Thankfully, an Appeals court shut this down UNTIL DOJ can actually figure out WTF they're trying to do. 

Trump's DOJ has figured out what it is doing. . . they just need 'everybody' out of the way so they can complete 'it.'  

We told you. Crooked people with their crooked politics and stinkin'-thinkin offer 'back-wash' to those they view should just be happy being second-class in this country. If at all. BTW, Blacks who imagine they will rise in Trump's plan for the U.S. have a rude awakening coming too.

I think you can already guess what i think is going on .

The EO was designed to get a question in front of the courts so that appeals could be heard  and that so the courts would have to issue a definitive definition applicable to everyone that no one can or could argue   on what a specific section of 14,1 means and defines .

In a court filing this week, the U.S. Justice Department defended Trump’s executive order suspending Native American citizenship.

Do you happen to have a link to that court filing? 

washingtonstatestandard

Sorry, but it took awhile to find the link.

There, IMHO, is nothing in the EO or the law that is supportive of Trump's "adherence" to the existing laws of the lands regarding citizenship of Native Americans.  The issue is dealing with immigrants and their claims to citizenship - not to Native Americans and their citizenship rights.

Thanks. That this is even an issue is simply bizarre.  

Be careful for what you ask, beg, plead for: just might get it and "No Returns."

Trump's opinion is Native Americans should be included in the deportation of illegal immigrants. In a court filing this week, the U.S. Justice Department defended Trump’s executive order suspending Native American citizenship.

Once again, it's democrats and liberals that have to put their political backs and fortunes into caring for 'ailing' republicans and conservatives whom can't seem to understand that strict father/strongman strategies and tactics harm 'everybody' when enforced. We do not and in fact, can not, succeed in a world that is strictly black and white politically. Why not? Because we are all people of 'Color'! We need our variances to be free, happy, and prosperous. We need to get along. It's the only way out of this quagmire that is now 'us.'

Our right to citizenship and, by extension, our tribal lands is now in question.

That's not the argument the admin is making, nor does it  follow from it. Congress, who the Constitution grants the power to define citizenship, passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. The fact that they did  so demonstrates indians were not  in fact, citizens or covered under the 14th Amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereto" despite being born in American territory.  That indicates the current understanding of the scope of that language is not valid.  Otherwise, the citizenship law would have been pointless.  

rump's opinion is Native Americans should be included in the deportation of illegal immigrants. In a court filing this week, the U.S. Justice Department defended Trump’s executive order suspending Native American citizenship.

Can you provide a source for this?

were any Native Americans that are alive today born outside the jurisdiction of the United States ? 

ative Americans that are alive today born outside the jurisdiction of the United States ?

The law passed in 1924 extends citizenship to every indian who was then alive and born within the territorial US.  So, no. 

so then the 14th amendment applies to them, regardless of the law passed in 1924.  They are not illegal in any way. 

What you say makes no sense.

If the 14th Amendment applied, the law was unnecessary and irrational. But the law was passed and did grant citizenship to all native americans born in American territory. 

 They are not illegal in any way

Who is claiming they are? That's what I asked. 

The law passed in 1924 extends citizenship to every indian who was then alive and born within the territorial US.  So, no. 

In 1924 there were Native Americans who were NOT born under US jurisdiction, thus the need for the law.   NOW, NA are covered by the 14th amendment. 

“NOW, NA are covered by the 14th amendment.”

And, unfortunately, so are the babies of every pos illegal that gives birth on American soil. 

Native Americans who were NOT born under US jurisdiction, thus the need for the la

So the 14th Amendment did not apply to all people born within american territory. 

I have said this three times I think. In 1924 there were Native Americans alive who had not been born under US jurisdiction.  That is not the case today. 

k. In 1924 there were Native Americans alive who had not been born under US jurisdiction

So you agree with the Trump lawyers. 

I honestly dont know what the hell you are talking about.  It is true, correct, that every Native American alive today was born under the jurisdiction of the US government?  Since all of them became citizens from 1924 forward , anyone who is not 101 years old was born an American citizen, thus under US jurisdiction.  Are you going to deport a 101 year old?  

is true, correct, that every Native American alive today was born under the jurisdiction of the US government? 

Yes. They are all citizens by virtue of the 1924 Act.

Since all of them became citizens from 1924 forward

Any native alive in 1924 and born in the territorial US is a citizen. 

 Are you going to deport a 101 year old?  

All 101 year old Indians,  and all 120 and all 140  years olds who were born in America are American citizens thanks to the Snyder Act of 1924. No Indian can be deported.  

And, in many cases, when the U.S. and Tribes/Nations signed/ratified treaties, many of the treaties contained the "Indians are now Citizens of the U.S.".

Care to give us some links to support that statement?

Links please.

washingtonstatestandard

There, IMHO, is nothing in the EO or the law that is supportive of Trump's "adherence" to the existing laws of the lands regarding citizenship of Native Americans.  The issue is dealing with immigrants and their claims to citizenship - not to Native Americans and their citizenship rights.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So what are we saying here? That Native Americans will have to join the United States to be official citizens in every aspect of their American experience? Furthermore, the bolded section makes mention of JURISDICTION as generally involving "any person" in the state. Assuming reservations are required to follow state laws within to some/any degrees? 

(I am not versed on the particulars of Indian national/reservation law. So I politely ask.)

CB , i think that goes outside whats being discussed and ventures into the area of dual citizenship.

 here is my situation if it helps you to see some things .

 I am a predominantly white man , living on an NA reservation , on deeded property ,  The reservation LE has limited authority over me since i am not an enrolled member of the tribes of the reservation ,  The state , county and local LE off reservation also have limited authority over me while i am actually ON the reservation ,  as I understand it there are only 2 LE orgs that actually do have unlimited authority over me individually without having to deal with treaties and agreements with the tribes . they are the US Marshals and the FBI. Neither of which i wish to get crossways of .

The state , county and local LE off reservation also have limited authority over me while i am actually ON the reservation ,  as I understand it there are only 2 LE orgs that actually do have unlimited authority over me individually without having to deal with treaties and agreements with the tribes . they are the US Marshals and the FBI.

Thank you. The 14th Amendment 'clause'. . . "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . ."

There is the 'buy-in' to the Fourteenth: You, and I assume Indians born or naturalized are subject to the laws of the United States—federally. And, based on (unknown) written statements with separate and singular states, potentially one or several states. Where am I wrong?

I have watched the "Anchor baby " issue evolve over the years after i became slightly interested in it , which i think this issue is actually about at its base.

 As for Native citizenship, at the time of the amendment writing , there really were no immigration laws , which has changed since its ratification . before then NA citizenship roughly fell to if they paid taxes to the government or not , or if they belonged to a federally recognized tribe or band , as i understand it , i most likely am wrong in some aspects . 

 my thoughts are because of the Indian citizenship act of 1924 passed and signed  into law , that became a shield for NA citizenship , but because it is simply legislation and not an amendment , it is a shield that is flimsy, and subject to being changed in a much easier manner than say an amendment  to the COTUS., but as long as it remains in effect as a law , and isnt changed by other actual legislation , it  is still the law .  The Opinion of the POTUS  in this case does not matter unless he can somehow get legislation drafted and passed , which is highly doubtful.

Please see number 8 below. Your thoughts, please. (And 'anchor baby' is a prejorative meant to convey an image not of citizenship but 'seizure' of some kind. We really should not talk about babies in such a manner since their only 'deception' is being born of an undocumented person under law.)

CB, I think that it goes back to the reservations being NA land and not under the purview of state or federal governments or laws derived from.  Meaning that the state and federal governments have little to no say on sovereign tribal land. Since they are on sovereign land and not affected directly by the gov't, somebody probably got the (not so) bright idea that if they are off reservation, then they can be deported back to the reservation. It sounds completely wacko to me, because what percent of NA do you have to be to qualify as "American"? 

The fact the we are having this whole discussion is making me sick.
 

Thomas - to an extent, you're correct - however Butttt - SCOTUS John Marshall, in the Marshall Trilogs ( yalelawjournal ) stated that the tribes/nations were independent nations but came under the care/control of the U.S. government.

Thank you, 1st, for the link. I was unaware of the case law underpinnings of the status of First Nations land.

It sickens me too, because I really can see jealousy, envy, and especially enmity in those who would dreg this up in the 21st century. For nothing is 'sacred' and at peace with some people (and MAGA it is clear that that is the collective YOU). This is the SADDEST I THINK I HAVE EVER BEEN SINCE THE 80'S.  

territorial jurisdiction
Territorial jurisdiction is a court’s authority to preside over legal proceedings in a geographical area. Territorial jurisdiction is the scope of a federal and state court’s power and is determined by the governing laws and regulations of the area. Factors that are often considered when granting a court territorial jurisdiction over a case include where the cause of action took place, the residency of the parties involved, or the nature of the dispute .

State court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment . Typically, state courts have territorial jurisdiction over the state’s residents and actions occurring within the state, like a legal action brought in a state stemming from a car accident within that state.

Federal court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment . Federal courts have territorial jurisdiction over federal questions and/or statutes. For example, a federal court has territorial authority over criminal case involving a federal crime. Summons, Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and its amendments), further clarifies territorial jurisdiction in Federal courts, like long-arm statutes that exceed physical geographical boundaries.

law.cornell

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

In the Trump administration’s arguments defending his order to suspend birthright citizenship, the Justice Department called into question the citizenship of Native Americans born in the United States under the 14th Amendment, citing 19th-century law that excluded Native Americans from birthright citizenship.

In a case on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order coming out of Washington, Justice Department attorneys quote the 14th Amendment, which reads that “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,” and hang their one of their arguments on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

“Under the plain terms of the Clause, birth in the United States does not by itself entitle a person to citizenship. The person must also be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States,” the filing reads.

The Justice Department then goes on to cite the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which predates the 14th Amendment by two years. The Justice Department attorneys specifically cite a section of the act that notes that  “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

The Trump administration then goes on to argue that the 14th Amendment’s language — the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — is best understood “to exclude the same individuals who were excluded by the Act —i.e., those who are ‘subject to any foreign power’ and ‘Indians not taxed.’”

The Justice Department attorneys return to the topic of whether or not Native Americans should be entitled to birthright citizenship later in their arguments, citing a Supreme Court case, Elk v. Wilkins, in which the court decided that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to Citizenship.”

“The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes. If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,” the Trump administration argued.

yahoo

See Native Americans (republicans/conservative), a democrat would NOT try this crap on anybody ! The difference is stark between two parties. Just cold-hearted crap.

And, of course, the SCOTUS case of United States Vs. Wong Kim Ark totally blows their logic outta the water

law.cornell

Discuss more about this attempt to bring a 'case'  against Native American citizenship rights or lack thereof by the Trump Administration (2.0), and then discuss this:

Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Plan to End Birthright Citizenship

In a hearing held three days after Mr. Trump issued his  executive order , a Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided with Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon, the four states that sued, signing a restraining order that blocks Mr. Trump’s executive order for 14 days, renewable upon expiration. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said.

“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”

Mr. Trump responded hours later, telling reporters at the White House, “ Obviously we’ll appeal it .”

nytimes

In another article, that 'appeal' as is the norm for Trump will end only at the Supreme Court! 

Trump has the gall to come for Native Americans! The gall to come for Native Americans. Let that sink in deep.

You asked for my thoughts , here they are .

 the ones who released that statement should be thoroughly laughed out of court and likely should not be allowed to be in government as an advisor of any kind .

 they failed to allow for other legislation and acts that followed at later dates that addressed the issues  they site. 

 whom ever drafted that argument . statement , is a dumfuk of the worst kind for failing to know history . thats my thoughts .

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “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 provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in  Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race. 

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.  

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

(b)  Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

(c)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship. 

Sec. 3.  Enforcement.  (a)  The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.

(b)  The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.

Sec. 4.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(a)  “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor.

(b)  “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    January 20, 2025.

whitehouse

Now my thoughts on this? and simply my opinion?

 i think it will be thrown out most the way up the appeals ladder , there might , very remotely be a court along the way that says it stands, it is written narrowly enough to only affect illegals . , i think they will need that at  some level to continue appeals to the USSC. and i think along the way , some of the governments arguments will change so that a direct definition of what "and subject to the jurisdiction there of ", will be placed so the court will have to answer . I think once that happens legislation will follow one way or the other .

Mark, let's drill down on the device the DOJ (Trump edition) is arguing in court: “The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes. If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,” the Trump administration argued.

- Comment 8. Last Sentence

What thoughts do you have on Trump's use of Native Americans as a 'two-fer' approach to ending birthright citizenship? As we know from common experience, Trump loves to have his final decision on any matter regarding his view of legal cases rendered by the SCOTUS. As someone living amongst Native Americans (you told us so), how does it strike you that Donald would even attempt to disenfranchise and render void Native American U.S. citizenship status federally? 

My opinion?

I think its a ploy to muddy the water so to speak to make it appear it affects more than the EO states. to initiate more injunctions and challenges  , thus creating more cases , and more pathways through the courts to ultimately get to the USSC., that is what i think the ultimate goal actually is get A case in front of the highest court while still making them have to answer what i have already said i think is at the core , a legal and binding definition .  i cant find any cases where that has been dealt with completely from the high court . it has always been side stepped  from my view .

 frankly i dont think the goal is to end jus soli birthright citizenship , i think its more of exploring and enforcing  its limitations . Which is why i feel that a straight forward legal definition and ruling , is going to be required of what " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " means . Right now there are any number of conflicting meanings , none anymore correct than the next .

 And it IS the USSC duty to make things clear for all involved to move forward when there is disagreement on meanings . The court may not like it , but it does come with the territory .

There is an implication inherent in these court argument proceedings that Native Americans are not constitutionally protected and without any 'deep-seated' connection to the constitution originally and through the 14th amendment. . .Native Americans as you wrote at 6.1.2:

[M]y thoughts are because of the Indian citizenship act of 1924 passed and signed  into law , that became a shield for NA citizenship , but because it is simply legislation and not an amendment , it is a shield that is flimsy, and subject to being changed in a much easier manner than say an amendment  to the COTUS, but as long as it remains in effect as a la , and isnt changed by other actual legislation, it  is still the law.

and that same or similar 'argument' is threaded through your comment 6.1.2. Thrust through the shield (law) or express a high court opinion that opens the Indian Citizen Act 1924 up to challenge and it could shatter/unmake itself. Precedence matters not to this SCOTUS which has rewritten and revisited such recently and removed law from its permanence. 

9. (above.) The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.  

Trump's DOJ is arguing that Native Americans (not taxable by U.S.) are not citizens of the United States according to the Constitution. Do you access that is correct?

Your thoughts as one living amongst Native Americans.

frankly just because i live on the rez , has no bearing on the matter ,i am privy to no special discussions or talks, actually about the only privilige i do have is the same as any citizen native or not , to buy cigarettes at the smoke shop that do not have a state tax stamp. ,  all that gives me is more of an opportunity to observe and listen . and from what i have seen and heard? minor concern  seems to be the theme, not a tom cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch reaction . it is something to keep an eye on . in that i agree .

 as for my metaphor of a  flimsy shield ,  i would be willing to bet NA understand how legislation can say one thing one day , and be rewritten the next  obliviating what was . but that is true of all legislation , laws can change laws at the change of political fortunes , but constitutional amendments are a horse of a different color that require and demand  a different approach . .

i would be willing to bet NA understand how legislation can say one thing one day , and be rewritten the next  obliviating what was . but that is true of all legislation , laws can change laws at the change of political fortunes , but constitutional amendments are a horse of a different color that require and demand  a different approach . .

Very well stated Mark.  Unfortunately the way that works for us, whichever direction the wind in blowing, that's the direction the U.S. will take towards Native Americans.

In 1924 when Indians were made citizens, it was automatic, we did not have apply or request it. We were also ALLOWED TO KEEP OUR TRIBAL CITIZENSHIP AS WELL, making us dual citizens, one of the US the other of our tribal nation. With the US Indian nations are sovereign nations. (I posted an article on this a while back)

Now if this crazy attempt to remove us from by the 14th amendment keeps moving forward it will interesting to see how our nation status is handled. 

This could be another attempt to get a different ruling on the 14th and birthright citizenship by getting it to SCoTUS. 

But being Indian knowing the government is so fucked up at times that when it comes to Indian law I’m not losing any sleep over it.

Also knowing that I’m a Tribal Citizen of a sovereign nation within the US is a nice back up but also having the opportunity to move to Canada without a problem or to Australia where I am a permanent resident is nice but that is personal from an Indian in the US it would not surprise me if they tried to remove us from citizenship since I’m sure that they would love to have our land, they have tried many times to take our land and we are still here.

Here is a link to a great article covering Indians and the 14th amendment with a lot of legal conclusions and arguments.

.https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=concomm 

If you don’t think that the US would try to exempt Indians from 14th amendment check out what is happening in New Zealand. They are trying to pass a law that would negate the original treaty between England and the Māori people of NZ which is the basic document for their rights and land. 

If your indigenous the government will try to screw you, history is a wicked teacher.

Maybe the legal minds in the Native American community should start working on a claim that the grandson of a whoremaster (fuck snopes, I don't believe them) should be deported from America. 

KANSAS CITY CHIEFS BEAT BUFFAO, 32 - 29. ON TO THE SUPER BOWL, 3 PEAT.

Sounds like it was a good game.

Outstanding game, Thomas. 

- damn good game.