Also available from:

Victor David Hanson:  Citizenship is the foundation of western civilization, Fox News
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6266297977001#sp=show-clips

In this video, Tucker Carlson of Fox News explains that Democrats are trying to destroy western civilization by eliminating all of the “benefits” and “privileges” associated with being an American Citizen.  They are advocating that what is called “non-citizens” should be allowed to do anything that a “citizen” can.  The STATUS of “citizen” also carries with it certain obligations.  The idea of bundling “benefits” or “privileges” with corresponding civil obligations are what entice people to CALL themself a “citizen” or BECOME a citizen. If you take away the “benefits” of the civil status, the only thing left are obligations and responsibilities.  No one wants responsibilities if there is no corresponding benefit or advantage to accepting the obligations.  Who wants responsibility and no benefits?  Why buy the cow called “citizen” when you can get the milk for free as a non-citizen?

In the context of the Internal Revenue Code, a “non-citizen” is called a “nonresident alien”.  26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(B) defines a “nonresident alien” as someone who is NEITHER a “citizen” NOR a “resident”.   “non-citizens” would therefore fit in this category.  The income tax is furthermore imposed on the STATUS of “citizen” and “resident” in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(a) and not directly on the status of “nonresident alien”.  So, by avoiding the civil status of “citizen” and remaining or becoming a “non-citizen” or “nonresident alien” not engaged in the privileged activity of a “trade or business” in the eyes of the government, you can avoid the income tax.  Thus, indirectly, the Democrats are advocating that EVERYONE should be a “nonresident alien” and that becoming a “citizen” or seeking the OBLIGATIONS of being a “citizen” is a waste of time and resources that should be avoided.  You will never hear us argue with this approach and we agree with it!  Why?  Because this approach is, of course, BIBLICAL in origin!

“You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.’”
[Lev. 24:22, Bible, NKJV]

In the context of the bible, “non-citizens” are called “strangers”.  We point out the biblical implications of the above passage in:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer’ Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Section 10.3
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/Domicile.pdf

The legal implications of Lev. 24:22 is the following:

1. A biblical “stranger” is called a “nonresident” in the legal field.
2. A biblical stranger is therefore someone WITHOUT a civil domicile in the place he is physically located.
3. The Bible says in Lev. 24:22 that you must have the SAME “law” for both the stranger and the domiciliary.
4. The civil statutory code acquires the “force of law” only upon the consent of those who are subject to it.  Hence, the main difference between the nonresident and the domiciliary is consent.
5. The only type of “law” that is the SAME for both nonresidents and domiciliaries is the common law and the criminal law, because:
5.1. Neither one of these two types of law requires consent of those they are enforced against.
5.2 Neither one requires a civil domicile to be enforceable.  A mere physical or commercial presence is sufficient to enforce EITHER.

The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the only way the nonresident and the domiciliary can be treated EXACTLY equally in a biblical sense is if:

1. The only type of “law” God authorizes is the criminal law and the common law.   This means that God Himself defines “law” as NOT including the civil statutes or protection franchises.
2. Anything OTHER than the criminal law and common law is not “law” but merely a compact or contract enforceable only against those who individually and expressly consent.  Implicit in the idea of consent is the absence of duress, coercion, or force of any kind.  This means that the government offering civil statutes or “protection franchises” MUST:
2.1 NEVER call these statutes “law” but only an offer to contract with those who seek their “benefits”.
2.2 Only offer an opportunity to consent to those who are legally capable of lawfully consenting.  Those in states of the Union whose rights are UNALIENABLE are legally incapable of consenting.
2.3 RECOGNIZE WHERE consent is impossible, which means among those whose PRIVATE or NATURAL rights are unalienable in states of the Union.
2.4 RECOGNIZE those who refuse to consent.
2.5 Provide a way administratively to express and register their non-consent and be acknowledged with legally admissible evidence that their withdrawal of consent has been registered..
2.6 PROTECT those who refuse to consent from retribution for not “volunteering”.
3. The civil statutory code may NOT be created, enacted, enforced, or offered against ANYONE OTHER than those who LAWFULLY consented and had the legal capacity to consent because either abroad or on federal territory, both of which are not protected by the Constitution.  Why?  Because it is a “protection franchise” that DESTROYS equality of treatment of those who are subject to it.  We cover this in Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030.
4. Everyone in states of the Union MUST be conclusively presumed to NOT consent to ANY civil domicile and therefore be EQUAL under ALL “laws” within the venue.
5. Both private people AND those in government, or even the entire government are on an equal footing with each other in court.  NONE enjoys any special advantage, which means no one in government may assert sovereign, official, or judicial immunity UNLESS PRIVATE people can as well.
6. Anyone who tries to enact, offer, or enforce ANY civil statutory “codes” and especially franchises is attempting what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “class legislation” that leads inevitably to strife in society:

“The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of $4,000 and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): ‘The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.’ 1 Hamilton’s Works (Ed. 1885) 270. The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society. It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the constitution which followed the late Civil War had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time.”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)]

7. Any attempt to refer to the civil code as “law” in a biblical sense by anyone in the legal profession is a deception and a heresy.  They are LYING!
8. The only proper way to refer to the civil statutory code is as “PRIVATE LAW” or “SPECIAL LAW”, but not merely “law”.  Any other description leads to deception.

“Private law.  That portion of the law which defines, regulates, enforces, and administers relationships among individuals, associations, and corporations.  As used in contradistinction to public law, the term means all that part of the law which is administered between citizen and citizen, or which is concerned with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where both the person in whom the right inheres and the person upon whom the obligation is incident are private individuals.  See also Private bill; Special law.  Compare Public Law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1196]

“special law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally.  A private law.  A law is “special” when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation.  A “special law” relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied.  Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754.  A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality.  Board of County Com’rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362.  See also Private bill; Private law.  Compare General law; Public law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398]

Anyone who advocates creating, offering, or enforcing the civil statutory code in any society corrupts society, usually for the sake of the love of money.  In effect, they seek to turn the civil temple of government into a WHOREHOUSE.  Justice is only possible when those who administer it are impartial and have no financial conflict of interest.  The purpose of all franchises is to raise government revenue, usually for the “benefit” mainly of those in the government, and not for anyone else.

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.[1]   Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2]    That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3]   and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4]    It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5]    Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6] “
[63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.
[2] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524.  A public official is held in public trust.  Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist), 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill.Dec. 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.
[3] Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec. 134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.
[4] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds  484 U.S. 807,  98 L.Ed. 2d 18,  108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den  486 U.S. 1035,  100 L.Ed. 2d 608,  108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).
[5] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v. Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.
[6] Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App), 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).

The Democratic party is based almost ENTIRELY upon “privilege” as we explain in the following article:

There is No Such Thing as a Democrat Who is NOT “Privileged”
https://sedm.org/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-democrat-who-isnt-privileged/

And yet, by taking the position that there should be no advantage to BEING privileged as a “citizen”, they are literally destroying the MAIN source of ALL civil legislative privilege by destroying the advantages and “benefits” associated with such privileges.  Quite ironic.