#indian citizenship act

[faramirsonofgondor]

Reminder that June 2nd this year will mark the 100th anniversary of the Indian Citizenship Act (also know as the Snyder Act) which granted American Indians and Alaskan Natives full citizenship in the United States!

[reasoningdaily]

Freedmen Series: Cherokee Freedmen Genealogy Resources

[teaboot]

How do Canadian schools teach about indigenous Canadian history and culture? -a curious USAmerican

In my experience we learned about colonization at the same time as we learned about the formation of Canada. At first it was "European settlers came and pushed out the indigenous population", then in the higher grades we learned more about the how and the why.

For example, how carts full of men with rifles would ride around shooting Buffalo, then leaving the meat on the ground to rot, because "a dead Buffalo is a dead indian", which was so fanatical it almost wiped out wild Buffalo entirely

Also how Canadian settlers were lured in with beautiful hand-painted advertisements for cheap, beautiful, fertile land that was unpopulated and perfect, if only you'd sail over with your entire family and a pocket full of seeds- only to be met with scared, confused, and angry lawful inhabitants already run out of ten other places, and frigid winters, and rocky, forested, undeveloped dirt.

also, smallpox blankets, where "gifts" of blankets infected with smallpox were intentionally given out

And treaty violations- Either ignoring written agreements entirely, or buying them out at insanely low prices and lying about the value, or trading for farming equipment that they couldn't use because they weren't farmers.

Then in the first world war, where they told indigenous peoples here that they'd be granted Canadian citizenship if they enlisted

To Residential schools, which was straight up stealing kids for slavery, indoctrination, and medical experiments

But we also covered the building of the Canadian Railway in which Chinese immigrants were lowered into ravines with dynamite to blow out paths through the mountain for pennies on the dollar

And the Alberta Sterilization Act, where it was lawful and routine procedure to sterilize women of colour and neurodivergent people without their awareness or consent after giving birth or undergoing unrelated surgeries

But I'm rambling.

We kind of learned Aboriginal history at the same time as everything else? Like. This is when Canada was made, and this is how it was done. Now we'll read a book about someone who lived through it, and we'll write a book report. And now a documentary, and now a paper about the documentary. Onto the next unit.

And starting I think in grade 10 our English track was split between English and Aboriginals English, where you could choose to do the standard curriculum or do the same basic knowledge stuff with a focus on Aboriginal perspectives and literature. (I did that one, we read Three Day's Road and Diary Of A Part-Time Indian, and a few other titles I don't remember.)

There was also a lunch room for the Aboriginal Culture Studies where Aboriginal kids could hang out at lunch time if they wanted, full of art and projects and stuff. They'd play music or videos sometimes, that was cool

And one elective I took (not mandatory cirriculum) was a Kwakiutl course for basic Kwakwakaʼwakw language. Greetings, counting to a hundred, learning the modified alphabet, animals, etc. Still comes in handy sometimes at large gatherings cause they usually start with a land recognition thanking whoever's land we're on, with a few thanks and welcomes in their language.

And like- when I was in the US it was so weird, cause here we have Totem poles and longhouses and murals all over and yall... don't? Like there is a very distinct lack of Aboriginal art in your public spaces, at least in the areas I've been

My ex-stepfather, who was American, brought his son out once, and he was so excited to "see real indians" and was legitimately shocked to learn that there weren't many teepees to be found on the northwest coast, and was even *more* shocked when we told him that you have Aboriginal people back home too, bud. Your Aboriginal people are also named "Mike" snd "Vicky" and work as assistant manager at best buy.

If you'd ask me, I'd say that the primary difference is that USAmerica (from what I've seen, and ALSO in entirely too much of Canada) treats our European and Aboriginal conflicts as history, something that's tragic but over, like the extinction of the mammoths, instead of like. An ongoing thing involving people who are alive and numerous and right fucking here

But at the end of the day, I'm white, and there are plenty of actual Aboriginal people who are speaking out and saying much more meaningful things than I can

So I'm just gonna pass on a quote from my Stepmum, who's Cree, that's stuck with me since she said it:

"You see how they treat Mexicans in America? That's how they treat us here. Indians are the Mexicans of Canada."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Shondiin Silversmith at Arizona Mirror:

As U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement intensifies its efforts to apprehend and deport undocumented immigrants throughout the country, concern is rising among Indigenous communities residing in urban areas about reports of Indigenous people being detained in the Valley. Since President Donald Trump issued his executive order for an increase in ICE raids, Navajo tribal leaders have received alarming reports that their tribal members are being detained, heightening uncertainties over the implications these actions have for their communities and the safety of their people. “We now know that Navajo people and enrolled members of other tribes are being detained in Phoenix and other cities by ICE,” Navajo Nation Council Speaker Crystalyne Curley said during a committee meeting on Thursday. “The reports that we have received indicate that we need to coordinate an operation or some type of response to help our enrolled tribal members here on the Navajo Nation.” On Thursday, Navajo tribal leaders reported that they have received calls and text messages from Navajo people living in urban areas who have been stopped, questioned or detained by ICE. Those reports sparked outrage among Navajo Nation Council members and prompted a detailed discussion of the topic during a Naabik’íyáti’ Committee meeting. “These raids have sparked significant fear, especially among tribal members in urban areas who face challenges with documentation,” the Navajo Nation Council said in a press release. A verified number of the Navajo people who have been detained was not shared during the committee meeting.  State Sen. Theresa Hatathlie joined the committee meeting virtually and shared her report and concerns in Navajo. Hatathlie represents the Legislative District 6, which encompasses the Navajo Nation. 

[...] “Despite possessing Certificates of Indian Blood (CIBs) and state-issued IDs, several individuals have been detained or questioned by ICE agents who do not recognize these documents as valid proof of citizenship,” the Navajo Nation Council stated in a press release. Curley called for immediate assistance from Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren. “Our people are reaching out to us directly, and their needs are urgent,” Curley said. “We must act swiftly to ensure their safety and well-being.” She said that the Navajo people depend on the tribe for solutions and that Nygren’s response to the issue has been insufficient.  “We need clear records and tracking systems to understand the scope of these issues,” Curley said. “We cannot wait for another incident. We need emergency protocols now.” 

[...] The committee also stressed the need for collaboration with state and federal governments, as well as other tribal nations, to address the broader implications of these raids. Plans include a toll-free hotline, community outreach to educate citizens on their rights and legal support for those affected by ICE actions.

Saddening to see Diné (Navajo) people being detained in ICE sweeps.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Where does this curious Hindutva-Zionist solidarity spring from? One origin is from the earliest Hindu nationalists who modelled their Hindu state on Zionism. Hindutva’s founder, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, supported majoritarian nationalism and the rooting out of all disintegrating forces. These included Muslims who supported electoral quotas for their community and left-wing internationalists. As a result, he even condoned the Nazis’ antisemitic legislation in two speeches in 1938 because, as he saw it: “a nation is formed by a majority living therein”. Yet Savarkar was not antisemitic himself. He often spoke favourably of the tiny Jewish-Indian minority because he considered it too insignificant to threaten Hindu cohesion. In fact, Savarkar praised Zionism as the perfection of ethno-nationalist thinking. The way Zionism seamlessly blended ethnic attachment to a motherland and religious attachment to a holy land was precisely what Savarkar wanted for the Hindus. This double attachment was far more powerful to his mind than the European model of “blood and soil” nationalism without sacred space. Today, Hindu nationalists perpetuate this legacy and still look to Zionism as a uniquely attractive political ideology. To Hindu nationalists, some Zionists were engaged in a project to reclaim their holy land from a Muslim population whose religious roots in the region were not as ancient as their own.

[...]

In 2018, Israel passed a law that rebranded the country as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” and delegitimised its non-Jewish citizens. Similarly, India’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019 eased paths to citizenship for immigrants from several religious groups, but not Muslims. Coupled with rhetoric associating millions of Indian Muslims with illegal immigration, human rights groups argue that this law could be used to strip many Muslims of their Indian citizenship. Hindu nationalists have also stoked a culture war to consolidate “Hindu civilisation” and sweep away symbols of Islam. This is very much in keeping with the wish of Israel’s far right to rebuild Solomon’s Temple on the site of the holy Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where al-Aqsa mosque compound currently sits. In 1969, a Zionist extremist burned the south wing of al-Aqsa. And in 1980, the fundamentalist group Jewish Underground plotted to blow up the Dome of the Rock, an Islamic shrine at the centre of the compound. A similar project of demolishing mosques and building temples in their place was suggested by Savarkar and Golwalkar. Hindu nationalist organisations focused their attention on Babri Masjid mosque in Ayodha, since this was the mythical birthplace of the Hindu god, Ram.

[todaysdocument]

Circular Letter from the Woman's Protest Committee on the Statehood Bill

Record Group 46: Records of the U.S. SenateSeries: Petitions and Related Documents That Were Presented, Read, or TabledFile Unit: Petitions and Memorials, Resolutions of State Legislatures, and Related Documents Which Were Tabled

WOMAN'S PROTEST COMMITTEE.

[small horizontal line]

"The Status of Woman Marks the Degree of a Nation's Civilization."

OCTOBER 22nd, 1904.

DEAR MADAM:-A bill is now pending in Congress which so vitally affects the interests of women in the great South-

West that we believe you and your organization would like to protest against the injustice therein threatened our sisters.

The bill proposes to unite Oklahoma and Indian Territories into one State under the name of Oklahoma, and to com-

bine New Mexico and Arizona Territories into a State under the name of Arizona. This measure has passed the Lower House

of Congress, has been read twice in the Senate and is now before the Senate Committee on Territories, of which Senator Al-

bert J Beveridge is Chairman, and the following named Senators are also members: William P. Dillingham, Knute Nelson,

Thomas R. Bard, Henry E. Burnham, John Kean, William B. Bate, Thomas M. Patterson, James P. Clarke and Francis G.

Newlands. Now is the time to amend, while the bill is in Committee.

The portion of the bill threatening injustice to the women in the proposed new States is found in Paragraph 5 of Sec-

tions 3 and 21, which would allow these States, when organized, to disfranchise minors, criminals, lunatics, non-residents,

ignoramuses and [italic] women. This part of the bill reads as follows:

"Fifth-That said State shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suffrage on account

"of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, or on account of any other conditions or qualificartions, save

"and except on account of illiteracy, minority, [italic] sex, conviction of felony, mental condition, or residence; pro-

vided, however, that any such restrictions shall be made uniform and applicable alike to all citizens."

There may be other objections to this part of the bill, that Congress gratuitously interferes to forbid negro disfranchise-

ment, or disfranchisement "for any other conditions or qualifications," which latter will prevent disfranchisement for lack of

United States citizenship, a prohibition never before laid on a State. This wording will be interpreted by some as even pro-

hibiting the future enfranchisement of women in these new States. These paragraphs might well be omitted.

But the injustice to women might be averted if only the word "sex" were stricken from the paragraphs. The pioneer

women of the West, who have labored and suffered by their husbands' sides to advance civilization, ought not to be so unjustly

classed with felons, lunatics and children, while their own husbands, equals in other respects, are enfranchised. The Congress

of the United States ought not to set its seal upon the possibility of the perpetual disfranchisement of these women, an un-

merited disgrace and punishment. It is true that in many States women have been tacitly ranked with these defective delin-

quent and dependent classes, but never before has the insult been so open and flagrant, nor has it been in an Act of Congress.

The representative of the United States Government, the Territorial Governor of Arizona, once before interfered in

Arizona legislation to the defeat of women, by vetoing the woman suffrage bill passed by the Legislature of Arizona.

The women of all our great country should now protest against the women of the Southwest being ranked with the

classed justly disfranchised, any other member of which may be effort, behavior, or lapse of time, achieve enfranchisement.

Will you not ask your organization to write to the two Senators from your own State, to Senator Beveridge, the Chair-

man of the Committee on Territories, and to the rest of the Committee, asking each to work for the omission of the word

"sex" from the two paragraphs quoted above, or for the omission of the entire paragraphs.

There is need of haste in this matter and we urge action by your organization at the earliest possible date.

The sending out of this letter is authorized by the following named women, who, as individuals, urge you to take

speedy action:

Mrs. Ellen M. Henrotin, Honorary President General Federation of Women's Clubs; Miss Susan B. Anthony, Honorary

President National American Woman Suffrage Association; Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, President National Council of Women;

Mrs. Hannah G. Solomon, President National Council Jewish Women; Rev. Anna H. Shaw, President National American

Woman Suffrage Association; Mrs. Mary A. Livermore; Mrs. Fanny Garrison Villard; Miss Laura Clay; Miss Margaret Haley,

President National Teachers' Federation; Mrs. Ella S. Stewart, Franchise Superintendent of National Women's Temperance

Union; Mrs. Emily W. Thorndyke, President National Catholic Woman's League; Mrs. Lida P. Robinson, President Arizona

Woman Suffrage Association; Mrs. Elizabeth M. Gilmer, (Dorothy Dix); Mrs. Mary T. Hagar, President National Ladies of

the Grand Army of the Republic; Mrs. Ellen C. Sargent, Honorary President of California Woman's Suffrage Association; Mres.

Mary S. Sperry, President California Woman Suffrage Association; Mrs. Catharine Waugh McCulloch, Legal Advisor National

American Woman Suffrage Association; Miss Clara Barton; Mrs. May Wright Sewall, Honorary President International Coun-

cil of Women; Mrs. Elmina Springer, of the Woman's Relief Corps and Eastern Star; Mrs. Florence Kelley; Mrs. Emmy C.

Evald, President National Lutheran Woman's League; Mrs. Frederick Schoff, President National Congress of Mothers; Mrs.

Leonora M. Lake; Mrs. Margaret Dye Ellis, Legislative Superintendent of National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and

Mrs. Lilian M. N. Stevens, President National Woman's Christian Temperance Union.

Will you notify your local press as to your action, and also notify Mrs. Harriet Taylor Upton, of Warren, Ohio.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 2, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 03, 2024

Today is the one-hundredth anniversary of the Indian Citizenship Act, which declared that “all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.”

That declaration had been a long time coming. The Constitution, ratified in 1789, excluded “Indians not taxed” from the population on which officials would calculate representation in the House of Representatives. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that Indigenous tribes were independent nations. It called Indigenous peoples equivalent to “the subjects of any other foreign Government.” They could be naturalized, thereby becoming citizens of a state and of the United States. And at that point, they “would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.”

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, established 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.” But it continued to exclude “Indians not taxed” from the population used to calculate representation in the House of Representatives.

In 1880, John Elk, a member of the Winnebago tribe, tried to register to vote, saying he had been living off the reservation and had renounced the tribal affiliation under which he was born. In 1884, in Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution did not cover Indigenous Americans who were living under the jurisdiction of a tribe when they were born. In 1887 the Dawes Act provided that any Indigenous American who accepted an individual land grant could become a citizen, but those who did not remained noncitizens. 

As Interior Secretary Deb Haaland pointed out today in an article in Native News Online, Elk v. Wilkins meant that when Olympians Louis Tewanima and Jim Thorpe represented the United States in the 1912 Olympic games in Stockholm, Sweden, they were not legally American citizens. A member of the Hopi Tribe, Tewanima won the silver medal for the 10,000 meter run. 

Thorpe was a member of the Sac and Fox Nation, and in 1912 he won two Olympic gold medals, in Classic pentathlon—sprint hurdles, long jump, high jump, shot put, and middle distance run—and in decathlon, which added five more track and field events to the Classic pentathlon. The Associated Press later voted Thorpe “The Greatest Athlete of the First Half of the Century” as he played both professional football and professional baseball, but it was his wins at the 1912 Olympics that made him a legend. Congratulating him on his win, Sweden’s King Gustav V allegedly said, “Sir, you are the greatest athlete in the world.”  

Still, it was World War I that forced lawmakers to confront the contradiction of noncitizen Indigenous Americans. According to the Gilder Lehrman Institute for American History, more than 11,000 American Indians served in World War I: nearly 5,000 enlisted and about 6,500 were drafted, making up a total of about 25% of Indigenous men despite the fact that most Indigenous men were not citizens. 

It was during World War I that members of the Choctaw and Cherokee Nations began to transmit messages for the American forces in a code based in their own languages, the inspiration for the Code Talkers of World War II. In 1919, in recognition of “the American Indian as a soldier of our army, fighting on foreign fields for liberty and justice,” as General John Pershing put it, Congress passed a law to grant citizenship to Indigenous American veterans of World War I. 

That citizenship law raised the question of citizenship for those Indigenous Americans who had neither assimilated nor served in the military. The non-Native community was divided on the question; so was the Native community. Some thought citizenship would protect their rights, while others worried that it would strip them of the rights they held under treaties negotiated with them as separate and sovereign nations and was a way to force them to assimilate. 

On June 2, 1924, Congress passed the measure, its supporters largely hoping that Indigenous citizenship would help to clean up the corruption in the Department of Indian Affairs. The new law applied to about 125,000 people out of an Indigenous population of about 300,000.

But in that era, citizenship did not confer civil rights. In 1941, shortly after Elizabeth Peratrovich and her husband, Roy, both members of the Tlingit Nation, moved from Klawok, Alaska, to the city of Juneau, they found a sign on a nearby inn saying, “No Natives Allowed.” This, they felt, contrasted dramatically with the American uniforms Indigenous Americans were wearing overseas, and they said as much in a letter to Alaska’s governor, Ernest H. Gruening. The sign was “an outrage,” they wrote. “The proprietor of Douglas Inn does not seem to realize that our Native boys are just as willing as the white boys to lay down their lives to protect the freedom that he enjoys." 

With the support of the governor, Elizabeth started a campaign to get an antidiscrimination bill through the legislature. It failed in 1943, but passed the House in 1945 as a packed gallery looked on. The measure had the votes to pass in the Senate, but one opponent demanded: "Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?"

Elizabeth Peratrovich had been quietly knitting in the gallery, but during the public comment period, she said she would like to be heard. She crossed the chamber to stand by the Senate president. “I would not have expected,” she said, “that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind them of our Bill of Rights.” She detailed the ways in which discrimination daily hampered the lives of herself, her husband, and her children. She finished to wild applause, and the Senate passed the nation’s first antidiscrimination act by a vote of 11 to 5. 

Indigenous veterans came home from World War II to discover they still could not vote. In Arizona, Maricopa county recorder Roger G. Laveen refused to register returning veterans of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, including Frank Harrison, to vote. He cited an earlier court decision saying Indigenous Americans were “persons under guardianship.” They sued, and the Arizona Supreme Court agreed that the phrase only applied to judicial guardianship.  

In New Mexico, Miguel Trujillo, a schoolteacher from Isleta Pueblo who had served as a Marine in World War II, sued the county registrar who refused to enroll him as a voter. In 1948, in Trujillo v. Garley, a state court agreed that the clause in the New Mexico constitution prohibiting “Indians not taxed” from voting violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments by placing a unique requirement on Indigenous Americans. It was not until 1957 that Utah removed its restrictions on Indigenous voting, the last of the states to do so.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act protected Native American voting rights along with the voting rights of all Americans, and they, like all Americans, are affected by the Supreme Court’s hollowing out of the law and the wave of voter suppression laws state legislators who have bought into Trump’s Big Lie have passed since 2021. Voter ID laws that require street addresses cut out many people who live on reservations, and lack of access to polling places cuts out others. 

Katie Friel and Emil Mella Pablo of the Brennan Center noted in 2022 that, for example, people who live on Nevada’s Duckwater reservation have to travel 140 miles each way to get to the closest elections office. “As the first and original peoples of this land, we have had only a century of recognized citizenship, and we continue to face systematic barriers when exercising the fundamental and hard-fought-for right to vote,” Democratic National Committee Native Caucus chair Clara Pratte said in a press release from the Democratic Party.

As part of the commemoration of the Indian Citizenship Act, the Democratic National Committee is distributing voter engagement and protection information in Apache, Ho-Chunk, Hopi, Navajo, Paiute, Shoshone, and Zuni.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[victusinveritas]

Link to full article.

“While US citizenship was granted to most Native Americans under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, some state constitutions continued to block the voting rights of Native Americans who lived among their nations. In Arizona, pollsters required English literacy tests to cast a ballot. All Native Americans were finally granted the right to vote under the federal voting rights act of 1965.”

[disregardcanon]

Citizenship is a United States birthright. If you are born here and are not the child of a foreign ambassador, you are a citizen. The status of your parents ONLY matters if they are ambassadors.

This has been established law since the implementation of the 14th amendment for everyone not subject to a Native American tribe, and was extended to ALL in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

One hundred years and one years ago!

[dcdreamblog]

Roy Raymond's book about the history of PIs has a chapter on PoC PIs and he mentions a native American private detective who went by "Pow-Wow Smith"; I seem to recall that this was a nickname occasionally used for Sheriff Ohiyesa Smith, the Western Hero (which he hated for obvious reasons); was this a descendant or just someone using it for name recognition or...?

Yea that one's a...I mean I'm sure it was progressive for the time. So to back fill some information for those not in the know. We're talking here about famous sheriff Ohiyesa Smith of Elkhorn, Nebraska.

(Smith's official portrait from his exhibit at the National Cowboy 7 Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City (can you tell they're my best source for shit like this?))

Yes that was the name he went by, only about half against his will. It is how he is recorded for posterity and while I do not enjoy it, his actual relationship to the name and his own legacy during life was...complicated to say the least.

He was born on what is now the Red Deer Valley reservation to the Santee Sioux, a band of the Eastern Dakota in Nebraska and went out to learn about the "white man's world" via the nearby town of Elkhorn. He was a skilled tracker, fighter and shooter and so was made deputy sheriff in short order and eventually promoted to sheriff full stop.

The name "Pow Wow" was given to him by the townsfolk in what by all accounts seemed to be a genuine attempt at affection. Yes, Ohiyesa made it clear, especially in his early career that he would have preferred going by his "Indian name" (his words, not mine) but as the town continued to insist and as he integrated himself more and more with that community he made his peace with it calling it, from his own diaries... "The people of this city blessing me with their approval. I cannot fully remove the part of me that is proud to here the name "Pow Wow" spoken proudly by my people and with fear by bandits and outlaws" Make of that what you will, he was a Sioux man who had gained some measure of status and even acclaim in the late 1800s. While he was to many respects a trailblazing and radical figure I can't find it in my heart to condemn him for picking his battles and making his peace.

He was even granted US citizenship directly by an act of congress (Because no one is allowed to forget native americans were not given automatic citizenship until *1924*)

He eventually married another SIoux woman named Fleetfoot Smith and they had many children, who in turn had children, on and on until we get to today's subject. U.S Marshall Ohiyesa Smith the Second.

(Cropped newspaper photo of Smith from the Gotham Gazette)

Yes, Smith is indeed a direct descendant of the famous man with whom he shares a name. He is also on the rolls as a member of the Santee Sioux of Red Deer Valley. By all accounts he is a U.S Marshall in VERY good standing with a sterling record (as I was told very directly (and loudly) by a government source (I have those now) who assumed I was investigating him out of some kind of assumption of misconduct.)

If there's an award that a U.S Marshall is eligible for, Smith has one it thrice over and everybody I spoke to had nothing but decent things to say about him. Though he's probably most famous outside "true crime"-esque circles for an utterly bizarre caper he was wrapped up in that involved an old fashioned shoot out at the derelict Gotham Gulch amusement park.

[darkmaga-returns]

Under the 14th Amendment: “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.” This clause from 1868 has far surpassed its original intent. It has been abused as a method for citizenship by illegal migrants who often intentionally travel to the US to give birth, but not in the way the media portrays it. Recent data suggests at least 400,000 “anchor babies,” as they are called, were born in the US in 2024 alone.

The Common Law Doctrine of Jus Soli under English common law protected “right of the soil,” which deemed anyone born on a country’s soil to be a citizen. The US Constitution never clearly defined citizenship until the Naturalization Act of 1790, which granted citizenship to “free white persons” born on US soil. The advent of the Civil War left dire uncertainty for slaves who had no homeland to return to after the war came to an end and slavery was abolished. The 1844 case Lynch v Clarke in New York reaffirmed that anyone born to non-citizen parents would be considered an American. The Reconstruction Amendments remained vague, and Dred Scott was expanded in 1868 to include:

“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.”

The law remained open to interpretation. Native Americans, for example, were not seen as Americans since they did not pledge their allegiance to the federal government. It was not until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 that Native Americans were considered full citizens.

America’s complicated past with citizenship has led to today’s debacle. Nowhere along the way did the Supreme Court or any other entity grant citizenship to parents of children born in the US. However, the system often looks the other way to prevent separating families. American-born children may sponsor their parents for a green card when they turn 21. Then, the parents must wait five years before applying for naturalization. Parents often must leave the US for a decade before applying for citizenship. Yet, in recent years, we have seen people completely bypass the system by claiming asylum. Under Biden-Harris, the borders were simply wide open.

Hence why, the media is attacking incoming border tzar Tom Homan for insisting that families can leave the US together if they want to prevent separation. The parents are here illegally — plain and simple.

[reasoningdaily]

NO! You are NOT Cherokee!

History of the biggest myth in genealogy!

liars Really hate DNA and records.

[wherestoriescomefrom]

Seldom before has there been so much joy in the shadow of defeat. But as the results of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections began to trickle in on Tuesday morning, the smiles and good cheer began to heat up an already sultry day. Not since the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019 has India allowed itself what former US President Barack Obama described as the audacity of hope.

Of course, even though the Bharatiya Janata Party has fallen short of a majority, Narendra Modi has taken it close enough to the halfway mark to form the new government. However, in its enfeebled state, propped up by allies who know the precise cost of their support, the new BJP administration will be forced to temper its bluster and contain its malevolence against those it considers its enemies. Among those the BJP has considered its adversaries are independent journalists, several of whom have been jailed and prosecuted simply for doing their jobs.

This result will undoubtedly trigger a tectonic shift in the BJP. There is no telling how the pieces will fall. As long-supressed aspirations in the Hindutva party shoot to the surface, perhaps even more hardline leaders will assume prominence.

But as reports from the ground have pointed out, this mandate is a rejection of the illiberal agenda, both social and economic, that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has advanced over the past decade. By ignoring Modi’s provocations of mangalsutras, machli and mujras, Indian voters – especially the most marginalised – have decisively rallied to the defence of the Constitution.

The battle to reclaim the idea of an equitable India is far from being won. But as Tuesday demonstrated, there are many who dream of reinforcing the foundations of a Republic based on the values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. For now, India can breathe again.

— The Audacity of Hope, Scroll Editor's Note.

[misfitwashere]

The only real firewall against the Trump regime

In the pending Trump regime, federal judges (most of them appointed by Democratic presidents) will form the most important firewall. 

ROBERT REICH

JAN 2

Friends,

As a practical matter, where will we find a firewall against the excesses of the Trump regime? The federal courts. 

You might say it doesn’t matter because the Supreme Court will rubber-stamp whatever Trump and his cronies want to do. 

Not so. The Supreme Court didn’t support all of Trump’s moves in his first administration (remember Trump’s Muslim ban?). 

More importantly, fewer than 1 percent of federal cases ever reach the Supreme Court. Given the amount of federal litigation likely to be created by the upcoming Trump administration, the Supreme Court probably won’t be able to deal with even 1 percent. 

Most disputes will be decided instead by 1,457 federal judges across 209 courts in the federal court system.

Most of these federal judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. 

Of the 680 federal district court judges, 370 were appointed by Democrats compared to 267 by Republicans. 

Of the 179 federal courts of appeals judges, 89 were appointed by Republican presidents and 89 by Democratic presidents. Judges appointed by Democratic presidents hold the majority of seats on seven of the 13 regional courts of appeal. 

(Biden nominated and the Senate confirmed 235 federal judges — a quarter of all federal judges, and one more than Trump.)

***

Examples of federal litigation we can expect:

1. Trump has promised to withhold, by executive action, birthright citizenship from people born in the United States to parents who are undocumented immigrants. 

Yet the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The restriction, at the time of the amendment’s adoption in 1868, was widely understood to exclude foreign diplomats and native tribes. American Indians later started receiving birthright citizenship under a law passed in 1924.

2. Trump says he’ll refuse to spend money that Congress has authorized. 

“When I return to the White House, I will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court,” Trump has said. “With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money.”

Wrong. Congress restricted impoundments in 1974 in response to Nixon’s efforts to unilaterally alter domestic programs. Trump’s OMB is expected to argue that the 1974 Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. But the Constitution assigns Congress the “power of the purse” to control taxation and spending. 

3. Trump wants to revive a policy from late in his first term making it easier to fire tens of thousands of civil servants despite Biden’s moves to bolster their protections. 

When Trump does this, unions representing federal workers will appeal to the federal courts. 

4. Trump will seek to raise tariffs across the board, arguably a move that requires congressional action. 

To impose 25 percent tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada, as Trump says he wants to do, would require his reliance on an emergency powers law that’s the basis for U.S. financial sanctions, but not the basis for tariffs. Such executive action would almost certainly be challenged by affected businesses. 

5. Trump will try to erode Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without congressional approval. 

Vivek Ramaswamy, the co-chair (with Elon Musk) of Trump’s so-called “Department” of Government Efficiency, asserts that he and Musk could cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without Congress’ approval. “The executive branch has no obligation to send out a payment if it is wasteful,” he said. 

I doubt they’ll try to take on these popular programs head-on. More likely, they’ll try to alter eligibility or, as in the case of Medicaid, impose work requirements and make block-grants to the states. 

Where will this issue be decided? Again, in the federal courts. 

6. Trump will seek to undo thousands of regulations through an executive order instructing agencies not to enforce them. 

Musk and Ramaswamy have already boasted that this is what Trump will do. The Administrative Procedure Act requires, however, an open process if agencies want to adopt or rescind regulations. 

Musk and Ramaswamy’s moves (via Trump) will be instantly appealed to the federal courts. 

7. DOGE’s secrecy itself will be challenged. 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 requires outside groups advising the executive branch to hold open meetings and include a range of perspectives. (The federal appeals court in Washington upheld the requirements during the first Trump administration, when a veterans group sued the Department of Veterans Affairs for relying on a trio of advisersbased out of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club.)

Where will this be decided? The federal courts could order disclosures or even bar agencies from using recommendations from advisers who broke the rules.

***

Trump’s incipient administration is already laying plans for this tsunami of federal litigation against the regime. “Those who seek to delay or stall [Trump’s] agenda by filing litigation against the Trump administration will be subverting the will of the tens of millions of Americans who just reelected President Trump,” said Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt. 

Rubbish. In light of Republican control over the White House and both chambers of Congress, litigation in the federal courts may be the only way to protect the rights of the tens of millions of Americans who didn’t elect Trump and even of many who did. 

Given that most of this litigation will be decided not by the Supreme Court but by federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, there’s a fair chance that many of Trump’s initiatives will be found to be illegal.

[a-resplendent-mushroom]

i know damn well that i am not going to be the most affected party by this.

i am white-presenting. quarter-chilean, quarter-hungarian. i have no connection to either culture. second generation. i'm in no danger in that respect.

i'm cis. plenty of women wear men's clothing. it's not going to raise any eyebrows.

i'm lesbian, but that can easily be hidden. i'm young enough that no one will notice if i do, in fact, date women. it shouldn't be an issue. i don't need to get married.

but i'm still affected. i'm going to be an elementary teacher. how am i going to make sure my kids learn what i did, if the department of education is being dismantled as soon as he takes office? i've never been wealthy, and i need significant scholarships to stay in school. how am i going to pay for food? how is my mother going to pay for food now that prices are going to sky rocket, food is no longer going to be safe? my best friend is indian, first generation. what will happen to her parents, who only got citizenship 9 years ago? my family is only still alive because of no-fault divorce. what do i do now, knowing that other people in our same situation are going to be stuck there until they can "prove it?" is a 78-year-old white man going to make period-tracking mandatory? how do i avoid a major breach of my privacy? how do i get basic healthcare, knowing that he's going to tear down every institution for us he can? the clean air act is going to be stripped. how am i going to breathe?

no one is unaffected. no one is unaffected.

[thoughtportal]

ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids are terrorizing immigrants across the United States. Federal agents are violating immigrants’ constitutional rights by arresting people without reasonable suspicion. Even though being here as an undocumented person is a civil violation and not a crime, federal agents are arresting undocumented people who have no criminal records.

Trump’s mass deportation policies are also harming people with valid visas and U.S. citizens who are impacted by racial profiling, including people from Puerto Rico and people who are Indigenous to these lands, because they are brown. For example, some Native residents of Arizona and New Mexico have already reportedly been questioned or detained by federal immigration agents, so Tribal leaders are encouraging people to carry identification documentation and sharing Know Your Rights information for encounters with agents.

The Trump administration has also challenged the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, including Native people’s citizenship -- ignoring the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and 100 years of case law in addition to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The administration is emboldening federal agencies (including ICE, Customs & Border Patrol, and the FBI) to disregard laws and abuse power across the United States, which endangers all of our communities.

Government officials around the country are joining organizations to challenge many of these actions in court. Now, members of Congress must also step up and do more to push back. They can refuse to fund immigration raids or detention centers, reject Trump nominees, vote no on xenophobic policies, conduct oversight visits of immigration detention centers, and speak out forcefully to pressure the Trump administration to walk back their illegal actions. But they need to hear from us.