June 27, 2025 • 41 mins
What's an American? In Part Seven of our series, we tell the story of how Marxist intellectuals set the stage for a globalist dream - a United States where its citizens have a stronger allegiance with their ancestral lands than with America.
Support the show: https://redpilledamerica.com/support/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
This is Red Pilled America.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Why haven't you followed us on Twitter yet? Or Instagram
and Facebook. Following us on social media is the easiest
way to support the show, and it's free. Just visit
Redpilled America dot com, click on the social media icons
at the bottom of the page, then give us a follow,
and don't forget to visit our store by clicking shop
at the top of Redpilled America dot com. We have hats, candles,
(00:29):
beer mugs, t shirts, a book, keychains, and a bunch
of other things. You can even buy gift certificates for
your friends and family.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
And if you want to listen to Red Pilled America's
newest episodes ad free, become a backstage subscriber. You'll get
access to our entire r type of episodes and our members'
only podcast. Just visit Redpilled America dot com and click
join in the topmenu. That's Redpilled America dot com and
click join in the topmenu. Now on with the show.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Previously on Red Pilled.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
America, Clement Martinez Perez walked into an immigration office in
San Francisco and turned himself in after living for over
thirty years in Mexico. Clement Martinez Perez claimed to be
a US citizen. There was no question about it. His
allegiance was with Mexico, not America. Progressive writer Randolph Bourne penned,
(01:24):
transnational America.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
We find that we have all unawares, been building up
the first international nation. In this effort, we may have
to accept some form of that dual citizenship which meets
with so much articulate horror among us.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
In a six to three decision, a Supreme Court found
that by voting in a foreign election, it was constitutional
for Congress to revoke the US citizenship of Clement Martinez Perez.
I'm Patrick Carrelci.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And I'm Adriana Cortes.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
And this is Red Pilled America, a storytelling show.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
This is not another talk show covering the day's news.
We're all about telling stories.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Stories. Hollywood doesn't want you to hear stories.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
The media mocks stories about everyday Americans at the globalist ignore.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
You can think of Red Pilled America as audio documentaries,
and we promise only one thing, the truth. Welcome to
Red Pilled America. It was July thirtieth, nineteen fifty one,
(02:38):
when a Polish born artist walked into a booth in
Israel and voted in the new country's second national election.
As far as America was concerned, it seemed like an
inconsequential act. I mean, Israel was six thousand miles away
from the capital of the United States. The vote was
just one of approximately eight hundred thousand ballots cast that day,
(03:00):
but that one artist's vote would send a shot wave
to the United States that would be felt for decades
to come because it changed the face of America. We're
at part seven of our series of episodes entitled What's
an American. We're looking for the answer to that question
by taking a deep dive into the meaning of American citizenship.
So to pick up where we left off in our
(03:22):
last episode, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy unleashed
a movement in America that was percolating below the surface,
a radical Marxist movement that viewed the United States as
an evil oppressor that needed to be destroyed. At the
time of JFK's death, America was a superpower that no one,
(03:43):
not even the Soviet Union, could defeat militarily. The only
way Marxists could destroy the United States was from within.
But that seemed impossible as well. By nineteen sixty five,
the United States was in its golden age of capitalism.
Americans were prospering at a level unseen before in human history,
so economics weren't driving a class conflict. The country had
(04:07):
also effectively paused immigration for forty years. As a result,
the United States had an overwhelmingly pro American populace that
was assimilated. A whopping ninety five percent of American citizens
were born in the United States. If the Marxists were
going to destroy America from within, they would need to
draft reinforcements.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
That's when the anti American forces came up with a solution,
and they used President Lyndon B. Johnson as a vehicle.
They devised a mechanism that would change the fabric of
the nation.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
This bill that we will sign today is not a
revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions.
It will not reshape the structure of our daily life.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
LBJ told one of the biggest presidential lies in US history.
At the time time he uttered those words, the United
States had a population of about one hundred and ninety
five million, roughly eighty five percent were white. However, nearly
sixty years later, in twenty twenty four, the percentage of
whites in America plummeted to roughly fifty eight percent. During
(05:20):
that same time period, Hispanics grew nearly fivefold, from just
four percent of the population to almost twenty percent. Asians
grew twentyfold from point three percent to six percent of
the population. The bill LBJ was about to sign into
law would go on to change the fabric of America.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
For over four decades, the immigration policy of the United
States has been twisted by the harsh injustice of the
national origin's quota system. Under that system, the ability of
new immigrants to come to America depended upon the country
of their birth. Only three countries were allowed to supply
(06:03):
seventy percent of all the emigrants. Today, with my signature,
this system is abolish.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
The passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of nineteen
sixty five provided a mechanism for the anti American forces
to draft reinforcements from abroad. Around the time of its passage,
a ringleader of these forces began stepping on to the
international stage, looking to start a Marxist revolution in America.
Speaker 5 (06:33):
It's my great honor today to introduce to you one
of the greatest thinkers of our age, but Marcuza.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Licorice. Licorice, Where art thou licorice? If you listen to
Red Pilled America, you know that I love licorice. And
there is no licorice in America better than the delicious,
gourmet licorice made by the Licorice Guy. The Licorice Guy
is simply the best. What sets their licorice apart is
its flavor and freshness. They have a great selection of
(07:07):
flavors to choose from, like red, blue, raspberry, black, and
green apple, just to name a few. The freshness of
the Licorice Guy is unlike anything you've ever tasted in
licorice before. Seriously, if you haven't tried licorice from the
Licorice Guy yet, then you ain't living life right. Trust me,
you will not regret it. It's time to dump that
store bought liquorice but so hard it'll break your teeth,
(07:28):
and get yourself the soft, fresh stuff from the Licorice Guy.
What I also love about the Liquorice Guy is that
it's an American family owned business. It's made right here
in the beautiful Us of a We are big proponents
of buying American and supporting American workers. Right now, red
Pilled America listeners get fifteen percent off when they enter
(07:49):
RPA fifteen at checkout. Visit licoriceguy dot com and enter
RPA fifteen at checkout. That's licoriceguy dot com. A ship daily,
treat yourself and those you love, and taste the difference.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Welcome back to Redfield America. Herbert Marcusa was a radical
German born American Marxist who would become one of the
leading architects of a cancer in American culture. Wokeness, and
Marcusa played a critical role in redefining what it meant
to be American. Born in Berlin, Germany, in eighteen ninety eight,
(08:28):
Marcusa grew up in an upper middle class Jewish family.
The German Empire he was born in was a constitutional
monarchy under the control of Kaiser Wilhelm the Third. In
the early nineteen hundreds, the German Empire was one of
the strongest and most rapidly industrializing economies in the world,
second only to the United States in its industrial output. However,
(08:52):
the situation changed dramatically with the outbreak of World War One.
In nineteen fourteen. By the end of the decade, Germany's
economy collapsed. As a result, the country was vulnerable to
the growing socialist sentiments spreading throughout Europe. When a wave
of unrest swept through the continent, a Marxist revolution didn't
take hold in Germany, a fact that profoundly confused Herbert MARKUSA.
(09:17):
In nineteen seventeen, Vladimir Lenin led the Bolsheviks overthrow of
the Russian monarchy. They executed Russian Czar Nicholas the Second
and his entire immediate family. The revolt would come to
be known as the Russian Revolution of nineteen seventeen, and
Lenin's victory ultimately led to the first marxistate, the Soviet Union.
(09:38):
This Russian Revolution inspired others in Europe, but unlike in Russia,
they were short lived. In nineteen eighteen, a socialist revolt
led to a civil war in Finland, but it quickly failed.
In nineteen nineteen, a communist revolt in Hungary led to
the Hungarian Soviet Republic, but it too collapsed in just
one hundred and thirty three days. The same year, socialist
(10:01):
unrest spread through out Italy, but no lasting Marxist movement prevailed.
Inspired by the Russians, German Marxists also hoped to spark
a German Bolshevik style revolution of their own. They briefly
set up a Marxist state in Germany, but were quickly crushed.
German Marxist intellectuals witnessed these unsuccessful communist revolutions and were
(10:24):
deeply troubled by their failure because it meant their profit
was wrong. Car Marx predicted that the working class proletariat
would inevitably overthrow the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production.
In his eighteen forty eight book The Communist Manifesto, Marx.
Speaker 6 (10:40):
Wrote, what the bourgeoisie, therefore producers above all, are its
own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the
proletariats are equally inevitable.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Marx believed that history was driven by a class struggle
between the haves and the have nots. Under capitalism, Marx
thought this struggle would intensify as wealth and power became
increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually, Marx argued,
the working class would realize their exploitation and unite, leading
(11:12):
to a revolution overthrow of the capitalist system and ultimately
a classless communist society. Horror. Marx made this prediction in
his books The Communist Manifesto and Tascapital, and his disciples
came to see it as an inevitability. He did not
predict the exact timeline, but he assumed the revolution would
start in advanced industrial nations. But that turned out to
(11:35):
be wrong. It began in Russia and failed in places
like Finland and Germany. This deeply troubled German Marxist like
Max Horkheimer, Theodora Dorno, and Eric Frum. They became consumed
with understanding why and so in nineteen twenty two they
(11:58):
founded the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, to
study why Marxist prediction failed. A young Herbert marcusa, a
Marxist at Hart, also became consumed with this question. He
was eventually offered a job at the institute. However, due
to the rise of Nazism, the institute and its team
had to evacuate from Germany. Because you see, all these
(12:21):
Marxist intellectuals were Jewish. They anticipated Adolf Hitler's takeover, so
in nineteen thirty three they relocated to Geneva, Switzerland. Marcusa,
also a Jew, followed, becoming a junior colleague of the
institute's founders, but their stay there was short lived. A
year later, the Marxist refugees turned their eyes to America's shores.
(12:44):
A member of the institute convinced Columbia University in New
York to give them refuge Horkheimer moved their operation to Columbia,
and in America, the institute came to be known as
the Frankfurt School. Marcusa and other exiled colleagues followed, and
they would go on to develop Critical Thing, the intellectual
underpinnings for the ideology known today as Woke. America provided
(13:09):
these Marxist intellectuals a safe haven from Nazi persecution, and
they returned the favor by working for decades to ignite
a Marxist revolution on American soil.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
In the United States, MARCUSO would ultimately become the standout
amongst the Frankfurt School intellectuals. He believed capitalism was the
king of oppressors that controlled people, with consumerism making man
a one dimensional creature, unaware that he is the victim
of a domination system. Through Marcusa's lens. This machine of
domination no longer required blunt force or even the presence
(13:44):
of an authoritarian figure. Capitalism simply stripped man of critical
two dimensional consciousness by providing man just enough goods to
pacify him while convincing him through various forms of mass
media that he is freer than he actually is. Through
this process of domination, the end individual has no idea
(14:04):
how bad they have it. To overcome this victimhood, Marcusa
argued that one must have an awakening to this system
of domination. In other words, they must go woke. America
stood at the pinnacle of this oppressive system. The United
States was economically dominating the world. It was in its
golden age of capitalism. In Marcusa's eyes, America represented the
(14:27):
mothership of capitalism's evil domination. To destroy this capitalist system
and replace it with a classless, communist structure, America had
to be toppled. Marcusa conceded that this would be a
herculean feet, but he believed a Marxist revolution could occur
in America by cobbling together disgruntled racial minorities, feminists, disgruntled
(14:49):
sexual minorities, the outcasts of society that refused to assimilate
to the country's Anglo Saxon norms. By bringing these disgruntled
Americans together with an enlightened intelligentsia, and even increasing their numbers,
they could overthrow a Maria and end the capitalist domination.
By the early nineteen sixties, Herbert Marcus's anti capitalist writings
(15:09):
became the intellectual underpinnings for Marxist radicals on college campuses
across America. His words helped give rise to the so
called free speech movement at UC Berkeley, a Marxist movement
that looked to make universities the hubs of their revolution.
But perhaps most importantly, he helped American Marxists realized they
needed to bring in outsiders to increase their numbers. With
(15:32):
the passage of radical legislation like the Immigration and Nationality
Act of nineteen sixty five, this anti American movement had
a mechanism to multiply their forces. By nineteen sixty seven,
Herbert marcusa who had worked largely in obscurity on college campuses,
stepped out from the shadows of academic circles onto the
international stage.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
It's my great honor today to introduce to you one
of the greatest thinkers of our age, Herbert Marcusa, armed with.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Three decades of research on how socialism could take root
in America, Arcusa looked to reignite the failed Marxist revolutions
of Germany at this time in the West.
Speaker 7 (16:09):
The ferment is there, the ground can and must be prepared.
The mutilated consciousness and the mutilated instincts must be broken,
and the sensitivity and the awareness of the new, transcending
(16:32):
antagonistic values. They are there, and they are there precisely
among the non integrated, the still non integrated social groups,
and among those who, by virtue of their privileged position,
can pierce the ideological and material weil of mass communication
(16:59):
and indoctrination, namely.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
The Marcusa argued that nationalistic patriotism was a Western mechanism
of social control. He believed true human freedom would require
breaking free from nationalistic and capitalist systems. Marcusa encouraged cross
border solidarity with anti colonial and revolutionary movements. College social
(17:24):
study professors indoctrinated a generation of leftist students with Marcusa's ideas.
As a result, Marcusa created the intellectual atmosphere for a
transnational America to finally become a reality where America's citizens
had a stronger allegiance with their ancestral lands than with
the United States. This was a necessary condition for America
(17:45):
to fall. But one final barrier needed to be overtaken.
Dual citizenship needed to be made legal.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Do you want to hear red pilled America stories ad free?
Then become a backstage subscriber. Just log onto Redpilled America
dot com and click join in the top menu. Join
today and help us save America one story at a time.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Welcome back to red Pilled America. So by the mid
nineteen sixties, anti American forces were on the march. Herbert
MARCUSA gave them the Marxist ideology to rally around. LBJ
gave them the mechanism to draft reinforcements from abroad. But
one final barrier needed to be overtaken for a transnational
America to become a reality. Dual citizenship needed to be
(18:32):
made legal. Enter Bay's Afrouyam. Born in eighteen ninety three
in what was then Russian occupied Poland, Afrouyum came of
age in a region simmering with revolutionary thought. As Marxist
ideas spread across the Empire, Poland's industrial towns and rural
villages witnessed labour strikes, peasant unrest, and the early rumblings
(18:53):
of communist agitation. These movements, while not yet dominant in
everyday life, planted seeds of radical politics and many who
would later seek change, including Afroyum himself. By the time
he immigrated to the United States in nineteen twelve, the
Russian Empire was on the verge of collapse and Marxist
agitation was in full swing. While we can't say with
(19:14):
certainty what Afrouum believed when he first boarded a ship
for the United States, we can say this and the
Americans feared that immigrants from Eastern Europe were bringing radical
beliefs with them. This fear was expressed by Founding father
Thomas Jefferson at the Birth of America.
Speaker 8 (19:31):
They will bring with them the principles of the governments
they leave imbibed in their early youth.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
In the case of Afroyum, that fear was warranted because
he would become a card carrying communist. Like many Jewish
immigrants of the time, Afroyum settled in Manhattan. It was
there in the bustling artistic enclaves of New York City,
that he would eventually build a life as an artist
and teacher. Fourteen years after immigrating to America, Afroyum naturalized
(19:58):
as a US citizen. In nineteen twenty six, he stepped
before a federal d judge and swore an oath.
Speaker 8 (20:04):
I hereby declare on oath, that I absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state,
or sovereignty, and particularly to the Soviet Union. That I
will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the
United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
(20:25):
And that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
So help me God. But the oath was likely more
performance than promise, because it wasn't long after making it
that Afroyum would take up an ideology it was at
complete odds with the US Constitution. In the following decades,
Afroyum immersed himself in the radical art and political circles
of New York. He founded an experimental art school, collaborating
(20:55):
with leftist intellectuals and eventually joined the Communist Party USA,
and as the United States entered the Cold War, it
became clear that the American government no longer viewed radical
affiliations as abstract concerns. They were threats. By nineteen forty eight,
basing the growing pressure of anti communist sentiment, Afroyum fled
(21:15):
to Cuba, but the stay was brief. After Israel passed
the Law of Return in nineteen fifty, granting every Jew
anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to Israel,
Afroyum relocated to the newly formed state. In nineteen fifty one.
Afroyum voted in the Kanesset election, or Israel's general elections.
(21:37):
This was no small act because under US law at
the time, even a single act of voting in a
foreign political election was considered grounds for automatic expatriation, and
in the case of Bayes Afroyum, it made sense. He
did not have an allegiance to the United States. It
wasn't his country of birth, he had no ancestral ties
(21:57):
to the land. He fled America because of his communist beliefs,
beliefs that were at direct odds to the United States Constitution.
He even voted for the legislature that would go on
to define Israeli citizenship. By nineteen fifty two, Baseer Froyam
was officially an Israeli citizen participating in the political life
of Israel. But in nineteen sixty Afroyam attempted to renew
(22:20):
his US passport, he was denied. A year later, the
US government sent him a letter informing him that he
had been stripped of his status as an American citizen
for voting in a foreign election. In nineteen sixty seven,
Afrouyum decided to sue the US government, and the case
made its way to the Supreme.
Speaker 9 (22:38):
Court Number four fifty six, Afroyum petitioner versus Dan Rusk,
the Secretary of Segnatary.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
The central question of the case was simple, does Congress
have the constitutional authority to strip a person of U
s citizenship because of certain actions? Or does the Fourteenth
Amendment forbid involuntary expatriation. In essence, Afroyam was asking the
Supreme Court to overturn their nineteen fifty eight Clement Martinez
Perez's decision, where Perez was stripped of a citizenship for
(23:10):
voting in a Mexican election. A Frouyam's council, an ACLU
attorney named Edward j Ennis, gave the opening argument, May it.
Speaker 10 (23:19):
Please the Court, this case is here on a rit
of sacher Era to the United States Court of Appeals
to the Second Circuit, which unanimously affirmed a summary judgment
of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, holding that the petitioner had expatriated himself
pursuing to the authority of four oh one of the
(23:39):
Nationality Act of nineteen forty by the act of voting
in an election in the State of Israel in nineteen
fifty one, or the legislature of the State of Israel.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
A Frouyam's council argued that at the time as client
voted in Israel's nineteen fifty one general election, the country
hadn't even yet established citizenship.
Speaker 10 (24:01):
Indeed, it was that legislature which year later adopted the
first Israeli Law of Nationality and established Israeli nationality.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
When A. Froyam was told he'd lost his US citizenship,
he appealed the decision.
Speaker 10 (24:14):
The District Court stated that it was bound by the
decision of this court. In the Perez case in nineteen
fifty eight and held that he had lost his citizenship.
As indeed, when he applied for a United States passport
in nineteen sixty to return to the United States, the
consul in the Israel so determined and the State Department
(24:35):
approved that loss of citizenship. And when he did return,
he obtained a full hearing which is part of the
record before the Passport Review Board, which affirmed this loss
of nationality, and then he brought this action. A.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Frouyam's argument was simple, Congress has.
Speaker 10 (24:51):
No authority under the Constitution to remove the United States citizenship,
that this can only be done by the voluntary act
of the United States citizen. All what the power of
Congress is is to regulate the manner in which this
voluntary expatriation shall be expressed. A.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
Frum's council argued that US citizenship could only be voluntarily relinquished.
In his view, voting in a foreign election was not
enough of a voluntary act to take away the constitutional
right of citizenship.
Speaker 10 (25:25):
Obviously, a man cannot put a note of expatriation in
his desk floor and take it out what he wants to.
Speaker 11 (25:31):
Congress can say that.
Speaker 10 (25:32):
If you wish to have due allegiance to the United States.
Speaker 11 (25:35):
If you're abroad, you must do it before a consul.
Speaker 10 (25:38):
If you're in the United States, you must do it
on the forum supplied by the Attorney General of the
United States. The limit of Congress's palm is to regulate
voluntary conduct, or conduct which in most instances.
Speaker 11 (25:52):
Or in common experience, is voluntary.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
But if Fruam's Council did concede that if a US
citizen did in fact naturalize in a foreign country, effectively
becoming a dual set citizen, Congress would have the constitutional
powers to expatriate the US citizen for that voluntary act.
A Supreme Court judge pulled this response from a Frum's lawyer.
Speaker 12 (26:13):
You go so far as to say that there are
just no behavior by the citizen which Congress may recognize
as a in effect and expect.
Speaker 11 (26:22):
Not at all. I believe that.
Speaker 10 (26:24):
I believe that it's plain that a naturalization in a
foreign state is why the clearest indication, I may be
a clear indication.
Speaker 12 (26:33):
That what if a citizen says, no, Look, I don't
intend to lose my United States citizenship at all. I'm
becoming a citizen another country. But there are a lot
of brutal citizenships in the world. So why should you
take this to be an expect creation. I say, I'm
a skill a citizen of How come Congress can recognize
that as them?
Speaker 10 (26:53):
Well, my personally believe that Congress may take conduct which
normally cannots a putting off of or United States allegiance
and taking on of a foreign allegiance, and may nominate
that mate as a control of a voluntary conduct.
Speaker 11 (27:10):
May say that that is expay creation. Well what about
the voting? What about voting? That's what I want to
come to.
Speaker 12 (27:16):
Congress says, voting shall result my exacreation. The person knows
that and goes and votes that voluntary.
Speaker 10 (27:22):
But the trouble with that is your honor, is that
voting as a factual matter does not indicate a It
may be voluntary conduct, but it is not voluntary conduct
that indicates a lack of allegiance to the United States
or the adherence to a foreign state.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
A Fruyam's council didn't believe that his client's voting in
one election was enough for his client to lose his
US citizenship, But the problem was that a Frouyam's lawyer
was leading out some very important information. You see. In
nineteen fifty two, Israel established the criteria for citizenship in
(27:55):
their country, and it included provisions that automatically granted Israeli
citizenship to Jews living in Israel unless they explicitly declined
it in writing. While living in Israel, Afroyam never declined
Israeli citizenship and why would he have? It was his home.
After he voted in Israel's nineteen fifty one election, Afroyam
(28:16):
then went on to vote in two more Israeli general
elections in nineteen fifty five and nineteen fifty nine. Base
of Froyam was living life as in Israeli. His allegiance
was with Israel, not America. But now he was asking
the US Supreme Court to declare him a US citizen.
A lawyer for the US government, Charles Gordon, made the
(28:40):
argument that this case was over more than just one
vote in a foreign election.
Speaker 13 (28:48):
The facts to some extent were recited by Petitioners Council,
but there are a few more that I'd like to
call court attention. Petetioner was born in Poland about eighteen
ninety three.
Speaker 11 (29:00):
He came to the United.
Speaker 13 (29:01):
States in nineteen twelve at the age of nineteen. He
was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in
nineteen twenty six, when he was thirty three years old.
In nineteen forty nine, he left the United States with
an American passport. He then went to Israel in nineteen
fifty and remained there for fourteen years. Now by his stipulation,
(29:24):
petitioner concedes that he voluntarily voted in the election in
nineteen fifty one in Israel for the second Kanesset, or Parliament.
It appears also from his Israeli identification booklet, which Gironis
will find at pages one to two of the record,
that he voted additionally in two other elections nineteen fifty
(29:47):
five and nineteen fifty nine for the third and fourth message.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
And this is where the bias of the court began
to rear its head. Nearly ten years earlier, the Supreme
Court decided six to three that Congress had the constitutional
authority to strip Clement Martinez Perez of his US citizenship
for voting in a Mexican general election. Dual citizenship brought
(30:14):
serious peril to the United States. The country had been
dragged into conflicts and war over the issue. The White
House had even been burnt to the ground over a
dual citizenship disagreement. The Supreme Court justices in nineteen fifty
eight understood the history behind the issue and decided accordingly.
But in the years it followed the Perez's decision, the
(30:35):
makeup of the Court changed significantly, most notably the leading
conservative voice who wrote the Perez's majority decision. Just as
Frankfurter retired in nineteen sixty two, LBJ eventually appointed Abe
fortas the son of Orthodox Jewish parents, to take Frankfurter's
(30:58):
former seat on the Court. So unlike the Perez case,
where the Court can considered all the pertinent information, this
new court and the Affrouam case looked to limit the
information under review to just his vote in the nineteen
fifty one Israeli election. And there was a reason for
that because in that election, Israeli citizenship had not yet
(31:21):
been established. If a Freyam's other two votes were included
in the Court's review of the case, things would get
a little messier if they wanted to overturn the Perez case,
because in those other elections, a Freuam was voting in
a foreign election as a foreign citizen. So the justices
began attacking US Justice Department Attorney Charles Gordon.
Speaker 14 (31:42):
This case, however, was not decided at all upon his
voting in those two later.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Elections, was it.
Speaker 11 (31:48):
I'm not sure this was the stipulation.
Speaker 15 (31:50):
I thought on a stipulation of time.
Speaker 10 (31:52):
No.
Speaker 13 (31:52):
The other the State Department record and this booklet, which
is a pages one and two were before the District
Court and the Court of Appeals, and they did refer
to the facts which appear in the State Department record.
So the court's work considering that too. And I don't
think this court is limited to determining only on the
nineteen fifty one election.
Speaker 11 (32:13):
He voted in three national elections and toward.
Speaker 14 (32:16):
Them, I understand in the first of those elections under
the law of Israel, and it was necessarily only to
be a residence because indeed there was no such a
true Israel nationality.
Speaker 11 (32:27):
True. But in the second two.
Speaker 14 (32:29):
Elections, in which you say it's shown that he voted,
there was Israel na such a thing as Israel.
Speaker 11 (32:34):
National and only Israel Israeli Israelis could voted, could vote.
Speaker 10 (32:38):
Is that correct?
Speaker 11 (32:39):
And he did?
Speaker 16 (32:39):
Votes may be important to know on what basis this
case was decided. I'd understood that it was decided on
the stipulation of facts, which indicates which includes only the
first of those three votes.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
When the US government first decided to revoke a Frouam citizenship,
it was aware that he'd voted in three separate Israeli
general elections. That voting in the first election was enough
to decide in favor of revoking his citizenship, so the
decision only referenced his first vote. The problem was that
during that first vote, Israel hadn't yet established citizenship. It
(33:17):
appeared the court wanted to overturn the Perez case, so
it pushed to limit the case to the first vote.
The justices even accused the government's lawyer of playing dirty.
Speaker 12 (33:27):
You say, in the last two elections in which he voted,
it was necessary to be a national.
Speaker 6 (33:33):
Of Israel, That is true.
Speaker 9 (33:34):
Selection Are you trying to go muddy into the water
so that we can decided on that simple issue that
was in the complaint only, and that concerning which you
had a stipulation between the parties on which the case
was to be tried, Well, you.
Speaker 13 (33:49):
Know, I might try to mother these rewards I'm trying
to give the entire record as it was considered by
the District Court, and only part of it appears in
the stipulation.
Speaker 11 (33:59):
This is only one part of it, But nobody knew
about it until you discovered.
Speaker 9 (34:03):
It in preparing for your art.
Speaker 11 (34:05):
No, Roonda, that is not so.
Speaker 13 (34:07):
The District Court and the Court of Appeals knew about him.
It was before them. No, this wasn't hidden from anybody.
The only regret I have is that they weren't printing
the record because they were before the court below. This
is not something I dreamed up. It was considered fully
in the court below. Mister Justice White, I believe that
an issue of this important is very desirable to get.
Speaker 11 (34:27):
The record as full as possible.
Speaker 13 (34:29):
And I think that if the record were as full
as it can be, it would indicate that petitioner has
demonstrated his diminution of allegiance to the United States, has
indicated that he regarded himself as a citizens of Israel. Indeed,
he did not apply for an American passport for ten
years and did apply for an Israeli passport and obtainted.
(34:51):
Insofar as voting is concerned, the decisions of this Court
have indicated that in order to sustain the statute, there
must be some indication of diminished allegiance.
Speaker 11 (35:03):
And my view is that the act.
Speaker 13 (35:06):
Of voting in itself indicates such a diminution. But if
it becomes important in the context of this case, I
think the facts here, if fully developed, would demonstrate that
the allegiance of the petitioner here is primarily to Israel.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
Charles Gordon argued that Congress clearly had the constitutional right
to determine acts that constituted expatriation. Congress established that voting
in a foreign election was an act that shifted a
person's allegiance to the foreign power, and that is why
it revoked a froyam's citizenship.
Speaker 13 (35:38):
My own view is that the statute is constitutional in
a reasonable determination by Congress that there is potential danger
to the foreign relations of the United States if the
United States citizen votes in the political election of foreign country,
and if he thereby indicates his diminished allegiance to the
(35:59):
United States. My view is that the Press case is
still the law, that this cord is not modified, that
it is sound, and that on the basis of the
Perez case, the mere fact that there was voting in
a foreign political election. Voluntary voting is enough to cause expatriation.
The indication that petitioner intended to become a citizen of
(36:20):
Israel a re peats. In nineteen fifty he went to Israel.
He lived there for fourteen years.
Speaker 11 (36:29):
He did not apply for a renewal of his American passport,
which expired nineteen fifty.
Speaker 13 (36:37):
He did not apply for renewal for ten years. He
did not register with an American embassy or consulate. He
did obtain this Israeli identification.
Speaker 11 (36:48):
Booklet in nineteen fifty one.
Speaker 13 (36:50):
In nineteen fifty two, after the new nationality law became effective,
he did obtain an Israeli passport.
Speaker 11 (36:58):
He voted in three national elections.
Speaker 13 (37:01):
Of course, he didn't ask to retain his American citizenship
when the new Israelian nationality law went into effect. It
it seems to me that under those circumstances, petitioner has
indicated that his primary allegiance is to Israel and not
to the United States.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
Beazer Froyam voluntarily removed himself from the jurisdiction of the
United States. That alone defied the citizenship clause of the
US Constitution. But a Frouyam's attorney apparently understood that the
Court was looking to overturn Perez, so in his rebuttal,
he focused in on limiting the case to A. Frouyum's
participation in Israel's nineteen fifty one election.
Speaker 10 (37:42):
There's a precise issue, did you lose your nationality when
you voted in the one election in nineteen fifty one
on November fourteen, sixty the American consul and hyper rule
that he had lost his letix patriated himself on July thirtieth,
nineteen fifty one, by voting in a political election in
a foreign state. That's all that was in the case.
(38:05):
Was well of that vote lost his nationalists. There's nothing
else in the case, and this record is entirely complete
for this court to decide whether Perez is a law
of the United States.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
In the end, the Supreme Court agreed with a. Frouyam's
lawyer they would decide the case not on the Israeli
elections of Frouam participated in when he was considered a
citizen of Israel. Instead, they decided it based on the
first nineteen fifty one vote, when Israel had yet to
establish citizenship in the country. In a razor thin five
(38:41):
to four vote, the Supreme Court decided in favor of
a Frouyum. It was an earth shattering decision. For much
of US history, acting as a dual citizen was grounds
for losing American citizenship. The draft history of the first
U s citizenship clause required exclusive allegiance to the United States,
(39:02):
and when one becomes naturalized, they renounce allegiance to all
foreign powers and make an exclusive allegiance to America. So
when a US citizen acted as a foreign national, it
put the person's US citizenship in jeopardy. That was the
case throughout America's history, but with their Affroyium decision, the
Supreme Court ruled that, regardless of a person's voluntary actions,
(39:24):
US citizenship is a constitutional right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
It signaled that most grounds for involuntary loss of citizenship
would not survive Supreme Court scrutiny. In nineteen seventy six,
the US Department of State underscored the impact of the
Afroyum decision. It announced that the only way that a
US citizen could lose their US citizenship was by explicitly
(39:47):
and officially renouncing it. An American citizen could now swear
an allegiance to a foreign power, become a citizen of
a foreign state, or even serve in a foreign military,
all without losing their US citizenship. Dual citizenship may not
have been official recognized by the US government, but it
was effectively legal. A transnational America finally became a reality.
(40:10):
The fabric of America was torn, and by the nineteen eighties,
American citizenship would face its biggest attack yet.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Coming up on Red Pilled America.
Speaker 15 (40:20):
Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts
to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve
the value of one of the most sacred possessions of
our people, American citizenship.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
Red Pilled America's and iHeartRadio original podcast. It's owned and
produced by Patrick CARELCI and me Adriana Cortez for Informed Ventures.
Now you can get ad free access to our entire
catalog of episodes by becoming a backstage subscriber. To subscribe,
just visit Redpilled America dot com and click join in
the top menu. Thanks for listening.
This is Red Pilled America.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Why haven't you followed us on Twitter yet? Or Instagram
and Facebook. Following us on social media is the easiest
way to support the show, and it's free. Just visit
Redpilled America dot com, click on the social media icons
at the bottom of the page, then give us a follow,
and don't forget to visit our store by clicking shop
at the top of Redpilled America dot com. We have hats, candles,
(00:29):
beer mugs, t shirts, a book, keychains, and a bunch
of other things. You can even buy gift certificates for
your friends and family.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
And if you want to listen to Red Pilled America's
newest episodes ad free, become a backstage subscriber. You'll get
access to our entire r type of episodes and our members'
only podcast. Just visit Redpilled America dot com and click
join in the topmenu. That's Redpilled America dot com and
click join in the topmenu. Now on with the show.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Previously on Red Pilled.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
America, Clement Martinez Perez walked into an immigration office in
San Francisco and turned himself in after living for over
thirty years in Mexico. Clement Martinez Perez claimed to be
a US citizen. There was no question about it. His
allegiance was with Mexico, not America. Progressive writer Randolph Bourne penned,
(01:24):
transnational America.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
We find that we have all unawares, been building up
the first international nation. In this effort, we may have
to accept some form of that dual citizenship which meets
with so much articulate horror among us.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
In a six to three decision, a Supreme Court found
that by voting in a foreign election, it was constitutional
for Congress to revoke the US citizenship of Clement Martinez Perez.
I'm Patrick Carrelci.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And I'm Adriana Cortes.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
And this is Red Pilled America, a storytelling show.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
This is not another talk show covering the day's news.
We're all about telling stories.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Stories. Hollywood doesn't want you to hear stories.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
The media mocks stories about everyday Americans at the globalist ignore.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
You can think of Red Pilled America as audio documentaries,
and we promise only one thing, the truth. Welcome to
Red Pilled America. It was July thirtieth, nineteen fifty one,
(02:38):
when a Polish born artist walked into a booth in
Israel and voted in the new country's second national election.
As far as America was concerned, it seemed like an
inconsequential act. I mean, Israel was six thousand miles away
from the capital of the United States. The vote was
just one of approximately eight hundred thousand ballots cast that day,
(03:00):
but that one artist's vote would send a shot wave
to the United States that would be felt for decades
to come because it changed the face of America. We're
at part seven of our series of episodes entitled What's
an American. We're looking for the answer to that question
by taking a deep dive into the meaning of American citizenship.
So to pick up where we left off in our
(03:22):
last episode, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy unleashed
a movement in America that was percolating below the surface,
a radical Marxist movement that viewed the United States as
an evil oppressor that needed to be destroyed. At the
time of JFK's death, America was a superpower that no one,
(03:43):
not even the Soviet Union, could defeat militarily. The only
way Marxists could destroy the United States was from within.
But that seemed impossible as well. By nineteen sixty five,
the United States was in its golden age of capitalism.
Americans were prospering at a level unseen before in human history,
so economics weren't driving a class conflict. The country had
(04:07):
also effectively paused immigration for forty years. As a result,
the United States had an overwhelmingly pro American populace that
was assimilated. A whopping ninety five percent of American citizens
were born in the United States. If the Marxists were
going to destroy America from within, they would need to
draft reinforcements.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
That's when the anti American forces came up with a solution,
and they used President Lyndon B. Johnson as a vehicle.
They devised a mechanism that would change the fabric of
the nation.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
This bill that we will sign today is not a
revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions.
It will not reshape the structure of our daily life.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
LBJ told one of the biggest presidential lies in US history.
At the time time he uttered those words, the United
States had a population of about one hundred and ninety
five million, roughly eighty five percent were white. However, nearly
sixty years later, in twenty twenty four, the percentage of
whites in America plummeted to roughly fifty eight percent. During
(05:20):
that same time period, Hispanics grew nearly fivefold, from just
four percent of the population to almost twenty percent. Asians
grew twentyfold from point three percent to six percent of
the population. The bill LBJ was about to sign into
law would go on to change the fabric of America.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
For over four decades, the immigration policy of the United
States has been twisted by the harsh injustice of the
national origin's quota system. Under that system, the ability of
new immigrants to come to America depended upon the country
of their birth. Only three countries were allowed to supply
(06:03):
seventy percent of all the emigrants. Today, with my signature,
this system is abolish.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
The passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of nineteen
sixty five provided a mechanism for the anti American forces
to draft reinforcements from abroad. Around the time of its passage,
a ringleader of these forces began stepping on to the
international stage, looking to start a Marxist revolution in America.
Speaker 5 (06:33):
It's my great honor today to introduce to you one
of the greatest thinkers of our age, but Marcuza.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Licorice. Licorice, Where art thou licorice? If you listen to
Red Pilled America, you know that I love licorice. And
there is no licorice in America better than the delicious,
gourmet licorice made by the Licorice Guy. The Licorice Guy
is simply the best. What sets their licorice apart is
its flavor and freshness. They have a great selection of
(07:07):
flavors to choose from, like red, blue, raspberry, black, and
green apple, just to name a few. The freshness of
the Licorice Guy is unlike anything you've ever tasted in
licorice before. Seriously, if you haven't tried licorice from the
Licorice Guy yet, then you ain't living life right. Trust me,
you will not regret it. It's time to dump that
store bought liquorice but so hard it'll break your teeth,
(07:28):
and get yourself the soft, fresh stuff from the Licorice Guy.
What I also love about the Liquorice Guy is that
it's an American family owned business. It's made right here
in the beautiful Us of a We are big proponents
of buying American and supporting American workers. Right now, red
Pilled America listeners get fifteen percent off when they enter
(07:49):
RPA fifteen at checkout. Visit licoriceguy dot com and enter
RPA fifteen at checkout. That's licoriceguy dot com. A ship daily,
treat yourself and those you love, and taste the difference.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Welcome back to Redfield America. Herbert Marcusa was a radical
German born American Marxist who would become one of the
leading architects of a cancer in American culture. Wokeness, and
Marcusa played a critical role in redefining what it meant
to be American. Born in Berlin, Germany, in eighteen ninety eight,
(08:28):
Marcusa grew up in an upper middle class Jewish family.
The German Empire he was born in was a constitutional
monarchy under the control of Kaiser Wilhelm the Third. In
the early nineteen hundreds, the German Empire was one of
the strongest and most rapidly industrializing economies in the world,
second only to the United States in its industrial output. However,
(08:52):
the situation changed dramatically with the outbreak of World War One.
In nineteen fourteen. By the end of the decade, Germany's
economy collapsed. As a result, the country was vulnerable to
the growing socialist sentiments spreading throughout Europe. When a wave
of unrest swept through the continent, a Marxist revolution didn't
take hold in Germany, a fact that profoundly confused Herbert MARKUSA.
(09:17):
In nineteen seventeen, Vladimir Lenin led the Bolsheviks overthrow of
the Russian monarchy. They executed Russian Czar Nicholas the Second
and his entire immediate family. The revolt would come to
be known as the Russian Revolution of nineteen seventeen, and
Lenin's victory ultimately led to the first marxistate, the Soviet Union.
(09:38):
This Russian Revolution inspired others in Europe, but unlike in Russia,
they were short lived. In nineteen eighteen, a socialist revolt
led to a civil war in Finland, but it quickly failed.
In nineteen nineteen, a communist revolt in Hungary led to
the Hungarian Soviet Republic, but it too collapsed in just
one hundred and thirty three days. The same year, socialist
(10:01):
unrest spread through out Italy, but no lasting Marxist movement prevailed.
Inspired by the Russians, German Marxists also hoped to spark
a German Bolshevik style revolution of their own. They briefly
set up a Marxist state in Germany, but were quickly crushed.
German Marxist intellectuals witnessed these unsuccessful communist revolutions and were
(10:24):
deeply troubled by their failure because it meant their profit
was wrong. Car Marx predicted that the working class proletariat
would inevitably overthrow the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production.
In his eighteen forty eight book The Communist Manifesto, Marx.
Speaker 6 (10:40):
Wrote, what the bourgeoisie, therefore producers above all, are its
own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the
proletariats are equally inevitable.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Marx believed that history was driven by a class struggle
between the haves and the have nots. Under capitalism, Marx
thought this struggle would intensify as wealth and power became
increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually, Marx argued,
the working class would realize their exploitation and unite, leading
(11:12):
to a revolution overthrow of the capitalist system and ultimately
a classless communist society. Horror. Marx made this prediction in
his books The Communist Manifesto and Tascapital, and his disciples
came to see it as an inevitability. He did not
predict the exact timeline, but he assumed the revolution would
start in advanced industrial nations. But that turned out to
(11:35):
be wrong. It began in Russia and failed in places
like Finland and Germany. This deeply troubled German Marxist like
Max Horkheimer, Theodora Dorno, and Eric Frum. They became consumed
with understanding why and so in nineteen twenty two they
(11:58):
founded the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, to
study why Marxist prediction failed. A young Herbert marcusa, a
Marxist at Hart, also became consumed with this question. He
was eventually offered a job at the institute. However, due
to the rise of Nazism, the institute and its team
had to evacuate from Germany. Because you see, all these
(12:21):
Marxist intellectuals were Jewish. They anticipated Adolf Hitler's takeover, so
in nineteen thirty three they relocated to Geneva, Switzerland. Marcusa,
also a Jew, followed, becoming a junior colleague of the
institute's founders, but their stay there was short lived. A
year later, the Marxist refugees turned their eyes to America's shores.
(12:44):
A member of the institute convinced Columbia University in New
York to give them refuge Horkheimer moved their operation to Columbia,
and in America, the institute came to be known as
the Frankfurt School. Marcusa and other exiled colleagues followed, and
they would go on to develop Critical Thing, the intellectual
underpinnings for the ideology known today as Woke. America provided
(13:09):
these Marxist intellectuals a safe haven from Nazi persecution, and
they returned the favor by working for decades to ignite
a Marxist revolution on American soil.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
In the United States, MARCUSO would ultimately become the standout
amongst the Frankfurt School intellectuals. He believed capitalism was the
king of oppressors that controlled people, with consumerism making man
a one dimensional creature, unaware that he is the victim
of a domination system. Through Marcusa's lens. This machine of
domination no longer required blunt force or even the presence
(13:44):
of an authoritarian figure. Capitalism simply stripped man of critical
two dimensional consciousness by providing man just enough goods to
pacify him while convincing him through various forms of mass
media that he is freer than he actually is. Through
this process of domination, the end individual has no idea
(14:04):
how bad they have it. To overcome this victimhood, Marcusa
argued that one must have an awakening to this system
of domination. In other words, they must go woke. America
stood at the pinnacle of this oppressive system. The United
States was economically dominating the world. It was in its
golden age of capitalism. In Marcusa's eyes, America represented the
(14:27):
mothership of capitalism's evil domination. To destroy this capitalist system
and replace it with a classless, communist structure, America had
to be toppled. Marcusa conceded that this would be a
herculean feet, but he believed a Marxist revolution could occur
in America by cobbling together disgruntled racial minorities, feminists, disgruntled
(14:49):
sexual minorities, the outcasts of society that refused to assimilate
to the country's Anglo Saxon norms. By bringing these disgruntled
Americans together with an enlightened intelligentsia, and even increasing their numbers,
they could overthrow a Maria and end the capitalist domination.
By the early nineteen sixties, Herbert Marcus's anti capitalist writings
(15:09):
became the intellectual underpinnings for Marxist radicals on college campuses
across America. His words helped give rise to the so
called free speech movement at UC Berkeley, a Marxist movement
that looked to make universities the hubs of their revolution.
But perhaps most importantly, he helped American Marxists realized they
needed to bring in outsiders to increase their numbers. With
(15:32):
the passage of radical legislation like the Immigration and Nationality
Act of nineteen sixty five, this anti American movement had
a mechanism to multiply their forces. By nineteen sixty seven,
Herbert marcusa who had worked largely in obscurity on college campuses,
stepped out from the shadows of academic circles onto the
international stage.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
It's my great honor today to introduce to you one
of the greatest thinkers of our age, Herbert Marcusa, armed with.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Three decades of research on how socialism could take root
in America, Arcusa looked to reignite the failed Marxist revolutions
of Germany at this time in the West.
Speaker 7 (16:09):
The ferment is there, the ground can and must be prepared.
The mutilated consciousness and the mutilated instincts must be broken,
and the sensitivity and the awareness of the new, transcending
(16:32):
antagonistic values. They are there, and they are there precisely
among the non integrated, the still non integrated social groups,
and among those who, by virtue of their privileged position,
can pierce the ideological and material weil of mass communication
(16:59):
and indoctrination, namely.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
The Marcusa argued that nationalistic patriotism was a Western mechanism
of social control. He believed true human freedom would require
breaking free from nationalistic and capitalist systems. Marcusa encouraged cross
border solidarity with anti colonial and revolutionary movements. College social
(17:24):
study professors indoctrinated a generation of leftist students with Marcusa's ideas.
As a result, Marcusa created the intellectual atmosphere for a
transnational America to finally become a reality where America's citizens
had a stronger allegiance with their ancestral lands than with
the United States. This was a necessary condition for America
(17:45):
to fall. But one final barrier needed to be overtaken.
Dual citizenship needed to be made legal.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Do you want to hear red pilled America stories ad free?
Then become a backstage subscriber. Just log onto Redpilled America
dot com and click join in the top menu. Join
today and help us save America one story at a time.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Welcome back to red Pilled America. So by the mid
nineteen sixties, anti American forces were on the march. Herbert
MARCUSA gave them the Marxist ideology to rally around. LBJ
gave them the mechanism to draft reinforcements from abroad. But
one final barrier needed to be overtaken for a transnational
America to become a reality. Dual citizenship needed to be
(18:32):
made legal. Enter Bay's Afrouyam. Born in eighteen ninety three
in what was then Russian occupied Poland, Afrouyum came of
age in a region simmering with revolutionary thought. As Marxist
ideas spread across the Empire, Poland's industrial towns and rural
villages witnessed labour strikes, peasant unrest, and the early rumblings
(18:53):
of communist agitation. These movements, while not yet dominant in
everyday life, planted seeds of radical politics and many who
would later seek change, including Afroyum himself. By the time
he immigrated to the United States in nineteen twelve, the
Russian Empire was on the verge of collapse and Marxist
agitation was in full swing. While we can't say with
(19:14):
certainty what Afrouum believed when he first boarded a ship
for the United States, we can say this and the
Americans feared that immigrants from Eastern Europe were bringing radical
beliefs with them. This fear was expressed by Founding father
Thomas Jefferson at the Birth of America.
Speaker 8 (19:31):
They will bring with them the principles of the governments
they leave imbibed in their early youth.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
In the case of Afroyum, that fear was warranted because
he would become a card carrying communist. Like many Jewish
immigrants of the time, Afroyum settled in Manhattan. It was
there in the bustling artistic enclaves of New York City,
that he would eventually build a life as an artist
and teacher. Fourteen years after immigrating to America, Afroyum naturalized
(19:58):
as a US citizen. In nineteen twenty six, he stepped
before a federal d judge and swore an oath.
Speaker 8 (20:04):
I hereby declare on oath, that I absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state,
or sovereignty, and particularly to the Soviet Union. That I
will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the
United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
(20:25):
And that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
So help me God. But the oath was likely more
performance than promise, because it wasn't long after making it
that Afroyum would take up an ideology it was at
complete odds with the US Constitution. In the following decades,
Afroyum immersed himself in the radical art and political circles
of New York. He founded an experimental art school, collaborating
(20:55):
with leftist intellectuals and eventually joined the Communist Party USA,
and as the United States entered the Cold War, it
became clear that the American government no longer viewed radical
affiliations as abstract concerns. They were threats. By nineteen forty eight,
basing the growing pressure of anti communist sentiment, Afroyum fled
(21:15):
to Cuba, but the stay was brief. After Israel passed
the Law of Return in nineteen fifty, granting every Jew
anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to Israel,
Afroyum relocated to the newly formed state. In nineteen fifty one.
Afroyum voted in the Kanesset election, or Israel's general elections.
(21:37):
This was no small act because under US law at
the time, even a single act of voting in a
foreign political election was considered grounds for automatic expatriation, and
in the case of Bayes Afroyum, it made sense. He
did not have an allegiance to the United States. It
wasn't his country of birth, he had no ancestral ties
(21:57):
to the land. He fled America because of his communist beliefs,
beliefs that were at direct odds to the United States Constitution.
He even voted for the legislature that would go on
to define Israeli citizenship. By nineteen fifty two, Baseer Froyam
was officially an Israeli citizen participating in the political life
of Israel. But in nineteen sixty Afroyam attempted to renew
(22:20):
his US passport, he was denied. A year later, the
US government sent him a letter informing him that he
had been stripped of his status as an American citizen
for voting in a foreign election. In nineteen sixty seven,
Afrouyum decided to sue the US government, and the case
made its way to the Supreme.
Speaker 9 (22:38):
Court Number four fifty six, Afroyum petitioner versus Dan Rusk,
the Secretary of Segnatary.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
The central question of the case was simple, does Congress
have the constitutional authority to strip a person of U
s citizenship because of certain actions? Or does the Fourteenth
Amendment forbid involuntary expatriation. In essence, Afroyam was asking the
Supreme Court to overturn their nineteen fifty eight Clement Martinez
Perez's decision, where Perez was stripped of a citizenship for
(23:10):
voting in a Mexican election. A Frouyam's council, an ACLU
attorney named Edward j Ennis, gave the opening argument, May it.
Speaker 10 (23:19):
Please the Court, this case is here on a rit
of sacher Era to the United States Court of Appeals
to the Second Circuit, which unanimously affirmed a summary judgment
of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, holding that the petitioner had expatriated himself
pursuing to the authority of four oh one of the
(23:39):
Nationality Act of nineteen forty by the act of voting
in an election in the State of Israel in nineteen
fifty one, or the legislature of the State of Israel.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
A Frouyam's council argued that at the time as client
voted in Israel's nineteen fifty one general election, the country
hadn't even yet established citizenship.
Speaker 10 (24:01):
Indeed, it was that legislature which year later adopted the
first Israeli Law of Nationality and established Israeli nationality.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
When A. Froyam was told he'd lost his US citizenship,
he appealed the decision.
Speaker 10 (24:14):
The District Court stated that it was bound by the
decision of this court. In the Perez case in nineteen
fifty eight and held that he had lost his citizenship.
As indeed, when he applied for a United States passport
in nineteen sixty to return to the United States, the
consul in the Israel so determined and the State Department
(24:35):
approved that loss of citizenship. And when he did return,
he obtained a full hearing which is part of the
record before the Passport Review Board, which affirmed this loss
of nationality, and then he brought this action. A.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Frouyam's argument was simple, Congress has.
Speaker 10 (24:51):
No authority under the Constitution to remove the United States citizenship,
that this can only be done by the voluntary act
of the United States citizen. All what the power of
Congress is is to regulate the manner in which this
voluntary expatriation shall be expressed. A.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
Frum's council argued that US citizenship could only be voluntarily relinquished.
In his view, voting in a foreign election was not
enough of a voluntary act to take away the constitutional
right of citizenship.
Speaker 10 (25:25):
Obviously, a man cannot put a note of expatriation in
his desk floor and take it out what he wants to.
Speaker 11 (25:31):
Congress can say that.
Speaker 10 (25:32):
If you wish to have due allegiance to the United States.
Speaker 11 (25:35):
If you're abroad, you must do it before a consul.
Speaker 10 (25:38):
If you're in the United States, you must do it
on the forum supplied by the Attorney General of the
United States. The limit of Congress's palm is to regulate
voluntary conduct, or conduct which in most instances.
Speaker 11 (25:52):
Or in common experience, is voluntary.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
But if Fruam's Council did concede that if a US
citizen did in fact naturalize in a foreign country, effectively
becoming a dual set citizen, Congress would have the constitutional
powers to expatriate the US citizen for that voluntary act.
A Supreme Court judge pulled this response from a Frum's lawyer.
Speaker 12 (26:13):
You go so far as to say that there are
just no behavior by the citizen which Congress may recognize
as a in effect and expect.
Speaker 11 (26:22):
Not at all. I believe that.
Speaker 10 (26:24):
I believe that it's plain that a naturalization in a
foreign state is why the clearest indication, I may be
a clear indication.
Speaker 12 (26:33):
That what if a citizen says, no, Look, I don't
intend to lose my United States citizenship at all. I'm
becoming a citizen another country. But there are a lot
of brutal citizenships in the world. So why should you
take this to be an expect creation. I say, I'm
a skill a citizen of How come Congress can recognize
that as them?
Speaker 10 (26:53):
Well, my personally believe that Congress may take conduct which
normally cannots a putting off of or United States allegiance
and taking on of a foreign allegiance, and may nominate
that mate as a control of a voluntary conduct.
Speaker 11 (27:10):
May say that that is expay creation. Well what about
the voting? What about voting? That's what I want to
come to.
Speaker 12 (27:16):
Congress says, voting shall result my exacreation. The person knows
that and goes and votes that voluntary.
Speaker 10 (27:22):
But the trouble with that is your honor, is that
voting as a factual matter does not indicate a It
may be voluntary conduct, but it is not voluntary conduct
that indicates a lack of allegiance to the United States
or the adherence to a foreign state.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
A Fruyam's council didn't believe that his client's voting in
one election was enough for his client to lose his
US citizenship, But the problem was that a Frouyam's lawyer
was leading out some very important information. You see. In
nineteen fifty two, Israel established the criteria for citizenship in
(27:55):
their country, and it included provisions that automatically granted Israeli
citizenship to Jews living in Israel unless they explicitly declined
it in writing. While living in Israel, Afroyam never declined
Israeli citizenship and why would he have? It was his home.
After he voted in Israel's nineteen fifty one election, Afroyam
(28:16):
then went on to vote in two more Israeli general
elections in nineteen fifty five and nineteen fifty nine. Base
of Froyam was living life as in Israeli. His allegiance
was with Israel, not America. But now he was asking
the US Supreme Court to declare him a US citizen.
A lawyer for the US government, Charles Gordon, made the
(28:40):
argument that this case was over more than just one
vote in a foreign election.
Speaker 13 (28:48):
The facts to some extent were recited by Petitioners Council,
but there are a few more that I'd like to
call court attention. Petetioner was born in Poland about eighteen
ninety three.
Speaker 11 (29:00):
He came to the United.
Speaker 13 (29:01):
States in nineteen twelve at the age of nineteen. He
was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in
nineteen twenty six, when he was thirty three years old.
In nineteen forty nine, he left the United States with
an American passport. He then went to Israel in nineteen
fifty and remained there for fourteen years. Now by his stipulation,
(29:24):
petitioner concedes that he voluntarily voted in the election in
nineteen fifty one in Israel for the second Kanesset, or Parliament.
It appears also from his Israeli identification booklet, which Gironis
will find at pages one to two of the record,
that he voted additionally in two other elections nineteen fifty
(29:47):
five and nineteen fifty nine for the third and fourth message.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
And this is where the bias of the court began
to rear its head. Nearly ten years earlier, the Supreme
Court decided six to three that Congress had the constitutional
authority to strip Clement Martinez Perez of his US citizenship
for voting in a Mexican general election. Dual citizenship brought
(30:14):
serious peril to the United States. The country had been
dragged into conflicts and war over the issue. The White
House had even been burnt to the ground over a
dual citizenship disagreement. The Supreme Court justices in nineteen fifty
eight understood the history behind the issue and decided accordingly.
But in the years it followed the Perez's decision, the
(30:35):
makeup of the Court changed significantly, most notably the leading
conservative voice who wrote the Perez's majority decision. Just as
Frankfurter retired in nineteen sixty two, LBJ eventually appointed Abe
fortas the son of Orthodox Jewish parents, to take Frankfurter's
(30:58):
former seat on the Court. So unlike the Perez case,
where the Court can considered all the pertinent information, this
new court and the Affrouam case looked to limit the
information under review to just his vote in the nineteen
fifty one Israeli election. And there was a reason for
that because in that election, Israeli citizenship had not yet
(31:21):
been established. If a Freyam's other two votes were included
in the Court's review of the case, things would get
a little messier if they wanted to overturn the Perez case,
because in those other elections, a Freuam was voting in
a foreign election as a foreign citizen. So the justices
began attacking US Justice Department Attorney Charles Gordon.
Speaker 14 (31:42):
This case, however, was not decided at all upon his
voting in those two later.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Elections, was it.
Speaker 11 (31:48):
I'm not sure this was the stipulation.
Speaker 15 (31:50):
I thought on a stipulation of time.
Speaker 10 (31:52):
No.
Speaker 13 (31:52):
The other the State Department record and this booklet, which
is a pages one and two were before the District
Court and the Court of Appeals, and they did refer
to the facts which appear in the State Department record.
So the court's work considering that too. And I don't
think this court is limited to determining only on the
nineteen fifty one election.
Speaker 11 (32:13):
He voted in three national elections and toward.
Speaker 14 (32:16):
Them, I understand in the first of those elections under
the law of Israel, and it was necessarily only to
be a residence because indeed there was no such a
true Israel nationality.
Speaker 11 (32:27):
True. But in the second two.
Speaker 14 (32:29):
Elections, in which you say it's shown that he voted,
there was Israel na such a thing as Israel.
Speaker 11 (32:34):
National and only Israel Israeli Israelis could voted, could vote.
Speaker 10 (32:38):
Is that correct?
Speaker 11 (32:39):
And he did?
Speaker 16 (32:39):
Votes may be important to know on what basis this
case was decided. I'd understood that it was decided on
the stipulation of facts, which indicates which includes only the
first of those three votes.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
When the US government first decided to revoke a Frouam citizenship,
it was aware that he'd voted in three separate Israeli
general elections. That voting in the first election was enough
to decide in favor of revoking his citizenship, so the
decision only referenced his first vote. The problem was that
during that first vote, Israel hadn't yet established citizenship. It
(33:17):
appeared the court wanted to overturn the Perez case, so
it pushed to limit the case to the first vote.
The justices even accused the government's lawyer of playing dirty.
Speaker 12 (33:27):
You say, in the last two elections in which he voted,
it was necessary to be a national.
Speaker 6 (33:33):
Of Israel, That is true.
Speaker 9 (33:34):
Selection Are you trying to go muddy into the water
so that we can decided on that simple issue that
was in the complaint only, and that concerning which you
had a stipulation between the parties on which the case
was to be tried, Well, you.
Speaker 13 (33:49):
Know, I might try to mother these rewards I'm trying
to give the entire record as it was considered by
the District Court, and only part of it appears in
the stipulation.
Speaker 11 (33:59):
This is only one part of it, But nobody knew
about it until you discovered.
Speaker 9 (34:03):
It in preparing for your art.
Speaker 11 (34:05):
No, Roonda, that is not so.
Speaker 13 (34:07):
The District Court and the Court of Appeals knew about him.
It was before them. No, this wasn't hidden from anybody.
The only regret I have is that they weren't printing
the record because they were before the court below. This
is not something I dreamed up. It was considered fully
in the court below. Mister Justice White, I believe that
an issue of this important is very desirable to get.
Speaker 11 (34:27):
The record as full as possible.
Speaker 13 (34:29):
And I think that if the record were as full
as it can be, it would indicate that petitioner has
demonstrated his diminution of allegiance to the United States, has
indicated that he regarded himself as a citizens of Israel. Indeed,
he did not apply for an American passport for ten
years and did apply for an Israeli passport and obtainted.
(34:51):
Insofar as voting is concerned, the decisions of this Court
have indicated that in order to sustain the statute, there
must be some indication of diminished allegiance.
Speaker 11 (35:03):
And my view is that the act.
Speaker 13 (35:06):
Of voting in itself indicates such a diminution. But if
it becomes important in the context of this case, I
think the facts here, if fully developed, would demonstrate that
the allegiance of the petitioner here is primarily to Israel.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
Charles Gordon argued that Congress clearly had the constitutional right
to determine acts that constituted expatriation. Congress established that voting
in a foreign election was an act that shifted a
person's allegiance to the foreign power, and that is why
it revoked a froyam's citizenship.
Speaker 13 (35:38):
My own view is that the statute is constitutional in
a reasonable determination by Congress that there is potential danger
to the foreign relations of the United States if the
United States citizen votes in the political election of foreign country,
and if he thereby indicates his diminished allegiance to the
(35:59):
United States. My view is that the Press case is
still the law, that this cord is not modified, that
it is sound, and that on the basis of the
Perez case, the mere fact that there was voting in
a foreign political election. Voluntary voting is enough to cause expatriation.
The indication that petitioner intended to become a citizen of
(36:20):
Israel a re peats. In nineteen fifty he went to Israel.
He lived there for fourteen years.
Speaker 11 (36:29):
He did not apply for a renewal of his American passport,
which expired nineteen fifty.
Speaker 13 (36:37):
He did not apply for renewal for ten years. He
did not register with an American embassy or consulate. He
did obtain this Israeli identification.
Speaker 11 (36:48):
Booklet in nineteen fifty one.
Speaker 13 (36:50):
In nineteen fifty two, after the new nationality law became effective,
he did obtain an Israeli passport.
Speaker 11 (36:58):
He voted in three national elections.
Speaker 13 (37:01):
Of course, he didn't ask to retain his American citizenship
when the new Israelian nationality law went into effect. It
it seems to me that under those circumstances, petitioner has
indicated that his primary allegiance is to Israel and not
to the United States.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
Beazer Froyam voluntarily removed himself from the jurisdiction of the
United States. That alone defied the citizenship clause of the
US Constitution. But a Frouyam's attorney apparently understood that the
Court was looking to overturn Perez, so in his rebuttal,
he focused in on limiting the case to A. Frouyum's
participation in Israel's nineteen fifty one election.
Speaker 10 (37:42):
There's a precise issue, did you lose your nationality when
you voted in the one election in nineteen fifty one
on November fourteen, sixty the American consul and hyper rule
that he had lost his letix patriated himself on July thirtieth,
nineteen fifty one, by voting in a political election in
a foreign state. That's all that was in the case.
(38:05):
Was well of that vote lost his nationalists. There's nothing
else in the case, and this record is entirely complete
for this court to decide whether Perez is a law
of the United States.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
In the end, the Supreme Court agreed with a. Frouyam's
lawyer they would decide the case not on the Israeli
elections of Frouam participated in when he was considered a
citizen of Israel. Instead, they decided it based on the
first nineteen fifty one vote, when Israel had yet to
establish citizenship in the country. In a razor thin five
(38:41):
to four vote, the Supreme Court decided in favor of
a Frouyum. It was an earth shattering decision. For much
of US history, acting as a dual citizen was grounds
for losing American citizenship. The draft history of the first
U s citizenship clause required exclusive allegiance to the United States,
(39:02):
and when one becomes naturalized, they renounce allegiance to all
foreign powers and make an exclusive allegiance to America. So
when a US citizen acted as a foreign national, it
put the person's US citizenship in jeopardy. That was the
case throughout America's history, but with their Affroyium decision, the
Supreme Court ruled that, regardless of a person's voluntary actions,
(39:24):
US citizenship is a constitutional right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
It signaled that most grounds for involuntary loss of citizenship
would not survive Supreme Court scrutiny. In nineteen seventy six,
the US Department of State underscored the impact of the
Afroyum decision. It announced that the only way that a
US citizen could lose their US citizenship was by explicitly
(39:47):
and officially renouncing it. An American citizen could now swear
an allegiance to a foreign power, become a citizen of
a foreign state, or even serve in a foreign military,
all without losing their US citizenship. Dual citizenship may not
have been official recognized by the US government, but it
was effectively legal. A transnational America finally became a reality.
(40:10):
The fabric of America was torn, and by the nineteen eighties,
American citizenship would face its biggest attack yet.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Coming up on Red Pilled America.
Speaker 15 (40:20):
Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts
to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve
the value of one of the most sacred possessions of
our people, American citizenship.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
Red Pilled America's and iHeartRadio original podcast. It's owned and
produced by Patrick CARELCI and me Adriana Cortez for Informed Ventures.
Now you can get ad free access to our entire
catalog of episodes by becoming a backstage subscriber. To subscribe,
just visit Redpilled America dot com and click join in
the top menu. Thanks for listening.
Hosts And Creators
Adryana Cortez
Patrick Courrielche
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!