Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Harlan1196
No - Indians were never deemed to be Americans. They were to be members of sovereign Indian nations. Hence the requirement to be naturalized as American citizens.

Again, you aren't getting the point. The CHILDREN of Indians were not granted automatic 14th amendment citizenship. Yet the CHILDREN of other "Sovereign Nations" were granted citizenship.

If the rule is "birth on the soil" then why did it apply to the children of European Nations, but not to the children of Indian Nations?

Obviously "birth on the soil" was not the deciding factor. I bet you still do not "get it."

690 posted on 02/05/2012 7:01:26 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

It isn’t that they don’t “get it”.


693 posted on 02/05/2012 7:13:00 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
If the rule is "birth on the soil" then why did it apply to the children of European Nations, but not to the children of Indian Nations?

This is the one area that exposes a real weakness in Justice Gray's decision in Ark. Gray also wrote the decision in Elk v. Wilkins, and he had to fudge around his OWN precedent, which he did by saying:

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law) ...

So, all he does is say that the Indians have a "peculiar relation" to the National Government to avoid admitting that he did NOT apply to them his own so-called "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." The Indians were here BEFORE we had a "national government" ... did the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth OR the common law make them Natural-Born Subjects?? The answer to that question is obvious and it proves yet again that jus soli was not and could not have been the basis for the founders understanding of the term "natural-born citizens."

698 posted on 02/05/2012 8:01:50 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
This will explain it to you:

“Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins[21] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[4] Elk v. Wilkins established that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not automatically receive citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment if they voluntarily left their tribe.[22] Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Native Americans (called “Indians”) were subsequently made citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.”

Once again - the history of Indian citizenship is complicated with a lot of case law. You need to take the time to do some research.

706 posted on 02/06/2012 4:05:57 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson