For all the information in that article I am surprised they completely ignored the actual factual basis for their belief. The famous Dred Scott v. Sandford has never been actually overturned, the common legal view is that it was abrogated by the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment only applies to those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and as such a representative of a foreign entity nor their children would not qualify relevant USCIS guidelines for those children. Descendants of the Moors, a hard to define group dispersed worldwide, and Hawaiians, the Hawaiian Kingdom being overthrown by US mainland farmers on the island, could claim allegiance to their original sovereign. Technically this would mean that not only does the 14th amendment not apply but Dred Scott baring citizenship to non-whites would apply. It is a view many Jurists have actually expressed see dissent of UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK and would serve as basis for the more out there claims. In such a scenario a person becomes merely property and their only way to legally engage in living is to be a corporation (ala citizens united) that is auto-protected by a corporate veil (shielding liability). This stuff is definitely fringe but not crazy, I look at it as people confronting the system and demanding either America overturning many troubled past transgressions or give them the benefit of the disparate treatment. The surprised pikachu comes in when the Jurist decides to split the difference and deny both forms of relief.