News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Is that literally the first time he's thought about that?
Think is too strong a term here.
Been made aware.
Aware is too strong a term.
Deport those ungrateful native Americans back to…America???
I suggest you deport them back to where they came from, typically the nicer, more habitable parts of the United States, and give them whatever is there now. It's a poor deal for the Lenape, though, as they'd get New Jersey.
The Trump admin doesn't actually care where someone is from, they just get sent to a hole somewhere in El Salvador or South Sudan.
"I'm trying to find 'Navajo Nation' on the map, but I can't find a thing!"
It could be. The point of bringing a case like this probably isn't to win it, necessarily, but to demonstrate loyalty to dear leader. Dear Leader wants the case in order to push the Overton window. Its a can't-lose situation for the regime; they get some benefit from either judicial decision.
The mission is to flood the zone in the hopes that some of their bullshit slips through. The more of it that fails, the better. I don't think losing this ruling is a mortal blow for MAGA in any sense, but it will be better for Americans if this is one of the ones that fails.
Also just to normalize it in the American zeitgeist. Them entertaining it gives the illusion that there's some merit to the argument. In a year or two when everyone believes there's legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue due to it being an issue they keep hearing about in the news, they'll ratchet it a few steps further toward their goal.
He's not that bright. They expect everything to work, or at least he does.
I fucking hate that guy and his stupid asshole voice.
If you put a "> " on the empty line then the quote formatting line thingy will be contiguous.
> Like
>
> This
Thank you, I've had the same issue before and had no idea how to fix it.
Ha, yay!
You
but that's stuff we'll cover in Quoting 201 next semester.
Thank you!
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.
Yeah no nation recognizes them as sovereign. You aren't about to see a Navajo embassy in Germany or Canada. And they're asking for UN representation as a separate thing from a full member state
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.
Oh I'm sure he's thought of it, but can't say the truth out loud because it will make him look bad.