I agreed to follow up on this subject as soon as I got the chance.
Here is what I learned:
The statute in this article is outdated. There have been several revisions to the "Immigration and Naturalization Act" as it applies to "persons" who have been born "in the United States". I believe these changes have much to do with:
1.) the definition of "the United States" and the "states" as territories of the "United States" rather than independent Nations under international law.
The Organic Laws of the U.S. recognized the States as independent Nations united under an international agreement called "The Constitution for the United States".
In 1861 the Congress for the U.S. was adjourned sine die. See: "adjournsinedie" attached. The "United States of America" ceased to exist at that moment.
A new congress was called by "President" Lincoln. He could not be lawfully be called President, because the de jure government ceased to exist.
Lincoln formed a new "United States". This government is de facto. See: "Which US July 4 Are you celebrating"
Why do you think he called this new congress (the Confederate States were absent) to assemble on July 4, 1861?
To add insult to injury, Rump legislators forced "the fourteenth Amendment" into the new "Constitution of the United States" and upon the people who inhabit the territories of the new "United States" in 1868, three years after hostilities ceased from the War of Northern Aggression.
The Supreme Court is cognizant of these changes and its opinions have reflected this change of government since its inception of the new United States.
A correct view of history does wonders when one reads the law and relevant court opinions.
To research the "Immigration and Naturalization Act" I went to a local law library.
Using Westlaw, one can find that some decisions of that court have been contested. The opinions that are contested the most receive a "red flag". Opinions that receive some contest receive a "yellow flag". Opinions that receive little contest receive a green flag.
Most recent opinions regarding "Immigration" receive a a "yellow" or "red flag". An example of a "red flag" would be the recent Arizona decision.
In that decision, the Supreme Court PROTECTED de jure citizens from deportation to other countries. The same is true for "Obamacare". In that decision, the Supreme Court PROTECTED de jure citizens from being required to
participate. When de jure State Nationals assert their Rights as "alien to the United States" they have CORRECTLY asserted their rights.
I found that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654 (Supreme Court 1898) has a green flag. I believe this means this opinion can be relied on to correctly interpret citizenship in "the U.S.". Read this case carefully and MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IT!
2.) Publick edumacation has indoctrinated most "persons" into complete misunderstanding of the law. It should. "Public education" is one of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Here is a test to confirm how well "persons" are indoctrinated: Ask a "person" if he/she is in the United States right now. The indoctrinated will say "yes". These persons have little knowledge of the law. Ask that same "person" if he/she was born in the U.S.. The indoctrinated will say "yes".
This person can waive his/her States/Natural Rights by simply applying for a U.S. Passport at a U.S. Post Office.
A man/woman who wishes to receive a Passport as a State National (de jure political status) has to apply directly to the State Department and they have the supply the "burden of proof".
I called the State Dept. February, last year to request an interview to receive a Passport as a State
National. The initial "person" I spoke to referred me to the Post Office. I told them that I was not a U.S. citizen and wanted a Passport as a State National that is (was) described in the regulations. This person had no idea what I was talking about and referred me to her superior, who was an attorney. This attorney refused to answer my call or return my telephone calls. In hindsight, I wish I had continued to press the issue. In May of last year, they changed the regulations to include the requirement of "burden of proof".
I believe "burden of proof" requires fighting in court and getting a judge to affirm your political status as a State National in the same way, but opposite: you had to get a judge to affirm your "U.S. citizenship" as described in the Informers document.
Welcome to the Rabbit Hole. I hope this helps.
Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or
service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.
From: Mike <micflah@...>
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Warning: wife
abusing, counterfeiting, terrorist on the loose