Dual Versus Singular Citizenship

   Judge Anna von Reitz

One of the things that sets “U.S. Citizenship” apart from American State Citizenship is duality. The Federales — from their standpoint anyway — are content to let you keep your “state citizenship” intact and still also be considered a “U.S. Citizen”. As it says in their 14th Amendment — “citizen of the United States” and “the state in which they reside”.

[Please note — it’s their 14th Amendment, not ours, and it’s an “Amendment” to their corporation’s Articles of Incorporation disguised as “a” Constitution. And you are right, their 14th Amendment was never ratified by the States of the Union, for the simple reason that amending the By-Laws of a Scottish commercial corporation only requires approval by the Board of Directors — in this case, the Territorial United States Congress.]

The problem is that the Federales can’t alter the rules that the States adopted, which require a single State Citizenship.

The actual States don’t recognize Dual Citizenship. You are either a Minnesotan or you are not.

It doesn’t matter to them if you came from Germany or Zimbabwe. You have the option once you have immigrated through the U.S. and established your new permanent domicile on the land of Minnesota to declare yourself a Minnesotan.

When you do, you have to leave all other claims of foreign allegiance and nationality behind. The Founders considered Dual Citizenship to be “serving two Masters” and an inherent “conflict of interest” that could not be condoned.

So, if you wish to retain your identity as a Wisconsinite, you have to go whole hog or none. Wisconsin will not recognize you as one of its own if you voluntarily retain any other political allegiance, including any allegiance to the Territorial State of Wisconsin or the Municipal STATE OF WISCONSIN. You have to cleave to the actual State and not merely “reside” there on a temporary basis, if you want to be recognized as an American State Citizen.

Throughout most of our history this was clearly understood and it was also understood that our people sometimes migrated back and forth between their State Citizenship and “United States Citizenship”. Men who served in the military were considered to be on a temporary “loan” to the United States and to be “residing” in Federal jurisdiction during their period of service obligation, but returned home upon discharge from the service. Same thing with Congressional Delegates, who did their business in the District of Columbia, and then returned home to their home States.

The First Naturalization Act passed by the United States Congress described a lengthy process by which an American State Citizen could transition to permanent United States Citizenship, if they wished to do so. It required posting Notices over time and supporting oneself without public assistance and committing no felonies, etc., There is no doubt that adopting “United States Citizenship” versus birthright citizenship as a Citizen of Maine, was a sober, deliberate, and lengthy process.

Also, all new immigrants had to pass through “United States Citizenship” before adopting a final State Citizenship, and again, the decision to adopt State Citizenship required deliberate action on the part of each one.

Say that you came from Germany originally. You would first pass through the Naturalization process and become a “United States Citizen”. You were then free to move about the country and not subject to the INS anymore, no green cards, no quasi-parole status as a visitor— but you were not a State Citizen.

In order to become a State Citizen, you had to (and still have to) meet other requirements and make the deliberate choice to “declare” your intention and publish it and establish a home in the State of your choice and stay there for a stipulated period of time (usually a year) without committing any felonies or making use of public assistance.

There is a famous case from Minnesota (Rheume) that discusses the necessity of immigrants declaring their State Citizenship.

The fundamental difference is that “U.S. Citizens” occupy the Federal jurisdiction within a State and “reside” in the federated “States of States”, whereas State Citizens live in their State of the Union.

Example: An active duty Lieutenant in the US Air Force lives in the State of South Dakota, but my friend Anne lives in South Dakota “proper”.

Think in terms of Army bases like Fort Hood, for example, which exists within the borders of Texas. You have people from every State who live within the confines of Fort Hood which is Federal Territory within Texas and for the term of their service obligation, all those active duty personnel are “U.S. Citizens” living in the “State of Texas” even though they may have been born in Texas and have their natural birthright nationality and citizenship as Texans.

When they leave active duty and inform the General Staff of the Army that they are returning home to Texas and their birthright political status, they pop back into view as Texans and as State Citizens of Texas.

The British Territorial United States and the Municipal United States oligarchy run by the members of the Territorial Congress have long sought to keep everyone in the status of “U.S. Citizen” because that allows them to tax and control and make claims against the assets of the people involved. It is that monetary self-interest that has led to most of the abuses we now suffer and also to the corruption of the courts and the obfuscation of the facts about State Citizenship.

They don’t want you to know that you can adopt your lawful State Citizenship and enjoy your freedoms and the guarantees of the Constitutions, because they lose money and control when you renounce “U.S. Citizenship” in favor of, for example, Texas Citizenship.

Nonetheless it is your birthright as an American, and so long as you are not a federal employee, dependent, or “voluntarily” operating as a U.S. corporation, THEY have nothing to say about it, except, “Yes, Sir!”


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.