Not just hilarious, but the story of human existence. To the victor goes the spoils. Before the Europeans arrived, the Native Americans fought among themselves and conquered land.Dem Election Deniers said:The notion that European immigrants had some right to grant or deny citizenship to the indigenous people of the land they were living on is ****ing hilarious.BearGoggles said:There was not much questionable about it. At the time of enactment, no one thought the 14th amendment granted citizenship or birthright citizenship to Native Americans. They were considered a separate sovereign - the US Constitution (Article I) refers to Indian tribes as sovereign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_Statessycasey said:Well again, American Indians were under a questionable legal status (reservations or not) as part of their own "sovereign nations" and also within the United States. Hence needing Congress to resolve it. I'm not sure of the history of American Samoa, but I suspect it's similar.wc22 said:American Indians not getting citizenship had nothing to do with reservations -- born on or outside of reservations their citizenship was uncertain and it could be determined by military commanders on a whim. An Act of Congress, which can't override the US Constitution, did grant them citizenship. This actually supports Trump's position, not yours: the US Government decides who is under its jurisdiction. You created a false circumstance, either intentionally or unintentionally, to try to hide this blatant contradiction in your logic.sycasey said:You have every opportunity to explain yourself here, bud.wc22 said:
Completely factually wrong, both of you. Really incredible how some people's brains "work".
American Samoans currently not getting birth citizenship does have to do with geography. But here, again, an act of Congress defined the terms. The US Government defined who was under its jurisdiction in relation to the 14th Ammendment.
The ahistorical rhetoric Dems use in this debate is offensive and frankly immoral. At this point it is clear that you are a bad actor, you don't care about what happened in the past to indgenous groups or what is currently happening, and only want to support a narrative you know is false. Have a nice day.
Again, to me that seems quite different from people born in US states now who are not members of indigenous tribes (and it also seems to me that this has been litigated quite extensively over the years and that birthright citizenship has been continually affirmed), but okay. Thanks for the accusations.
This was confirmed both in practice and by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases prior to the Civil War. For example, Worcester v. Georgia 1832).
Post civil war, the supreme court reaffirmed this in Elk vs. Wilkins (1884). That was eventually changed when Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Actin 1924 . There's a notable quote from the Elk case.
"But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law."
How might that apply to an illegal immigrant who crosses the border illegally and/or overstays their visa?
And in terms of 1776-1789 when the colonies became independent and the Constitution was adopted, the Native American had no desire to be citizens in the what became the USA.
