4 ms·
It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.
by steve19 7y ago
It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.
- terryschiavo22 7y agoWhich is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.
- tsimionescu 7y agoIt is completely unreasonable - people are allowed to have dual citizenships, sometimes even by birth. And of course you can follow two sets of laws at once - for example, fundamentalist Christians strive to follow biblical laws and local laws all the time. There may be occasional contradictions, but it's hardly a common problem.
- fiblye 7y agoSure doesn’t seem like it’s constitutionally sound. If they’re born in the country, they’re citizens. Personal affiliation isn’t specified in the constitution or its amendments.
- DuskStar 7y agoIf reservations weren't US land - and if you're making treaties with the owners then it's at least sort of "not US land" - then they weren't born in the country.
- ajdlinux 7y agoElk v Wilkins (1884) was the constitutional position at the time. Indians were not deemed "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US, as required by the 14th Amendment.
- rjf72 7y agoThis is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. It's precise wording is: 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.... That subject to the jurisdiction thereof was not put in there without thought. It leaves room for a degree of interpretation. But for Indians residing on sovereign independent reservations there's no ambiguity whatsoever - they are excluded and there remains a supreme court ruling on the books upholding this. However, congress can choose to grant citizenship to whomever they choose and indeed a special exception was carved out for natives in the early 20th century - The Indian Citizenship Act. [1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act
- SllX 7y agoIf you live in the United States you’re under two to three sets of laws at a time, minimum. Federal law, State law, and whatever local laws apply to you. Tribal law slots fairly neatly in place of State law, the way reservations work now.
- steve19 7y agoThe European immigrants likely had dual citizenship, so why not the Native Americans? It was extremely unfair and served no purpose. And regarding your point under two laws. Any American citizen living overseas has to follow both US law and local law. Its not difficult. You don't even need dual citizenship to be in this situation. If the constitution said nobody could have dual citizenship, like Japan as one of many examples, then that would be something else altogether.
- learc83 7y ago>It was extremely unfair and served no purpose. It definitely served a purpose--to attempt to wipe out tribal identity and force assimilation. That being said, dual citizenship was outright banned during most of the 19th and 20th centuries. To this day naturalized citizens symbolically renounce their former citizenships. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"
- gcb0 7y agoITT: you're all feeding the troll.
- pjc50 7y agoSure, he's a racist troll, but as someone else pointed out the portrait of Andrew Jackson hangs in the Oval Office for exactly the same purpose. How to avoid "feeding" that one?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago> but as someone else pointed out the portrait of Andrew Jackson hangs in the Oval Office for exactly the same purpose. How to avoid "feeding" that one? Easy. Don't get pissed off by it. When an action is obviously taken for no other purpose than to piss you off getting pissed off over it is just stupid.
- benj111 7y agoI'm an (for now) EU citizen, and British citizen. Further, laws depend upon which country you are in, not citizen of. If I Followed UK law in the US, I wouldn't get very far.
- hummel 7y agoNative Americans had Spanish citizenship almost 300 years earlier and also retained their lands, affiliation, and culture under the law of the Spanish Empire.
- _iyig 7y agoIncorrect. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Indians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Indians “Spanish explorers arrived on California's coasts as early as the mid-16th century. In 1769 the first Spanish Franciscan mission was built in San Diego. Local tribes were relocated and conscripted into forced labor on the mission, stretching from San Diego to San Francisco. Disease, starvation, over work and torture decimated these tribes.”