re: A very good article on the true meaning of the 14th Amendment

This will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Since they overturned Roe v. Wade, I would not be surprised if they overturn the erroneous decision reached in 1898.

quote:

---

The Native Americans know from first hand experience that when a group of people come to your home land claiming to be friendly and carrying their flag and not wanting to learn the language of the land that they are really here to conquer the land when they get enough people to take over the Natives.

---

Absolutely this ….. I’m amazed at the number of folks that cannot recognize what has been happening

quote:

---

SFP in 3...2...1...

---

How he's not in here educating us already is amazing.

You should read the debates about the 14th Amendment rather than a discussion about the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 use different language.

The Senators debating the 14th Amendment debated two issues almost exclusively: (1) how should the Citizenship Clause deal with Indians, and (2) was it wise to give birthright citizenship to the children of people temporarily in the United States such as Chinese immigrants, Mongol immigrants, or Gypsies.

Indians were never included within the 14th Amendment. Indeed, during the Senate debate on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, Senator James Doolittle (WI) proposed an amendment to deal with Indians. Specifically, he proposed inserting the words "excluding Indians not taxed" after the word ''thereof":

quote:

---

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States.

---

The sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (MI), immediately torpedoed Senator Doolittle's suggestion:

quote:

---

I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.

---

Senator Lyman Trumball (IN) echoed Senator Howard's analysis.

quote:

---

Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense·? Is it not understood that if we want to make arrangements with the Indians to whom he refers we do it by means of a treaty? The Senator himself has brought before us a great many treaties this session in order to get control of those people.

---

In short, the Citizenship Clause treats Indians as sui generis persons. The vast majority of them lived on reservations with their tribe and the reservations were treated as sovereign nations or in the words of Senator Howard "quasi foreign nations."

quote:

---

The vast majority of them

---

That is not the basis for law though, is it?

An Indian born on US soil, off the reservation, unquestionably fell under full unfettered US jurisdiction. Yet, post-Ark until 1924, he was still denied birthright citizenship.

What was the basis of birthright denial?

quote:

---

That is not the basis for law though, is it?

An Indian born on US soil, off the reservation, unquestionably fell under full unfettered US jurisdiction. Yet, post-Ark until 1924, he was still denied birthright citizenship.

What was the basis of birthright denial?

---

It is the basis for law.

The Senators debated the proposed "excluding Indians not taxed" amendment to the Amendment at length. They ultimately determined that the amendment was NOT necessary to exclude Indians from the Citizenship Clause.

The primary concern was that Indian reservations were treated as sovereign nations or "quasi foreign nations." Thus, they were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Another concern was the use of the word "Taxed." "Indians not taxed" was a shorthand for "tribal" Indians who were not taxable as long as they remained subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe and held tribal allegiance. At least one Senator was worried that "Taxed" could be interpreted to mean property tax, and whether an Indian who owned non-tribal land and was taxed on his property would be a citizen.

quote:

---

children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation

---

When WKA was decided aliens could reside here legally. Thus, the only form of illegal immigration were those aliens here “in hostile occupation.”

Isn’t illegal immigration just modern day “hostile occupation?” They are here against the will of the sovereign (the government and the people) in violation of its laws, attempting to take resources, jobs, etc.

quote:

---

quote:

---

children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation

---

When WKA was decided aliens could reside here legally. Thus, the only form of illegal immigration were those aliens here “in hostile occupation.”

Isn’t illegal immigration just modern day “hostile occupation?” They are here against the will of the sovereign (the government and the people) in violation of its laws, attempting to take resources, jobs, etc.

---

Two issues immediately come to mind.

First, note that the Citizenship Clause does not apply merely to alien enemies, it applies to "alien enemies in hostile occupation." That's a big distinction. Like foreign countries and Indian reservations, the United States cannot properly exercise jurisdiction over territory under hostile occupation.

Immigrants, on the other hand, are not in hostile occupation. They are certainly not in "hostile occupation" in the legal sense of the term. They do not possess any territory in the United States which the United States government cannot properly enter. Immigrants can be arrested; they can be tried; they can be sued; and they can be served with legal process.

Second, neither the United States government nor the States can limit birthright citizenship by statute or Executive Order. Citizenship is bestowed by the Constitution. It is fundamental law that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, acts a limit on the government, and cannot be limited or reduced by the government except be amendment.

quote:

---

Probably most people's low and discriminatory opinion of Indian's in the late 1800's and early 1900's.....????

---

The rationale was that they were not fully under U.S. jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes, not solely to the United States. It was the rational in Elk. It was rational in Ark. It was the rationale right up to the 1924 Indian Act.