"Excluding Indians": Trump admin questions Native Americans' birthright citizenship in court
Source: Salon
Published January 23, 2025 11:43AM (EST)
In the Trump administration’s arguments defending his order to suspend birthright citizenship, the Justice Department called into question the citizenship of Native Americans born in the United States, citing a 19th-century law that excluded Native Americans from birthright citizenship.
In a case on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order coming out of Washington, Justice Department attorneys quote the 14th Amendment, which reads that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” and hang their one of their arguments on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
“Under the plain terms of the Clause, birth in the United States does not by itself entitle a person to citizenship. The person must also be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States,” the filing reads. The Justice Department then goes on to cite the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which predates the 14th Amendment by two years. The Justice Department attorneys specifically cite a section of the act that notes that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
The Trump administration then goes on to argue that the 14th Amendment’s language — the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — is best understood “to exclude the same individuals who were excluded by the Act —i.e., those who are ‘subject to any foreign power’ and ‘Indians not taxed.’”
Read more: https://www.salon.com/2025/01/23/excluding-indians-admin-questions-native-americans-birthright-citizenship-in/?in_brief=true
= new reply since forum marked as read
I am having trouble seeing how any attorney who passed the bar would make this argument.
Link to tweet
repeat history and go after the "white man". I wouldn't stop them either.
in the movies. And, I almost want to watch them all again on an endless loop--with only a few actor changes.
And THE SHAME you will not feel, Bastard!!!
14th amendment, but by an Act of Congress.
After the 14th was passed, Native Americans and their children (there were some exceptions such Dawes enrollment etc) were not US citizens.
The person arguing in court used the exact wording from the 1866 Civil Rights Act that excluded Native Americans from US citizenship and subsequently from the 14th Amendment. The rationale was that Native Americans were subject to tribal laws and not US laws. However, that specifically disqualifying condition was no longer an issue after the passage of Indian Citizenship Act in 1924
Trump is not trying exclude Native Americans from citizenship. He is trying to exclude Non-Citizens and are using the Native Americans as an example who were not allowed to have birth rite citizenship until Congress passed a law specifically requiring citizenship for all Native Americans.
What they fail to address is that millions of white people born to European immigrants had birthright citizenship prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. People came. They had kids and I guess their kids were automatically citizens.... 
After passage, there was a large influx of European immigrants. (Germany provided plenty of immigrants after the Civil War) There was the Supreme Court case from 1898, but it also likely mingled with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Millions of people would be born "stateless" if we did not have birthright citizenship.
"Indians" taken literally, means people from the country whose current capital is New Delhi. People of the tribes who were in North America before Columbus arrived are not "Indian," but American. They were residents of North America way before any Europeans were here, and those of us of European ancestry have less claim to any kind of "birthright" than do those of purely American ancestry.
Judge John Coughenour is correct in stating that this executive order is clearly unconstitutional. The legal justification for this executive order is based on the claim the term "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" allows TFG to exclude children whose parents are not citizens. That argument is wrong. This term only excludes Indians and the children of diplomats
Link to tweet
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to
‼️children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation! ‼️
We have been illegally invaded with hostility.
Based on the first sentence of Section 1, the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.' The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,
The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation!
