since B is not relevant):

"The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or..."

A U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National. Just as it says and just as I said.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven


The law literally says that anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National.

No. It literally says:

"The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

Yeah lemme just shorten that for you:

"The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States..."

A U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National. Just as it says and just as I said.

You are trying to interpret it to say "The term "citizen of the United States" means (A) a national of the United States..."

And it doesn't say that.

Here's the definition that applies:

"(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen OR national of the United States."

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven


The law literally says that anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National.

No. It literally says:

"The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

Yeah lemme just shorten that for you:

"The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States..."

A U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National. Just as it says and just as I said.

You are trying to interpret it to say "The term "citizen of the United States" means (A) a national of the United States..."

And it doesn't say that.

Here's the definition that applies:

"(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen OR national of the United States."

It says that a U.S. National is any U.S. Citizen.
You are arguing that one can be a U.S. Citizen but not a U.S. National.

The reason 'alien' means a person not a U.S. Citizen OR U.S. National is because people born in some U.S. territories can be U.S. Nationals but not U.S. Citizens. The vast, overwhelming majority of U.S. Nationals are U.S. Citizens.

a reply to: Greven

But 8 US Code Section 1405 does not confer US Nationality. It only confers US citizenship so the definition of a US National does not in any way shape or form define someone born a US Citizen solely by virtue 8 US Code Section 1405.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greven

But 8 US Code Section 1405 does not confer US Nationality. It only confers US citizenship so the definition of a US National does not in any way shape or form define someone born a US Citizen solely by virtue 8 US Code Section 1405.

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.

It doesn't say anything about U.S. Nationality because it doesn't have to. Anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National, because a U.S. National is any U.S. Citizen.


I don't know how to make this any clearer.

originally posted by: Greven

I don't know how to make this any clearer.

Funny how you have nothing with any legal weight to back up that assertion.

I couldn’t find anything either and that flowchart doesn’t meet my standards.

My opinion is that every US citizen at birth should also be a US national at birth. But, like you, I’ve yet to find an applicable legal definition for ‘citizen of the US’ other than what is described in the 14th Amendment and nationality isn’t mentioned.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

My opinion is that every US citizen at birth should also be a US national at birth.

Not all citizens are people. Some are corporations.

The term citizen in Article III of the Constitution, which established the federal judiciary, includes corporations; therefore, suits concerning corporations involve citizens for federal jurisdictional purposes. The term citizen, however, as defined by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, does not encompass either corporations or Aliens. Neither corporations nor aliens receive the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article IV, as those clauses protect only citizens.
……….
A corporation is also deemed to be a citizen for certain purposes. It is a citizen of the United States and of the state under whose laws it was organized. A particular state, commonly Delaware, is selected for incorporation because that state charges lower taxes and its laws favor businesses. Once the company incorporates in the designated state, it is a citizen of that state, but it can apply in any other state for authority to do business there.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MotherMayEye

My opinion is that every US citizen at birth should also be a US national at birth.

Not all citizens are people. Some are corporations.

The term citizen in Article III of the Constitution, which established the federal judiciary, includes corporations; therefore, suits concerning corporations involve citizens for federal jurisdictional purposes. The term citizen, however, as defined by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, does not encompass either corporations or Aliens. Neither corporations nor aliens receive the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article IV, as those clauses protect only citizens.
……….
A corporation is also deemed to be a citizen for certain purposes. It is a citizen of the United States and of the state under whose laws it was organized. A particular state, commonly Delaware, is selected for incorporation because that state charges lower taxes and its laws favor businesses. Once the company incorporates in the designated state, it is a citizen of that state, but it can apply in any other state for authority to do business there.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Corporations are people.

And they can have nationality, too.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

I don't know how to make this any clearer.

Funny how you have nothing with any legal weight to back up that assertion.

I couldn’t find anything either and that flowchart doesn’t meet my standards.

My opinion is that every US citizen at birth should also be a US national at birth. But, like you, I’ve yet to find an applicable legal definition for ‘citizen of the US’ other than what is described in the 14th Amendment and nationality isn’t mentioned.

I am seriously confused as to how anyone is not getting this. It is a simple thing. Read it again, the thing you quoted from Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a) 21 and 22:

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
"The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

A U.S. National is:
(A) A citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

Start: Who is a U.S. National?
Decision: (A) [U.S. Citizen?]
-Yes = U.S. National
-No = Decision: (B) [or]
Decision: (B) [owes U.S. permanent allegiance?]
-Yes = U.S. National
-No = Alien


That flowchart is illustrating the law it mentions in the chart, and the law has legal weight.

Your opinion about a U.S. Citizen also being a U.S. National is in line with reality, because that's what it already is.

a reply to: Swills

It is NOT "Time to move on". Obama ,who has been under formal citizens arrest since 2012, is an imposter,fraud,traitor and spy. See: "There is NO 'President' Obama" www.thepostemail.com... Also see: "Imposters in the Oval Office" by me.
(IUniverse Publishing). www.thepostemail.com... Obama should be hanged or shot by a military firing squad, if convicted.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Corporations are people.

And they can have nationality, too.

When a U.S. Corporation is "nationalized", it is taken over by the U.S. government. A U.S. National is not.

The U.S. assumption of a controlling interest in General Motors Corp. isn't the first time the government has nationalized a company or an industry. It has taken shares in banks, railways, steel mills, coal mines and foreclosed homes. Most nationalizations were during wartime. But the current financial crisis has generated more than a few.

Last year, the government took effective control of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It stopped short of nationalizing insurance giant American International Group, but forced a major restructuring and leadership change with a $180 billion taxpayer bailout.

www.cbsnews.com...