3 ms·

Sure 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 o

• DuskStar 7y ago
  If 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 ago
  Elk 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 ago
  This 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