Another law trained Native is arguing with me saying that Natives are just used for the broader argument, to show how absurd it is that immigrant children would have citizenship when Natives would not…
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The holding of Wilkins has nothing to do with the instant issue. Persons born as members of tribes are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., are not born citizens unless by treaty or statute and can’t unilaterally declare themselves citizens.
However,Trump is the puppet for a bigger plan with Project 2025, and we can pretend that all these arguments aren’t meticulously thought through toward the end game, but I think we may be severely underestimating the puppeteers.
Why would they want to take away the citizenship of native Americans?
They want the resources under their lands...duh.
Total nazi move btw.
Check the dates on those tweets.
I called it.
I can only hope that, as they surely will, when the Greenlandese people go to the voting booth Re. independence from Denmark, they pay attention to this.
No doubt the Trumpian fascists will use these same tactics, should they manage to get their grubby, greedy little hands on Greenland.
I seriously doubt anyone in Greenland is even aware of the plans these nazi have for their country.
We tried warning folks here and they ignored our warnings.
Let's hope Greenland does their homework.
I think you nailed it here. Less than a week in, and if it wasn't abundantly clear before, trump and his billionaire backers want America for rich white men only.
He’s always been the puppet for various extreme groups. He gets to enrich himself, cosplay as president and feed his narcissism. We all know he’s dumber than a box of rocks.
In Montana, #KochNetwork has been after the reservations for a few decades. Especially near Glacier Park & Flathead. I am baffled as to why people on the reservations don't vote, and why the Crow tribe vote for GOP land grabbering candidates.
For those asking, it helps broaden wider argument because technically Elk v. Wilkes is still precedent as was never challenged and overturned by the courts. (But instead an Act) Elk can be used to interpret the 14th Amendment, which is how it’s being used. It’s just outdated, so a weak argument.
However, if the Indian Rights Act of 1924 were ever to be repealed, Elk v. Wilkes would be the precedent determining Native citizenship. Prior to the Indian Rights Act, only Indians who assimilated and gave up tribal nation citizenship were given U.S. citizenship.
Some of my peers don’t agree with my interpretation & I respect that. I don’t mind being labeled a conspiracy theorist. I just know these Indian laws are not written in stone & history shows Native rights’ are so quickly taken. I would rather be overly vigilant then not enough.
Fletcher states, “Who knows whether the Indians not taxed argument is going to continue to be a thing in the case (I doubt it), but nothing is sacred in this government. And Justice has absolutely no shame.”
If they take away Native Americans' citizenship, the next census would take house representatives and electoral college votes from red states with native American population - from Oklahoma to the Dakota's. So they will not go ahead with this, not for principle but for power politics.
You hit the nail on the head. This admin is going to operate as if acts of Congress, laws, etc. that do not align with their agenda do not apply. The burden is on the supreme court (which has already shown that they are willing to cede their authority to T) or the people to reign in this admin.
everyone is SO SURE of what he "won't do" / "could never happen". a lot of them prob also said he'd not get elected the first time lol. he's making toilet paper of everything, by feb they won't recognize the law they learned. them not even thinking this is possible is gen a HUGE part of the problem.
It might be rendered moot at this point since all Native Americans are US citizens, so their children would be natural-born citizens regardless of place of birth
Gorsuch is otherwise terrible but he does consistently support Native American rights so question mark if this argument will fly with him. It may have the effect of picking off a judge who but for it, would have supported this nonsense (because terrible).
I don't know who fed him peyote in a sweat tent when, but Gorsuch definitely has a very weird real thing about the US failure to honor its treaty and other legal obligations to the many indigenous tribes that were displaced in its history. The only decent thing I have seen from him.
he did write bostock, waiting to see how that pans out in upcoming decisions though.
gorsuch on tribal and indigenous rights is like scalia was on 4th amendment searches - niche, consistent, and seemingly totally at odds with everything else in their work.
That's a prudent attitude. Heritage et al has had decades of time & hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars poured into think tanks to cook up legal arguments & rationales to justify getting America into the framework they want it to be in. Their game is deeper than it looks on the surface
To me, this shows perfectly that the government of that time was clearly more interested in acquiring political power through Black men voting than being morally right.
Because technically the case Elk v. Wilkes was not overturned so can be used to apply to the 14th Amendment interpretations, which is how it’s being used. Except it’s a very outdated case, especially with the Indian Rights Act of 1924, so makes it a weak argument, but it’s an argument.
(Unless of course, there is plan to get the Indian Rights Act of 1924 repealed.) Then Elk v Wilkes, would be the law pertaining to Native people citizenship. Prior that meant a Native person would have to assimilate and give up Tribal Citizenship to get U.S. citizenship.
Comments
They want the resources under their lands...duh.
Total nazi move btw.
Check the dates on those tweets.
I called it.
No doubt the Trumpian fascists will use these same tactics, should they manage to get their grubby, greedy little hands on Greenland.
We tried warning folks here and they ignored our warnings.
Let's hope Greenland does their homework.
And they still want Natives gone or stripped of all privetges and rights.
gorsuch on tribal and indigenous rights is like scalia was on 4th amendment searches - niche, consistent, and seemingly totally at odds with everything else in their work.
I'm just stating their ridiculous arguments because it's the propaganda/b.s they've been spewing for decades.
To me, this shows perfectly that the government of that time was clearly more interested in acquiring political power through Black men voting than being morally right.