Given that the Uniparty is performing one of its clown shows this evening, it seemed appropriate to once again visit the What We Stand For section of the American Nazi Party’s website and consider the second point found there: Citizenship.

“Citizenship – and the rights which go along with it – will be conferred only on those Aryans who prove themselves worthy of it.” There is a lot to unpack in that one important sentence.

First, the idea of citizenship being bestowed—instead of automatically assumed—upon birth sounds odd to American ears, as it runs contrary to what is currently the case in this country and nearly all nations in the Americas, where “Birthright Citizenship” is the norm. Often this is referred to as Jus Soli:

The opposite of Jus soli is Jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) which is derived from the Roman law and which influenced the civil-law systems of mainland Europe.

Today, in practice, most countries in Europe use a combination of the two with an emphasis leaning toward Jus sanguinis. In effect this means that to become a citizen of a nation, one must have a blood tie to that nation. For example, France requires that for a child to become a French citizen, one’s parent must be a French national or to have been born in France themselves. Germany until 2000 was completely Jun sanguinis (the SPD took power in 1998 and it all went to hell from there). Ireland and the UK require at least one parent citizen.

But again, not in the United States. Here a person is considered a citizen if they are born on US soil:

“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.”

14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Thus, circling back to the ANP’s position on citizenship, we see that when it states “We believe that citizenship in an Aryan state should be an honor and a privilege, rather than a right which is gratuitously bestowed simply on the basis of birth or national residence…”, it is not being extreme or radical, but is in fact a position more aligned with many European nations.

It is also more in keeping with the original vision for this country. For example, in responding to Thomas Jefferson’s first annual address [the Message] to Congress in 1801, Alexander Hamilton says:

“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the Message, would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty.”

The Examination Number I, 17 December 1801

The second part of the sentence [“Citizenship…will be conferred only on those Aryans who prove themselves worthy of it.”] is of no less importance, for herein lies the essence of National Socialism: the relationship between the rights of a citizen, and his obligation to the community. It is the price to be paid for the privilege of being in that community. In a word, it is the Duty of the citizen toward the state.

Being a citizen implies being an active, contributing member to the body politic. It is not enough to reap the benefits of citizenship without contributing to the Nation which provides them. A National Socialist state is not a nation of freeloaders reaping the rewards of citizenship while attending to none of the civic duties and responsibilities incumbent upon them.

In the United States, citizens have the right to participate in the “civic life of the country”, but no obligation to do so. In the National Socialist state the privilege and benefits of citizenship are intimately tied to one’s obligation to participate in the community. In colloquial terms, unlike American citizens, National Socialists have “skin in the game.”

In addition to fulfilling civic duty, worthiness also implies adherence to the moral code—and the attendant laws—of the community. The Founding Fathers felt the same way: when establishing the provisions of naturalization and citizenship in the Acts of 1790 and 1795, they insisted that applicant citizens must be of “good moral character”. It makes no sense to confer the benefits of citizenship on those who, in turn, harm or undermine the very community providing those benefits.

In George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1790 (highly recommended by the way), he states:

“With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles…The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

Likewise, if we look at some of the aspects of citizenship in National Socialist Germany, we find a succinct and clear summary of everything said so far:

“Article One
1. A subject [ie., citizen] of the state is one who belongs to the protective union of the German Reich, and who, therefore, has specific obligations to the Reich.
…
Article Two
1. A citizen of the Reich may be only one who is of German or kindred blood, and who, through his behaviour, shows that he is both desirous and personally fit to serve loyally the German people and the Reich.
…”
Source: Reich Citizenship Law 1935 (emphasis added)

When we look at the sentence under discussion as a whole again, where Citizenship is only conferred to those who are worthy, it becomes apparent Citizenship should be, and in a National Socialist state must be, EARNED.

This evening, as the marionettes are on stage and the talking-heads and media clowns dissect the puppet-show debate afterward, it will be interesting to see if there is any mention of improving the citizenry by better defining what it means to be a citizen. Any hint of acknowledgement of the harm that our system of birthright citizenship causes. Or expression of belief in the role civic virtue and moral character play in creating strong, thriving communities.

But, alas, we already know what to expect: not a word.

Amerika Erwache!