"Excluding Indians": Trump admin questions Native Americans' birthright citizenship in court

[LeftInTX]

78. The heritage foundation lawyer was trying to make an argument why he thinks non-citizens

cannot give birth to natural-borne citizens. In 1884, the Supreme Court decided, after the 14th amendment was adopted, that Native Americans were not US citizens, hence the 1924 law was needed!

What the lawyer was today not doing was trying to remove citizenship from Native Americans.

Of course the judge made the right decision!!

Salon is making it sound like Trump is trying to get rid of Native American citizenship because a lawyer was quoting old laws word for word.

Many of the these executive orders were written by the heritage foundation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), was a United States Supreme Court landmark 1884 decision[1][2] with respect to the citizenship status of Indians.[3]

John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial bounds of United States. He later resided off-reservation in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed birthright citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[4] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880, and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha.

In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the United States, and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. The United States Congress later enacted the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the Constitution.