An HONEST Definition of “nonresident alien”

SOURCE: Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 1.7; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf

The previous section described the statutory description but not legal definition of “nonresident alien”.  That term is described rather than legally defined because 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) describes what it IS NOT, rather than what it IS.  To satisfy the requirement to be a legal definition, it must accurately and completely describe ALL things that are included and by doing so, rule out everything that is EXCLUDED under the Rules of Statutory Construction:

“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”

[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]

“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.  Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). Congress’ use of the term “propaganda” in this statute, as indeed in other legislation, has no pejorative connotation.{19} As judges, it is our duty to [481 U.S. 485] construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.”

[Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]

“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”

[Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979), n. 10]

Why is the term “nonresident alien” described this way rather than merely just “legally defined” properly consistent with the Rules of Statutory Construction?  Here are the reasons:

1. Invoking the status is the exit door for income taxation for most Americans, who indeed satisfy the criteria.
2. The government doesn’t want you to know exactly and only who is EXPRESSLY INCLUDED because that would make it too obvious that it applies to the average American.
3. They instead want to force the reader to rely on a legal expert who is licensed by the state and thus has a financial conflict of interest and allegiance towards the court instead of their client.  The court always comes first, and the court is little more than a revenue collector and advocate for the state in most cases, unless the judge is truly honorable, in which case he or she is a little more likely to be honest and fair.

For the purposes of this document, an accurate legal definition of “nonresident alien” rather than merely a DESCRIPTION  of it is:

26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) Nonresident Alien

Someone not domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government in the statutory geographical “United States”, which is defined in paragraph (a)(9) as the District of Columbia and NOT expanded anywhere else to include anyplace else, as we explain in 26 C.F.R. §301.7701-7.  The tax is on the DOMICILE of the party, and not the NATIONALITY.  See Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613.

The “taxpayer” subject to the tax is also a fictional office in the government rather than a human being.  The OFFICE and the OFFICER can only become connected by consent in some form or else it would be a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude.  In most cases, that consent is IMPLIED by merely INVOKING the “benefits” of such a civil status that tax obligations attach to.  See:  How You Lose Constitutional or Natural Rights, Form #10.015; https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/HowLoseConstOrNatRights.pdf.

The Declaration of Independence requires that all just CIVIL powers of government derive from consent of the governed.  Every method of procuring your consent must be IMPLIED rather than EXPRESS because we can never allow you to know WHEN you are giving your consent  and exactly HOW to withdraw it.  That way, we can maintain the false illusion that we are “in charge”, even though the Constitution puts YOU in charge.  See:

1.  Hot Issues:  Invisible Consent*, SEDM
https://sedm.org/invisible-consent/

2. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

There are four possible citizenship statuses: alien, national, citizen, resident.

“citizen” and “resident” have in common a civil domicile within the exclusive jurisdiction of the venue in question.

We couldn’t make a “national” into the origin of the obligation to tax because an act of birth is not an act of consent.  You can’t choose NOT to be born.

Not all “nonresident aliens” are “aliens”.  They are not a SUBSET of aliens, but a SUPERSET that also includes nationals.

The whole thing is voluntary anyway, because there is no liability statute and the only thing that even comes close to liability is in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1.  There we use the word “liable TO” rather than “liable FOR”.  Are you “liable TO” go to the bathroom today?  The first place liability even appears under Section 1 is 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1.  In that case, the regulation exceeds the scope of the statute and therefore is limited by 5 U.S.C. §301 to apply ONLY to people working under the Secretary of the Treasury anyway.  So “taxpayers” are volunteers who work for the Secretary of the Treasury without compensation.  See:  How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024; https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf.  Since the income tax is all voluntary, geographical boundaries are irrelevant because anything done by consent cannot form the basis for an injury in court or standing to sue.

Now do you know why we go to such great lengths to obscure the exit door to our income tax scam, which is a house full of mirrors by:

1.  Hoping you won’t notice that DOMICILE is BUILT INTO the CIVIL STATUTORY words “citizen” and “resident” but NOT into the CONSTITUTIONAL word “citizen”.

2.  Only expressly mentioning domicile in the context of Subtitle B estate taxes.

3.  Using “tax home” in Section 911 to replace “domicile”.

4.  In Section 877 hide whether the “national” who expatriated was also a “nonresident alien” BEFORE they expatriated as well.  They can be.

5.  Make it LOOK like we can FORCE a domicile on you without your consent by making it a question of implied consent.  This, however, would be involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment if the person it was done against is LIVING.  So we make it LOOK like we can do it to the living by actually only doing it to the DEAD who have no rights.  See State of Texas v. Florida, 307 U.S. 398 (1939).

6.  Not defining the word “alien” in the phrase “nonresident alien”.  In fact it means someone with a foreign DOMICILE, not a foreign NATIONALITY.

7.  Adding the word “alien” to the end of “nonresident alien”.  This causes most Americans to falsely believe the status doesn’t apply to them.

8. Never defining the “citizen” made “liable TO” rather than “liable FOR” the tax in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).  Then refer back to 8 U.S.C. §1401-1459, not telling people that the only “citizen” mentioned in Title 8 is a STATUTORY citizen born within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government on federal territory, not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” that most Americans are.

The above ACCURATE and COMPLETE definition is what we call a “Third Rail Issue”.  For a catalog of the most common Third Rail Issues in government, see:

Third Rail Government Issues, Form #08.032
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ThirdRailIssues.pdf