WELCOME TO OUR FORUMS!
Log In or Register to ask questions, get notified when others respond, find answers from your fellow Freedom Seekers!
Be sure to Subscribe to the New Topics and Posts so that you will get the notifications. To keep the forum healthy, objective, and functional, please remember our Rules of Conduct:
- No abusive or slanderous language is allowed.
- Professional conduct and communication is expected of you.
- No sharing offensive or inappropriate material.
- No spamming.
The Permanence of Nationality
Quote from roberd42 on November 1, 2024, 8:51 amSo, I have been deep diving on nationality and mentioned this to Roger on the show. Definition (11) says a “national owes PERMANENT allegiance to a state.” Permanent meaning, it can’t be vacated legally because it is innate. Citizenship can be changed, nationality cannot.
On an immigration attorney's website, www.immi-USA.com, they state:
“The word nationality refers to where you are born. A country’s government grants citizenship when specific legal requirements are met.
Citizenship can be seen as a political status because it indicates which country recognizes you as a citizen. Nationality has more to do with the relationship between you and your place of birth and can often be seen as ethnic or racially related. Citizenship can fluctuate since you can be a citizen of multiple places simultaneously and can also renounce your citizenship to a country. On the other hand, you cannot change nationality because it’s innate.”
https://www.immi-usa.com/citizenship-vs-nationality/
This is why I would really like to see a natural born ex-pat apply for a “non-citizen national” passport because they can show proof of US nationality, however they weren’t born in American Samoa or Swain’s island, which is apparently a requirement.
On the other hand, under US law you can somehow relinquish something that is innate. Absurd!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relinquishment_of_United_States_nationality
So what are your thoughts? Roger claims ex-pats relinquish US citizenship AND nationality - which apparently is somehow possible even though the US code also defines nationality as “permanent”. I wonder if an ex-pat has ever pursued a non-citizen national passport?
So, I have been deep diving on nationality and mentioned this to Roger on the show. Definition (11) says a “national owes PERMANENT allegiance to a state.” Permanent meaning, it can’t be vacated legally because it is innate. Citizenship can be changed, nationality cannot.
On an immigration attorney's website, http://www.immi-USA.com, they state:
“The word nationality refers to where you are born. A country’s government grants citizenship when specific legal requirements are met.
Citizenship can be seen as a political status because it indicates which country recognizes you as a citizen. Nationality has more to do with the relationship between you and your place of birth and can often be seen as ethnic or racially related. Citizenship can fluctuate since you can be a citizen of multiple places simultaneously and can also renounce your citizenship to a country. On the other hand, you cannot change nationality because it’s innate.”
Citizenship vs Nationality - What is the Difference
People often confuse the difference between citizenship vs nationality. Learn what these terms mean, and how they apply to U.S. immigration.
This is why I would really like to see a natural born ex-pat apply for a “non-citizen national” passport because they can show proof of US nationality, however they weren’t born in American Samoa or Swain’s island, which is apparently a requirement.
On the other hand, under US law you can somehow relinquish something that is innate. Absurd!
So what are your thoughts? Roger claims ex-pats relinquish US citizenship AND nationality - which apparently is somehow possible even though the US code also defines nationality as “permanent”. I wonder if an ex-pat has ever pursued a non-citizen national passport?
Quote from David on November 4, 2024, 7:07 amI agree that nationality "should" be inherent and cannot be taken away because you're born where you're born right. I think the key may be in the agreement when an individual expatriates, as it may include an agreement to voluntarily and consequently legally rescind any claim to American nationality. Remember, one can contract and agree to just about anything it seems. I would also bet that the expatriation "agreement" dictates that once an individual expatriates and garners a new country's citizenship, they cannot naturalize back to a U.S. Citizen regardless if they were American-born, aka had American nationality.
As far as an expat applying and receiving a "non citizen national" passport, I think you're correct that it is specific for Samoan or Swain Island born individuals. Roger believes this is where they hide our national status, so it was possibly designed for just that purpose. There is not a specific "non citizen national" passport; it is a "Samoan" passport. You can though extrapolate that it is a "non citizen passport" because inside the "Samoan" passport, it states, "THE BEARER IS A UNTED STATES NATIONAL AND NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN". This syncs up with 8 U.S.C. 1101 (22)The term "national of the United States" means (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States (non citizen national). What makes it a bit more confusing though is that the passport says "UNITED STATES NATIONAL" and U.S.C. 1101 says "national of the United States". I believe these two terms are the same.
I agree that nationality "should" be inherent and cannot be taken away because you're born where you're born right. I think the key may be in the agreement when an individual expatriates, as it may include an agreement to voluntarily and consequently legally rescind any claim to American nationality. Remember, one can contract and agree to just about anything it seems. I would also bet that the expatriation "agreement" dictates that once an individual expatriates and garners a new country's citizenship, they cannot naturalize back to a U.S. Citizen regardless if they were American-born, aka had American nationality.
As far as an expat applying and receiving a "non citizen national" passport, I think you're correct that it is specific for Samoan or Swain Island born individuals. Roger believes this is where they hide our national status, so it was possibly designed for just that purpose. There is not a specific "non citizen national" passport; it is a "Samoan" passport. You can though extrapolate that it is a "non citizen passport" because inside the "Samoan" passport, it states, "THE BEARER IS A UNTED STATES NATIONAL AND NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN". This syncs up with 8 U.S.C. 1101 (22)The term "national of the United States" means (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States (non citizen national). What makes it a bit more confusing though is that the passport says "UNITED STATES NATIONAL" and U.S.C. 1101 says "national of the United States". I believe these two terms are the same.
Quote from roberd42 on November 4, 2024, 9:27 amInteresting take David. I guess ultimately it would take someone pushing the State Department to violate their own definition of “permanent” nationality then taking them to court over it. I also think it would require a natural born ex-pat to do so. An ex-patriate is a “non-citizen” “national” by those two definitions but not a “non-citizen national” as they weren’t born in American Samoa. It would certainly clear up some inconsistencies in the regs that we get stuck on during the show occasionally.
Interesting take David. I guess ultimately it would take someone pushing the State Department to violate their own definition of “permanent” nationality then taking them to court over it. I also think it would require a natural born ex-pat to do so. An ex-patriate is a “non-citizen” “national” by those two definitions but not a “non-citizen national” as they weren’t born in American Samoa. It would certainly clear up some inconsistencies in the regs that we get stuck on during the show occasionally.
Quote from David on November 4, 2024, 10:24 amI agree wholly about that more clarity is needed but not sure how many situations would necessitate someone taking this on in a lawsuit, other than just to prove a point. To this point, I pushed the envelop on voting for nationals with the Alabama Sec of State, primarily to prove a point and to show that an individual in the capacity of a national can vote in the federal election. They actually approved and signed off on my affidavit and registration as a national and put me on the voter rolls. I'll be voting as a national in the federal election tomorrow. See the Voter Registration of the Remedy area of the site to see how I did it.
Back on topic...it's interesting that you differentiated the terminology in how it's used via quotations. Coincidentally, I've been planning to write an article specifically about how adjectives can be used before a noun and could be separated by quotations. If not, then the term is could be assumed as connected, so to speak, to the noun creating a formal title that happen to have multiple words that create the formal title. This grammatical use of words is used in so many instances in the national movement, mostly it causes confusion...intentionally in many cases in my opinion. You're example was actually one I was going to use as an example since it's directly relevant to the topic of the national status and by separating and using the word non-citizen as an adjective vs. as part of a formal title, changes its meaning substantially. Another example could be "American national" or "American" "national". In this example though, it can be shown that these two mean the same thing.
Another more simplistic example could be "Big Man" vs. "big" "man". One could indicate a persons name, the other would simply indicate a man that is large. Another, a bit humorous I suppose, is that my name is David Spring. My mother use to joke that she could have named me Rusty Spring. I think you can see how this could relate. LOL!
I agree wholly about that more clarity is needed but not sure how many situations would necessitate someone taking this on in a lawsuit, other than just to prove a point. To this point, I pushed the envelop on voting for nationals with the Alabama Sec of State, primarily to prove a point and to show that an individual in the capacity of a national can vote in the federal election. They actually approved and signed off on my affidavit and registration as a national and put me on the voter rolls. I'll be voting as a national in the federal election tomorrow. See the Voter Registration of the Remedy area of the site to see how I did it.
Back on topic...it's interesting that you differentiated the terminology in how it's used via quotations. Coincidentally, I've been planning to write an article specifically about how adjectives can be used before a noun and could be separated by quotations. If not, then the term is could be assumed as connected, so to speak, to the noun creating a formal title that happen to have multiple words that create the formal title. This grammatical use of words is used in so many instances in the national movement, mostly it causes confusion...intentionally in many cases in my opinion. You're example was actually one I was going to use as an example since it's directly relevant to the topic of the national status and by separating and using the word non-citizen as an adjective vs. as part of a formal title, changes its meaning substantially. Another example could be "American national" or "American" "national". In this example though, it can be shown that these two mean the same thing.
Another more simplistic example could be "Big Man" vs. "big" "man". One could indicate a persons name, the other would simply indicate a man that is large. Another, a bit humorous I suppose, is that my name is David Spring. My mother use to joke that she could have named me Rusty Spring. I think you can see how this could relate. LOL!