Much of this information came from
different sources e.g., supremelaw.org, wevgov.com and government websites.
It is assumed that the People of these united States are United States citizens! That depends on the definition of “United States citizen and or citizen of the United States, and also the context how the term is used, right?
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FACTS.
1.Social Security Numbers can only be issued to federal "employees" / "citizen" for use only in the performance of their official duties. See 20 CFR §422.104.
§ 422.104. Who can be assigned a social security number.
(a) Persons eligible for SSN assignment. We can assign you a social security number if you meet the evidence requirements in § 422.107 and you are:
(1) A United States citizen; or
(2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United blab la
bla….
Let’s examine the definition of United States(U.S.) to see if you are a citizen of the U.S. .
In most statutes (statute law) Unites States is federal territory, i.e.:
26 U.S. Code § 7701 - Definitions
(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where
such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
The term State exposes the truth that term “United States” means the District of Columbia and no other. Let us review, specifically the history of the evolution of this term!
The code of Federal Regulation is very definitive by using the word “its”, in lieu of,
“their”
Title 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Section 1 of the [Internal Revenue] Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...
(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized
in the United States and subject and subject to its [District of Columbia] jurisdiction is a citizen.
The 1939 Code through 1954 the definition of “State”:
IRC 1954:
Alaska is a U.S. Territory
Hawaii is a U.S. Territory
- 7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
Alaska joins the Union, strikeout “Territories” and substitute “Territory of
Hawaii”:
Revision 1:
Alaska is a State of the Union
Hawaii is a U.S. Territory
7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include
the Territory of Hawaii and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
Hawaii joins the Union, strikeout “the Territory of Hawaii and” immediately after the word “include”:
Revision 2
Alaska is a State of the Union
Hawaii is a State of the Union
- 7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
Notice how Alaska and Hawaii only fit these definitions of “State” before they were declared to be States of the United States of America, and now are hereby admitted into the Union on equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever.[emphasis mine]
Let’s examine some court
cases that further solidifies this subject:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction
and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)] [bold emphasis added]
It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the
personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)] [emphasis added]
... [F]or it is certain, that in the sense in which the word "Citizen" is used in the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each State," and
"Citizen of the United States***," are convertible terms; they mean the same thing; for "the Citizens of each State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," and "Citizens of the United States***" are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***.
[44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting]
[italics in
original, underlines & C's added]
As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of
being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of
the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution. [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
[bold and underline emphasis added]
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which
depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36] [(1873) emphasis added]
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the
other of the state. [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]
[(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]
We have in our political system a Government of the United States** and a
government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own ....
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.
[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
[(1883) underlines added]
A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and
not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens.
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the
United States** and the other of the state. [4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]
["Citizens" (1906), emphasis added]
There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of
citizens, one of the United States** and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person.
[Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States** and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter.
[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]
[(1949) headnote 5, emphasis
added]
A person may be a citizen of the United States** and yet be not identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.
[Du Vernay v. Ledbetter]
[61
So.2d 573, emphasis added]
... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.
... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of; but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution.
[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
[emphasis added]
That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country.
[Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal.
236 (1927)]
No fortifying authority is necessary to sustain the proposition that in the United States a double citizenship exists. A citizen of the United
States is a citizen of the Federal Government and at the same time a citizen of the State in which he resides. Determination of what is qualified residence within a State is not here necessary. Suffice it to say that one possessing such double citizenship owes allegiance and is entitled to protection from each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject.
[Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383
(USDC/WDMO 1953)]
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects
only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. [Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (USDC/DCO 1993)]
