Suggestions for improving the New York is Home Act

The New York is Home Act is being touted as a "new kind of secession".

It really isn't, as secession from the United States would be illegal, or practically illegal, while what New York is attempting to start is, at worst, only controversial, and at best, a stepping-stone for even better legislation.

Call it practical secession, as this is still within the realm of the law, while outright secession wouldn't move one inch forward as things stand, and don't expect California to be more pragmatic about this issue than New York.

California is Dreamland, better known as Area 51, with a difference: instead of UFOs, we might soon begin seeing Russian bombers in the sky there, and not because of what Californians do, mind you, but because of what far more insane people in Washington and its environs do.

The New York Is Home Act would grant about three million undocumented workers or non-citizens living in New York a broad range of rights, such as voting in state and local elections; the ability to run for office; qualification for state benefits such as Medicaid coverage, professional licencing, driver's licences, and even tuition payment assistance.

What's the catch? The immigrant:
  1. must provide proof of identity;
  2. must provide proof of 3 years of New York state residency;
  3. must provide proof of 3 years of New York state tax payments;
  4. must show commitment to abide by New York laws, and uphold the state constitution;
  5. must show a willingness to serve on New York juries, and to continue to pay state taxes.
According to Peter Spiro, Charles R. Weiner professor of law at Temple University, and author of Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization, the federal government would have no legal basis for complaint. New York's citizenship would be independent, in theory and practice, from US citizenship. Unlike so-called sanctuary laws, which aim to protect undocumented immigrants from federal immigration law enforcement, the New York measure would not undermine federal law.

Nor would the proposal run afoul of the US Constitution. Under the 14th Amendment, citizens of the United States are automatically citizens of the state in which they reside.

Moreover, Spiro notes that the US Constitution does not bar US states from calling their own those who do not hold national citizenship. This idea finds authoritative support in the Supreme Court's notorious 1856 Dred Scott decision, which found free blacks incapable of holding national citizenship. The court saw nothing incompatible in rejecting Scott's claim to US citizenship while assuming his citizenship in the state of Missouri. "It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state", wrote Chief Justice Roger Taney, "that he must be a citizen of the United States". Though the 14th Amendment nullified the decision on the question of race and national citizenship, it still stands as good law for the possibility of freestanding or stand-alone state citizenship.

Even if the New York immigration bill were to pass, and this is not very likely at this time, observers say that benefits and opportunities granted to nonresident citizens by the bill could be taken down by the court system. It would be up to the legal system to ultimately decide whether New York's actions were legal by federal standards, or not. One issue that has already been raised is the idea of considering these new, New York State residents as "citizens", a term that is considered federal in nature.

Right now, persons born in the US, or to US citizens in foreign countries, are citizens of the United States. Persons born in other countries, who want to become US citizens are aliens, and must apply for, and pass, a citizenship test. Those who become citizens in this manner are naturalised citizens.

According to 8 US Code § 1408, it is possible to be a US national without being a US citizen.

A person whose only connection to the US is through birth in an outlying possession (which as of 2005 is limited to American Samoa, and Swains Island), or through descent from a person so born, acquires US nationality, but not US citizenship.

Also, a national is a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent, although not necessarily exclusive, allegiance to the United States.

It should also be noted that US nationals who are not US citizens cannot vote, or hold elected office. However, they may reside and work in the United States without restrictions, and apply for citizenship under the same rules as resident aliens.

There are also US citizens who were born in the US, and yet are not eligible to become US presidents, or work for any US intelligence services. I know crazy details like that because I am one of those few people.

Since the new, New York State residents made "citizens" under the New York is Home Act would have the right to vote in state and local elections, but not federal elections, these new "citizens" would be somewhere in status between current US nationals who are not US citizens, and current US nationals who are also US citizens. They would have something like a "US national plus" status.

The bill is not immune from criticism for other reasons. Proponents of the bill hope it could help bring much-needed revenue to the state in the form of new taxes, and indeed, that may be the whole convenience behind the idea, from New York state's perspective.

However unlikely this New York Is Home Act is to pass, one strategy to make it far more likely to pass, is to make the New York immigration bill less exclusively liberal in purpose (about immigration and immigrant rights, to the exclusion of everyone else), and more libertarian in purpose (about new freedoms, and for all or most people).

Although this would be harder to do, why not improve this law by re-designing it, in order to allow current US citizens to also "step down" in status, from current US citizen, to a "US national plus" status? If it is legal to "step up" in status, it must also be legal to "step down".

This modification of the Act would allow some republicans, and many libertarians, to get rid of — in legal theory, if not also in legal fact — the now excessive allegiance and demands owed to the federal government, in order to possibly acquire real second citizenship rights, perhaps even third citizenship rights, and in some rare instances, without even the absolute need to emigrate!

Right now at least one foreign country like St. Kitts and Nevis even allows people to acquire citizenship without actually changing residence, but all micronations already allow that by default, as micronationalism is not a "New York State of Mind", but simply changing your mind, and regardless of where you are! Yes, I know. It doesn't happen often, or often enough; but it does happen nonetheless.

Right now there are only two alternatives: 1) retain US citizenship "rights" only (let's face the facts: they are mostly obligations to the US government today, not citizen "rights"), and the illiberal associated, if not outright illegitimate, unconstitutional demands of the US government; or 2) leave the country, hope you can acquire citizenship in another, and perhaps another language, and/or other career/work skills, and then renounce US citizenship altogether at the nearest US Embassy or Consulate.

Right now the United States, New York state included, is like one big Nazi concentration camp. I'm not exaggerating.

You have to accept paid TV, if you want to see anything less boring, or if you simply want more programming variety. Free TV is simply not an option anymore if you have a higher IQ than 80, or even a single peculiar interest.

You have to pay school taxes, even if you send your kids abroad to school, and private schooling for your kids in the US is virtually impossible if you are poor, or part of the increasingly falling middle class. Moreover, private schooling is becoming more and more obstructed even if you do have the extra money.

Your children and grandchildren have to except old and new immunisation shots just like guinea pigs, just as children in Nazi concentration camps, and with most drugs that are now introduced, you become that guinea pig, and in many instances you can't even sue for damages if the drug, and its claimed benefits, were pure fiction, or if the adverse effects of the drug are, in reality, far greater than any of the drug's claimed benefits — and scientists are finding that "guinea pig science" is no longer a reliable, in-the-place-of-humans, biological model.

You have to accept water fluoridation, which was also started in Nazi Germany ghettos and death camps, and that probably doesn't improve your kids' health, or IQ scores.

You have to except the devaluation or trivialisation of the language and culture of your ancestors if they weren't English or Spanish speakers, and this from educators who are not sufficiently educated themselves to realise that today, you would be speaking Oscan, not a Neo-Latin (Romance), or partly derived from Latin language, if the Romans had allowed non-Latin (or Oscan) use, so why should American educators be considered anymore democratic or enlightened than the Roman ones?

Darwinists, please now show me any other evidence that humans are actually evolving, or that America is. I don't see any cultural or legal evidence of that. I see only more and more evidence of tyranny, and things are getting worse, not better.

Over the years, the United States government has allowed more and more jobs to move offshore. According to one highly respectable and informed analyst:
The US economy cannot grow because corporations pushed by Wall Street have moved the US economy offshore. US manufactured products are made offshore. Look at the labels on your clothes, your shoes, your eating and cooking utensils, your computers, whatever. US professional jobs such as software engineering have been moved offshore. An economy with an offshored economy is not an economy. All of this happened in full view, while well-paid free market shills declared that Americans were benefit[t]ing from giving America's middle class jobs to China and India. [1]
While entire US industries have moved to China or India, what has the US government done to allow Americans to adapt to this change, change which has now caused record unemployment and economic despair? What has the US government done to make it easier for Americans to move abroad especially tax-wise? How have American schools become more flexible also with teaching new languages and other skills, in order to allow newer generations to adapt? Are corporations somehow better legal persons than "We the People"? Do they have more rights than we do? Is the US government, and its welfare, more important than Americans, and their welfare, so much so that now laws are continuously made against natural persons, and in favour of legal fictions?

You can leave the Nazi-Roman concentration camp only if 1) someone comes to liberate you; or 2) if you can find a way to escape. Perhaps partial relief is more pragmatic than total relief, but a little change in current affairs is also better than no change at all.

Since nobody inside of the US government is going to liberate you, as the Nazi-Romans are inside the US government; since someone outside of the US Government, like Putin, cannot liberate you even if he wanted or cared, because the Nazi-Romans also have nukes; the only people who can liberate you in any practical or feasible way are New York state legislators. They are probably not the Messiah, but they can be precursors of the world to come with a little more courage and creativity. Maybe they can even help the Messiah a little.

With this modification of the Act, not only immigrants can acquire some of the benefits of US citizenship, and without actually needing to change their status under federal law, but republicans with lots of money, libertarians with less money, and even poor pananarchists like micronationalists, could also acquire other nationalities or citizenships either almost immediately, or in a more natural and step-by-step fashion.

Perhaps even alternative nationalities, not just traditional citizenships of UN countries, can become more legally accepted, starting from New York, and this can spur a genuine cultural revolution and societal shift that can perhaps begin to replace, at least in part, the massive numbers of jobs lost in the wholesale mass export of America's manufacturing base.

Too much cultural uniformity — eg, English and Spanish language instruction only, in a world where 7,000 languages are still spoken daily, in a US state experts believe is home to as many as 800 languages, including several endangered languages [2] — only helps big corporations to sell their products and services, not most people or small businesses, and it only furthers the incessant growth of a distant and uncaring federal government, entirely obsessed with foreign affairs, not domestic affairs; entirely obsessed with military projection, not peaceful coexistence; entirely obsessed with businesses that are already mature, not businesses that need to grow, and actually have the potential.

The adoption of similar laws to a wider-benefit New York is Home Act by other US states besides New York, in turn, especially the adoption by the largest US states, could also push the federal government to eventually liberalise the status of these "US national plus", perhaps even allowing changes in taxation, which could make the citizenships of many countries less individually taxing, or based more on peoples' actual needs, rather than the needs of governments, or certain oligarchies within countries, and US citizenship a little more appealing, competitive with other jurisdictions, and advantageous for people, rather than just for mere corporations.

I do not wish to become a legislator, even though I may have some natural legal talent. However, I'm willing to volunteer my abilities with any and all New York legislators who would like to sincerely put the second phase of the American Revolution into effect, a revolution which, I hope, I have proved must start at a US state level, preferably at a New York state level, because California is not going to come down to earth, unless New York manages to sell it a kind of "Brooklyn Bridge", a paradiplomatic bridge that actually materialises before your very eyes.

I cannot be, for legal reasons, an "attorney of change", as I'm only a licenced attorney in a de facto, not de jure African state. I'm definitely overqualified as a global, even Antarctic agent of change, however, and I won't be a burden to the New York taxpayer.

Perhaps this wider-benefit New York is Home Act can also bring about other positive and truly welcome changes in the United States.

New York is Home Act

States considering a new kind of secession

Why New York's proposal to grant state citizenship makes perfect sense

Senft Denounces Push by Senate Democrats to Grant Automatic Citizenship to Illegal Aliens

Proposed legislation could grant state citizenship to undocumented immigrants

Poll: Should non-citizens be granted some citizenship rights by the state?

New York Is Home Act Legalizes Undocumented Workers

Immigration reform moves to states; New York eyes citizenship after 3 years of taxes

What is the difference between being a US citizen and a US national?

"Citizens" v. "Nationals"

Saint Kitts & Nevis Citizenship: A Powerful Tool

Nazi human experimentation

Sodium Fluoride — The Choice of Nazi Prison Camps
HMRD Cesidio Tallini [3, 4]
Intermicronational World