re: If the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship then why ...

Many tribes were by treaty more like foreign territory within the US.

Still helps with the casinos.

quote:

---

Keep up the pretentious douchebaggery of thinking a law degree makes you special

---

The cool thing is it doesn’t require a law degree to understand pieces of law. It’s accessible to anyone. It just requires a brain and effort. Made easier by a little bit of awareness that one probably isn’t on to any special thinking - that should be one’s cue to self reflect

Those are you issues tho

quote:

---

quote:
Native Americans
Indians

---

Calling them "Native Americans" is one of the more stupid ideas the left ever dreamed up.

WE named it America. That would be like the Martians invading, renaming the earth Gloop, and calling us Native Gloopians to make us feel better.

quote:

---

Was there a question prior as to whether they were actually “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?

---

"Birthright citizenship" is rooted in the principle of jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"). Its counterpart is jus sanguinis ('right of blood'). If you adhere to jus soli, then Ron's question is spot on. Anyone born on the soil is a citizen, period. And every exception (which there are some) is nothing more than pragmatism.

Previous SCOTUS decisions are sorely confused. They commingled American citizenship with British subjectship. In a monarchy, one born on a king's soil becomes the king's subject. He is obligated to pay the king's taxes, plow the king's fields, fight his wars, shine his shoes, swear allegiance, etc. Jus soli in action. If you don't want this, then let's hope your parents don't give birth on my soil.

So if we're subjects to a king, then let's rock some jus soli and dispense with the exceptions. On the contrary, if we're citizens of a republic, on what basis are we citizens?