Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Expatriation: Should you renounce your citizenship?

Expand Messages
  • Scott
    Expatriation: Should You Renounce Your Citizenship? By Randy L. Geiszler Recently I received a letter, which letter, and response thereto, you will find in the
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Expatriation: Should You Renounce Your Citizenship?

      By Randy L. Geiszler

      Recently I received a letter, which letter, and response thereto,
      you will find in the letters section of this issue of Behold! And,
      which letter raised the question in the above title. An article was
      recently published in Eye of the Eagle, July issue, vol. 1, no. 3,
      p. 9, last column, last paragraph, wherein Lee Borsht suggested that
      Congress had passed a resolution "whereby a citizen could declare
      his independence from the 14th amendment." The so-called resolution
      spoken of was the Act of July 27, 1868, Ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223-224,
      set out for your review below.
      CHAP. CCXLIX. An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in
      foreign States. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and
      inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the
      rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas
      in the recognition of this principle this government has freely
      received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the
      rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American
      citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states,
      owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is
      necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of
      foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed:
      Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
      of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any
      declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any
      officers of the government which denies, restricts, impairs, or
      questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent
      with the fundamental principles of this government.

      Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, that all naturalized citizens of
      the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to,
      and shall receive from this government, the same protection of
      persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in
      like situations and circumstances.

      Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made
      known to the President that any citizen of the United States has
      been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of
      any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President
      forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such
      imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful in violation of the
      rights of American Citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand
      the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is
      unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the
      President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may
      think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and
      all the facts and proceedings relative there to shall as soon as
      practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.

      Approved, July 27, 1868.

      The actual quote from the Eye of the Eagle is as follows: "To
      further clarify the 14th Amendment was not binding, the Congress on
      July 27, 1868, passed a resolution whereby a citizen could declare
      his independence form the 14th Amendment..." First of all, the List
      of Public Acts and Resolutions of Congress, appearing in the front
      of volume 15 of the United States Statutes at Large, where the above
      act is officially recorded, cites the act under Public Acts of
      Congress, not under the section which indexes "resolutions." If you
      refer to volume 15, United States Statutes at Large, you will find
      that "Acts" and "Resolutions, public and private, are treated
      separately, under their respective classifications, in the listing.
      Notice that the title to the above act treats the same as "An Act"
      &, etc., not a "Resolution." Also notice that the act, in its
      enacting clauses, states that it "enacts" rather that "resolves" the
      text following such clause. While Representative Van Trump said
      that "it may partake more of the nature of a resolution than a law;
      a declaration of opinion more than a rule of action for both the
      Government and the citizen," (Congressional Globe, March 10, 1868,
      p. 1801) during debate of the above act in the House, congress
      treated the legislation as an act, with the support of Mr. Van
      Trump. In a later discussion of H.R. 768, which became the above
      act, it is clear that the "act" was intended to be more than
      a "resolution."
      "Mr. BAKER. I would prefer to have this in the form of a joint
      resolution.
      Mr. BANKS. That is a mere declaration. It does not reach the purpose
      which the Committee on Foreign Affairs has in view. We want
      something more than that. With great respect for the opinions of the
      gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BAKER], I cannot yield to allow that
      amendment to be moved." Congressional Globe, April 20, 1868, p.
      2311.

      Next, notice the preamble to the act following the word "Whereas,"
      in the first paragraph, which states the purpose of the act. While I
      can see how this act might be construed to have the meaning Mr.
      Brobst attributes to it, considering the general purpose stated in
      the preamble to the act, I questioned whether that was the intention
      of congress, considering the fact that white citizens were not
      intended to be contemplated within the provisions of the (statutory)
      14th amendment in the first place. The act gave me the impression
      that the intention was generally related to the rights of
      expatriation of foreigners to this country and to protect their
      rights as naturalized citizens when they traveled abroad.
      Considering the fact that the first civil rights act (Act of April
      9, 1866, Ch. 31, s. 1, 14 Stat. 27) was already passed by congress
      under the thirteenth amendment, and considering that congress
      therein purported to make all persons born or naturalized in the
      United States, not subject to any foreign power, citizens, the
      word "citizen" as used in the above act (15 Stat. 223-224) would
      have included other than white persons within its meaning. This
      caused me to question the accuracy of Mr. Brobst's assertion
      further.

      Consequently, I reviewed the congressional record, concerning the
      above act, to determine congress real purpose. But, before we go
      into the congressional record, it might be helpful for you to define
      the term "expatriation."

      "EXPATRIATION. The voluntary act of abandoning one's country and
      becoming a citizen or subject of another.

      "2. Citizens of the United States have the right to expatriate
      themselves until restrained by congress; but it seems that a citizen
      cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the
      permission of government, to be declared by law. To be legal, the
      expatriation must be for a purpose which is not unlawful, or in
      fraud of the duties of the emigrant at home.

      "3. A citizen may acquire in a foreign country commercial privileges
      attached to his domical, and be exempted from operation of
      commercial acts embracing only persons resident in the United States
      or under its protection. [citations omitted]...." Bouvier's Law
      Dictionary, 8th Ed. 1859.

      "EXPATRIATION. The voluntary act of abandoning one's country, and
      becoming a citizen or subject of another. See Emigration." Blacks
      Law Dictionary, 1st Ed. 1891.

      "EMIGRATION, The act of changing ones domicile from one country or
      state to another. "It is to be distinguished from 'expatriation."
      The latter means the abandonment of one's country and renunciation
      of one's citizenship in it, while emigration denotes merely the
      removal of person and property to a foreign state. The former is
      usually the consequence of the latter. Emigration is also used of
      the removal from one section to another of the same country." Black
      Law Dictionary, 1st Ed. 1891. After reading the above definitions
      you can see how important it is to determine what the questioned act
      means. If one chose to renounce citizenship and it were taken the
      wrong way he could virtually be ejected from the country. And, I
      must reiterate, what need is there to renounce the citizenship
      contemplated within the 14th amendment when it doesn't apply to you
      as a white citizen in the first place. "I. Purpose of the Clause. 1.
      In General. -- The main object of the opening sentence of the
      Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there
      had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in the
      courts, as to the citizenship of Negroes..." Federal Statutes
      Annotated, Vol. 9, p. 385. Clearly the first section of the
      declaratory 14th amendment was passed to give those of African
      decent some form of citizenship, while there is no provision in the
      original constitution for altering the body of original citizenship,
      established by the Declaration of Independence which recognized only
      on race in its members, that is free whites. The Congress and the
      supreme Court, by later acceptance of the 14th amendment citizenship
      are guilty of treason against the constitution for the united States
      of America which is evidenced by Marshall v. Donovan, (1874) 10 Bush
      Ky. 687. "It was held, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, by the
      Supreme Court of the United States, that a man of African descent,
      whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of the
      state or of the United States; and, notwithstanding the criticism to
      which this adjudication was subjected, it was never overruled; and
      the primary object of the Fourteenth Amendment was to relieve this
      race from the disabilities therein declared to be inherent in and
      inseparable from the African blood." Marshal v. Donovan, (1874) 10
      Bush (Ky.) 687. The statutory legal privileges we were defrauded
      into accepting, that gave us a legal character similar to that of
      the 14th amendment citizen, can be renounced, on the basis of fraud,
      without a declaration renouncing citizenship.

      Would it not be better to declare that we are a citizen in the state
      of __________, and thereby in the united States, without purview of
      the statutory 14th amendment? This goes back to the original order
      of citizenship. Originally one was a citizen in a state and through
      that citizenship was treated as having a national character for only
      specific purposes such as privileges and immunities set out in
      Article 4, Section 2, of the Constitution for the united States of
      America.

      "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
      Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Article IV, Section
      2, Clause 1 The statutory 14th amendment, on the other hand,
      purports to reverse the order by making one a citizen of the United
      States, first, and thereby a citizen of the State wherein he was
      born, and again, this was not intended to apply to white state
      citizens. "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...." Fourteenth
      Amendment, Section 1. "2. Clause Reverses Previous Rule of
      Citizenship. Prior to the adoption of this amendment, strictly
      speaking, there were no citizens of the United States, but only of
      someone of them. Congress had the power 'to establish a uniform rule
      of naturalization,' but not the power to make a naturalized alien a
      citizen of a state. But the states generally provided that such
      persons might, on sufficient residence therein, become citizens
      thereof, and then the courts held ab convenienti, rather than
      otherwise, that they became ipso facto citizens of the United
      States. But the amendment declares the law positively on the
      subject, and reverses this order of procedure, by making citizenship
      of a state consequent on citizenship of the United States; for,
      having declared what persons are citizens of the United States, it
      does not stop there, and leave it in the power of a state to exclude
      any such person who may reside therein from its citizenship, but
      adds, 'and such persons shall also be citizens of the state wherein
      they reside.'" Federal Statutes Annotated, Vol. 9, p. 387. In the
      House of Representatives, the act here in question was debated as
      House Resolution No. 768.

      The debate appearing in The Congressional Globe makes it clear that
      the cause for the legislation was England's long-standing disregard
      for American naturalized citizens, who had been her former subjects.
      England, since the revolution of the colonies treated her subjects
      as her property, and on convenient occasions would abscond with
      these naturalized citizens when they were sojourning in England. The
      intention of congress, in the statute in question, is revealed by a
      member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, from which the
      bill was introduced to the floor of the House. "...There has never
      been an attempt to embody in a legislative act the American theory
      upon the subject of expatriation coupled with any principle of
      action that would compel other nations to consider and decide upon
      the claims we presented to them." Congressional Globe, March 10,
      1868, p. 1798, statement of Mr. Banks, Committed of Foreign
      Affairs. "It is apparent that the action of the Government, whatever
      it may be, must be accompanied by some principle or power which will
      be able to produce an effect upon the legislation of other countries
      or the action of other Governments in reference to the rights of our
      naturalized citizens." I bid. According to Mr. Van Trump (Ibid., p.
      1801), the question that was before the house, in debating the act
      here in question, was "revived by recent events and acts of
      aggression and outrage on the rights of our naturalized citizens by
      the British Government..." The debate over H.R. 768, April 20, 1868,
      again reveals the intention of congress in passing the act here in
      question, through the statement of Representative Banks, Committee
      of Foreign Affairs. "It is legislation for the purpose of affecting
      the action of other Governments. Ordinarily legislation is for the
      purpose of affecting our own Government. Here we purpose to affect
      the action of foreign Governments, of European Governments, and that
      gives it a distinctive character as a legislative act...."If my
      colleague is willing that citizens of the United States shall be
      arrested in foreign countries for acts done and words spoken here;
      if he is willing that a member of this House, as one of its members -
      a native born citizen of Massachusetts was once so arrested by a
      foreign Government for no crime committed against that Government
      then his amendment is well adapted to effect his object. It presents
      a case past argument. If such legislation answers the purpose of the
      House, we have nothing to say. It is not an affair of ours. The
      Committee on Foreign Affairs reports this bill as the measure best
      calculated in the judgment of its members to secure from other
      Governments the recognition of the rights we claim on behalf of
      naturalized as well as native-born American citizens." Congressional
      Globe, April 20, 1868, p. 2312. It is clear from the text of the
      Congressional Globe that the act here in question was for the
      purpose of providing the president with the power of reprisal
      against foreign governme nts, particularly, although not
      exclusively, England, when the foreign government refused to
      recognize the naturalization of its subjects or citizens as American
      citizens. There is not even an intimation in the debates concerning
      the act that it was intended to allow one to "declare his
      independence from the 14th amendment. Renunciation of citizenship is
      a very serious matter and shouldn't be taken lightly. Since the
      statutory 14th amendment wasn't intended to have application to
      white citizens born or naturalized in America, (Van Valkenburg v.
      Brown, (1872) 43 Cal.43) it is evident that renunciation of
      citizenship is totally unnecessary for a white citizen to be
      independent of the statutory 14th amendment. All that is necessary
      is alleging and evidencing those facts which make you an American
      citizen within the original meaning, and those facts which show that
      you have not applied for, or obtained, any semblance of the legal
      character of persons set out in the statutory 14th amendment and its
      attending civil rights acts, e.g. you are a white citizen born or
      naturalized in a State who has not acquired any legal character
      outside, or in contradiction of, his original birthright or status.
      For obvious reasons an alien or a statutory citizen does not hold
      the same rights as a natural citizen. The original constitution was
      adopted by American citizens, who's citizenship preceded the
      constitution and the government it formed. On the other hand, the
      statutory citizen received his citizenship via statute, as a
      privilege rather than a natural right, and the alien sojourns in
      America at the pleasure of the natural citizens, expressed through
      the government formed by them. The preamble to the original
      constitution for the united States of America shows that it was
      adopted by WE THE PEOPLE for the protection of ourselves and our
      posterity, not necessarily for the protection of aliens or other
      privileged persons. A declaration of expatriation, made by a white
      citizen, could easily be mistaken as a renunciation of your
      membership in our posterity.

      Therefore, a declaration, made under the statute here in question,
      rather than declaring independence from the statutory 14th
      amendment, would be a declaration of alienation, bringing you
      outside the scope of protection of your inherent, natural,
      unalienable and inalienable rights, intended for citizens, by the
      letter and spirit of the constitution. In other words, by such a
      declaration, in opposite affect from what you had intended, the
      limitations against the government, set out in the original
      constitution, for the protection of the natural citizen, might be
      removed, leaving you in a worsened legal condition. As I have said
      many times in the past, the natural white American citizen holds his
      legal status as a matter of natural right over which congress has no
      power to legislate, nor can congress legitimately legislate
      respecting other natural rights of such American citizens. If
      congress has the power to legislate to give us our rights, then
      congress has power to legislate to take them away. Congress has no
      such power. For defense of our rights we need no legislation, only a
      violation of our rights, and a lawful judicial court, having
      jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases and controversies arising
      from a trespass of those rights. The natural white American citizen
      doesn't need the civil rights acts, nor the usurpative legislative
      amendments under which they were written. Even Congress understood
      this in 1868. "Mr. JENCKES. Will the gentleman inform the House what
      declaration is made in any part of this bill as to what is the
      American law upon the subject of expatriation? "Mr. BANKS. It is a
      subject which, in our opinion, ought not to be legislated upon. Now,
      I want my friend from Rhode Island [Mr. JENCKES] to say to me
      whether he is willing that the right of speech, the right of
      petition, the right to assemble in public meeting, the right to bear
      arms, shall be made dependent upon the statutes of the Government? I
      want him to say to me whether my right, or his right, to hear, to
      see, to smell, to feel, or to walk is to be made dependent upon an
      act of the American Congress? No, sir; this comes within the scope
      and character of natural rights which no Government has the right to
      control and which no Government can confer. And wherever this
      subject is alluded to in the Constitution - a Constitution framed by
      wise men it is in the declaration that Congress shall have no power
      whatever to legislate upon these matters." Congressional Globe,
      April 20, 1868, p. 2316. The above sentiment of representative Banks
      shows that, at least, some members of the House believed that acts
      of legislation, such as the first Civil Rights Acts, which had
      recently been passed, did not, and could not, confer natural rights
      upon persons of color for whose benefit same where enacted; nor, for
      that matter, could any act of legislation confer natural rights on
      anyone, regardless what government might enact the legislation, and
      regardless for whose benefit the legislation was intended. Finally
      it appears that the act here in question was adopted before
      promulgation of the 14th amendment, which further discloses the fact
      that its purpose had no reference to said amendment. "This amendment
      was proposed to the legislatures of the several states by joint
      resolution of Congress dated June 16, 1866, 14 Stat. L. 358. On July
      21, 1868, Congress adopted and transmitted to the department of
      state a concurrent resolution declaring that 'the legislatures of
      the states of Connecticut, Tennessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont,
      New York, Ohio, Illinois, West Virginia, Kansas, Maine, Nevada,
      Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
      Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, South
      Carolina and Louisiana, being three-fourths and more of the several
      states of the Union, have ratified the Fourteenth Article of
      Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, duly proposed by
      two-thirds of each House of the Thirty-ninth Congress: Therefore,
      Resolved, that said Fourteenth Article is hereby declared to be a
      part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly
      promulgated as such by the secretary of state.' The secretary of
      state accordingly issued a proclamation, dated July 28, 1868, 15
      Stat. L. 708, declaring that the proposed Fourteenth Amendment has
      been ratified..." Federal Statutes Annotated, Vol. 9, p. 384.

      The question leaps out to be answered: How can Congress by proposal
      and resolution, with or without the state legislatures, alter the
      established rule of citizenship, done in convention of the people,
      without the people in convention approving this change in their
      body, as required by Article Five, Constitution for the united
      States of America. No conventions of the people (free white) were
      held according to the procedures required by Article Five, and the
      procedures actually used could only purport to be valid as a
      procedure for ratification under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
      The citizens purportedly created by the 14th amendment are not a
      proper subject matter under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and
      therefore, must be considered as unauthorized. Within the original
      meaning and intent of the constitution only an American and a State
      citizenship are authorized. The District of Columbia is not a state;
      it is not authorized to create any citizen within its exclusive
      jurisdiction. In conclusion, the Act of July 27, 1868, Ch. 249, 15
      Stat.223-224, is not a "resolution", but an "act;" is of no use to
      the natural white citizen, and doesn't provide a means "whereby a
      citizen could declare his independence from the 14th Amendment; "
      and, in fact, said statute, if taken advantage of, by declaration of
      expatriation, by such natural white citizen, could very well be
      detrimental to future protection of his or her inalienable and
      unalienable rights as an American citizen within the original
      meaning.

      In answer to the question posed by the title to this article: No,
      you should not renounce your citizenship! Instead, one should claim
      and clarify the citizenship of his birthright, outside purview of
      the statutory 14th amendment. Both Robert W. Wangrud and I have had
      our citizenship Judicially noticed, without purview of the statutory
      14th amendment, and without a declaration of expatriation.

      http://www.freewebs.com/nvlawman/
    • hobot
      ... When original dejure state Citizenship status exists, how does such a sovran travel overseas and return home w/o driver license or US Passport? The
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Expatriation: Should You Renounce Your Citizenship?
        >
        > By Randy L. Geiszler
        > [huge snip on who THE Posterity Citizen Dejure is and is not]

        > In answer to the question posed by the title to this article:
        > No,
        > you should not renounce your citizenship! Instead, one should
        > claim
        > and clarify the citizenship of his birthright, outside purview
        > of
        > the statutory 14th amendment. Both Robert W. Wangrud and I have
        > had
        > our citizenship Judicially noticed, without purview of the
        > statutory
        > 14th amendment, and without a declaration of expatriation.
        >
        > http://www.freewebs.com/nvlawman/
        >


        When original dejure state Citizenship status exists, how does
        such
        a 'sovran' travel overseas and return home w/o driver license
        or US Passport? The passport has an oath on the application
        that basically reads as if written by the radical republicans
        to sepecifically exclude all dejure white southern Citizens.
        The 14th Admendment cetainly does by excepting its application
        to all those classed as criminal/rebellious, duh who'd that be?
        Bible says swear no oaths so what's to do to be let back in
        these post WTC times?

        In the early 90's wife and I have been passed straight thru
        customs inspections much to the awe of lines of folks on 3
        occassions after we began to fill in declaration cards
        as American National, scratching out the US citizen term.
        Thought first two were flukes but 3rd was a charmer. Why???

        I used a current US passport durring this period, expired now.
        A funny aside, I've rented cars all over world using an Int'l
        Dr.PERMIT, but on Ambergis island of Belize whose main vehicle
        is electric golf carts on sand paths I was refused w/o a Dr. Lic.!

        hobot
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.