That’s was the point of the question. By birthright they are but under the MAGA interpretation (ie utter bullshit and making things up) they may not be because technically they have tribal affiliation and could be considered beholden to another government. It all makes much more sense when you try not to think about it logically. They are literally trying to argue the clause of the Constitution that says if you are born on USA territory you are US citizen doesn’t mean exactly that. It is the most unambiguous amendment because they knew the former confereracy would try this shit eventually.
It’s complicated, they are citizens in most cases, but they also have distinctly different rights in some cases. It works out to them being a sort of hybrid citizen, as they are ultimately subject to most federal laws, but can’t be subjected to state laws. They are allowed to vote in elections though suppression is common. This status has resulted in them running casinos in most states, as the state can’t prevent them from doing it on tribal land, it’s also expanded to betting apps.
Along with that, they are protected by international treaties because some tribal lands straddle the border between the US and Canada or Mexico. As nations that pre-date colonialism, they’re allowed to move freely within their lands, which might take them over an international border.
So someone might be born on tribal lands in Canada but live in the US and have tribal rights, but not be an American. Or vice versa.
I very much could be wrong, but I was under the impression that this was at least partly a jurisdictional thing, not a personal thing. In other words, that it was being on tribal land that made the difference, not necessarily being a member of the tribe. I’m pretty sure Native American tribe members don’t have some sort of blanket immunity to all state laws no matter where they happen to be; I think it’s that state laws don’t apply within reservations, despite the land the reservation is on otherwise counting as part of the state.
Tribal police can arrest non-natives on tribal land, but they can’t prosecute them. They get transferred to state or federal authorities as needed.
Native Americans can do some things off of tribal land as well. The big thing natives can do is hunt and fish without a license. They can’t trespass on private property, but the state has little authority to stop them even on non tribal land. Another is the possession and use of peyote.
One of the worries of the Court is that this order could be retroactive. Native Americans were not citizens until the earlier half of the 20th century. Considering the plaintiffs kept bringing up Wong Kim Ark, it sounded like the Trump admin wanted the court to vacate a ruling from 1898, which could theoretically allow them to retroactively strip citizenship from people already granted it, perhaps even posthumously (meaning multiple generations of people would suddenly not be citizens).
Wong Kim Ark was itself a baffling decision imho. I read through it once. It seemed to me that it should have been 1 sentence, “Constitution says citizen, therefore he legally is one”. Instead it went through dozens of pages of nuanced and somewhat precarious reasoning to reach the same conclusion.
That the current SCOTUS took this case at all made it sound like they were inclined to overturn Wong Kim Ark, and decide that the Constitution really didn’t mean what it said.
I’m not really sure what Gorsuch was getting at with his question, but my understanding is that Native Americans are not citizens by the 14th amendment, because tribes are sovereign entities, and therefore fall into the “not subject to the jurisdiction” part of that amendment. However, they are granted citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
There are tribes that refer to themselves as nations, like the Cherokee Nation for example. I don’t really know if there’s a specific meaning to “nation” vs using some other word. I used “entity” in order to try to avoid using a more nuanced word incorrectly. The tribes have sovereignty is all I meant.
I see. I just wondered if there was a technical difference, because tribal sovereignty does seem to be more limited than what you would expect of a sovereign nation. We don’t treat them like separate countries. They’re not usually identified on maps of North America, for instance. And I get that most reservations are relatively small, but the Navajo Nation is about the size of Ireland, so plenty big enough to be identified on a map.
But I don’t mean to interrogate you, I’m just curious about this topic. I think I’ll do some research because I’d like to know more.
Except that they most certainly are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - hell, they pay federal taxes. They aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of any particular state is all.
Certainly the relationship between the US government and Native American tribes is… well, obviously “complicated” is a gross understatement. But the Supreme Court found in Elk v. Wilkins that Native Americans born on Indian reservations were not citizens because they are not subject to US jurisdiction. Hence the Indian Citizenship Act. Native Americans pay federal taxes because they are US citizens.
Can someone explain this to a clueless European? Are Native Americans not American Citizens by default?
That’s was the point of the question. By birthright they are but under the MAGA interpretation (ie utter bullshit and making things up) they may not be because technically they have tribal affiliation and could be considered beholden to another government. It all makes much more sense when you try not to think about it logically. They are literally trying to argue the clause of the Constitution that says if you are born on USA territory you are US citizen doesn’t mean exactly that. It is the most unambiguous amendment because they knew the former confereracy would try this shit eventually.
What about that they may be born on tribal lands that im sure they can somehow say as not born in the USA?
It’s complicated, they are citizens in most cases, but they also have distinctly different rights in some cases. It works out to them being a sort of hybrid citizen, as they are ultimately subject to most federal laws, but can’t be subjected to state laws. They are allowed to vote in elections though suppression is common. This status has resulted in them running casinos in most states, as the state can’t prevent them from doing it on tribal land, it’s also expanded to betting apps.
Along with that, they are protected by international treaties because some tribal lands straddle the border between the US and Canada or Mexico. As nations that pre-date colonialism, they’re allowed to move freely within their lands, which might take them over an international border.
So someone might be born on tribal lands in Canada but live in the US and have tribal rights, but not be an American. Or vice versa.
I very much could be wrong, but I was under the impression that this was at least partly a jurisdictional thing, not a personal thing. In other words, that it was being on tribal land that made the difference, not necessarily being a member of the tribe. I’m pretty sure Native American tribe members don’t have some sort of blanket immunity to all state laws no matter where they happen to be; I think it’s that state laws don’t apply within reservations, despite the land the reservation is on otherwise counting as part of the state.
Tribal police can arrest non-natives on tribal land, but they can’t prosecute them. They get transferred to state or federal authorities as needed.
Native Americans can do some things off of tribal land as well. The big thing natives can do is hunt and fish without a license. They can’t trespass on private property, but the state has little authority to stop them even on non tribal land. Another is the possession and use of peyote.
One of the worries of the Court is that this order could be retroactive. Native Americans were not citizens until the earlier half of the 20th century. Considering the plaintiffs kept bringing up Wong Kim Ark, it sounded like the Trump admin wanted the court to vacate a ruling from 1898, which could theoretically allow them to retroactively strip citizenship from people already granted it, perhaps even posthumously (meaning multiple generations of people would suddenly not be citizens).
Wong Kim Ark was itself a baffling decision imho. I read through it once. It seemed to me that it should have been 1 sentence, “Constitution says citizen, therefore he legally is one”. Instead it went through dozens of pages of nuanced and somewhat precarious reasoning to reach the same conclusion.
That the current SCOTUS took this case at all made it sound like they were inclined to overturn Wong Kim Ark, and decide that the Constitution really didn’t mean what it said.
I’m not really sure what Gorsuch was getting at with his question, but my understanding is that Native Americans are not citizens by the 14th amendment, because tribes are sovereign entities, and therefore fall into the “not subject to the jurisdiction” part of that amendment. However, they are granted citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
How is a sovereign entity different from a sovereign nation? If it is different.
There are tribes that refer to themselves as nations, like the Cherokee Nation for example. I don’t really know if there’s a specific meaning to “nation” vs using some other word. I used “entity” in order to try to avoid using a more nuanced word incorrectly. The tribes have sovereignty is all I meant.
I see. I just wondered if there was a technical difference, because tribal sovereignty does seem to be more limited than what you would expect of a sovereign nation. We don’t treat them like separate countries. They’re not usually identified on maps of North America, for instance. And I get that most reservations are relatively small, but the Navajo Nation is about the size of Ireland, so plenty big enough to be identified on a map.
But I don’t mean to interrogate you, I’m just curious about this topic. I think I’ll do some research because I’d like to know more.
Except that they most certainly are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - hell, they pay federal taxes. They aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of any particular state is all.
Certainly the relationship between the US government and Native American tribes is… well, obviously “complicated” is a gross understatement. But the Supreme Court found in Elk v. Wilkins that Native Americans born on Indian reservations were not citizens because they are not subject to US jurisdiction. Hence the Indian Citizenship Act. Native Americans pay federal taxes because they are US citizens.