Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You clearly didn't think it through. By 1924, when the Indian Citizenship Act was finally passed giving US-born members of Native American tribes birthright US citizenship, it was no longer true that most members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" were born on lands that were outside the territorial confines of the United States.
Huh? Apparently, you failed to read or understand my post before replying. Allow me to highlight the relevant portions that you overlooked…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K
Incorrect. You've forgotten that when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, most members of "Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes" were born on lands that were outside the territorial confines of the United States. As the U.S. Government took the lands of its indigenous peoples, it usually dealt with them on a "nation-to-nation" basis. For some, "tribal sovereignty and citizenship" were preferable to U.S. citizenship. However, by the time the "Indian Citizenship Act" was passed in 1924, approximately two-thirds of the American Indian population already had U.S. citizenship. INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES. Vol. IV, Laws
Now, mull over the implications of what two-thirds of the American Indian population already having U.S. citizenship by 1924 really means…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K
For example, the federal government has had legal jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian lands within the US since 1885:
That's not entirely correct. Did you even bother to read the article that you linked to?
Here's a quote from it that refutes your statement…
Confusion about jurisdiction in Indian Country remains a problem. Jurisdiction still is a patchwork of tribal, state, and federal jurisdiction that varies depending on the crime, identity of the perpetrator, identity of the victim, and location of the offense.
Now, despite this tangential discussion about the citizenship of American Indians, you still haven't presented any legal precedent for not allowing the offspring of "undocumented migrants" born on U.S. soil to have "birthright citizenship" that would sway a jurist that's an adherent of originalism or textualism.
Huh? Apparently, you failed to read or understand my post before replying. Allow me to highlight the relevant portions that you overlooked…
Now, mull over the implications of what two-thirds of the American Indian population already having U.S. citizenship by 1924 really means…
Take your own advice... By 1924, LONG after the 14th Amendment was ratified, why was 1/3 of the US-born American Indian population still not US citizens?
And ask yourself... Why, if everyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen, does subsection (b) of the US Nationality law even exist?
Now, despite this tangential discussion about the citizenship of American Indians, you still haven't presented any legal precedent for not allowing the offspring of "undocumented migrants" born on U.S. soil to have "birthright citizenship" that would sway a jurist that's an adherent of originalism or textualism.
Indeed, I have. Just two of the examples I gave...
US Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Indeed, I have. Just two of the examples I gave...
US Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Take your own advice... By 1924, LONG after the 14th Amendment was ratified, why was 1/3 of the US-born American Indian population still not US citizens?
And ask yourself... Why, if everyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen, does subsection (b) of the US Nationality law even exist?
I mentioned it two times already in previous posts. Here it is again…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K
For some, "tribal sovereignty and citizenship" were preferable to U.S. citizenship.
Hopefully, you realize that the U.S. Government eventually decided to pursue a policy of "forced assimilation" toward American Indians. If not, here's a link that might prove somewhat enlightening… Cultural assimilation of Native Americans
Indeed, I have. Just two of the examples I gave...
US Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Nice try. Unfortunately, while those "determinations" by former U.S. Secretaries of State are interesting as historical footnotes, they are entirely unconvincing for adherents of originalism and textualism.
Yes, sure it is. It almost literally drips off of almost every sentence written by so many people on the right.
Wrong
I wouldn't care if an illegal from Canada, France, Germany, etc. had an anchor baby, their child should not automatically become an American just because they gave birth here.
The reason it seems racial to some (typically PC liberals) is because we only have illegal aliens pouring in from a common border with Latin America. If we had tons of white Canadian illegal aliens doing the same thing, people would also be up in arms.
That would be especially true especially true if they refused to assimilate into our culture, and expected us to adapt to their culture by saying "eh" all the time, or buying milk out of bags.
No, they all tie together, regardless of how some try to separate them. Both original meaning and understanding are tied to intent as I explained earlier, though they take different ways to get to this point Its really a simple concept.
Note, even for those who try to separate originalism into truly distinct parts (which I disagree with as it all goes back to intent), intent being a "small" part wouldn't negate intent being a significant and major part the concept for particular cases.
There's actually plenty of legal precedent to strip illegal aliens' anchor babies of US citizenship. They were never meant to be US citizens. I've posted this before, but here it is again...
Yes, there is, particularly at the Supreme Court. And it wouldn't take anymore more than a reinforced interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause to fix this issue.
I agree. Although I would make it anyone under 21 gets their anchor citizenship stripped
Will not happen, you cannot make laws that are retroactive, not even a right leaning SC would not be so stupid to uphold such an unconstitutional law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
