By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration, in legal filings challenging birthright citizenship, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause requires individuals to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” citing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded “Indians not taxed.” This interpretation, supported by the Supreme Court’s Elk v. Wilkins decision denying citizenship to Native Americans due to tribal allegiance, contends that the government’s connection to children of undocumented immigrants is weaker than its relationship with tribal members. This position represents a significant shift from the government’s previous stance on Native American citizenship.
Read the original article here
The Trump administration’s legal challenge to Native American birthright citizenship is a deeply unsettling development. It’s a blatant attempt to undermine the very foundation of their existence within the United States, a nation built on stolen land and a history of oppression against Indigenous peoples. The argument presented—that Native Americans’ connection to their tribes somehow diminishes their claim to U.S. citizenship—is breathtaking in its audacity and historical ignorance.
This legal maneuver seems strategically timed and targeted. The ongoing disputes over border wall construction on tribal lands have created significant friction between the government and federally recognized tribes. By questioning the citizenship of Native Americans, the administration effectively seeks to weaken their legal standing and leverage to resist land seizures and development projects on their ancestral territories. This tactic potentially allows for the easier exploitation of tribal lands for resource extraction, infrastructure development, and other economically profitable endeavors.
The claim that Native Americans are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is historically inaccurate and legally dubious. Their citizenship was formally granted in 1924, although their inherent right to their homeland predates the nation’s founding. The argument conveniently ignores the centuries-long history of the U.S. government’s active role in managing and controlling tribal affairs, often in oppressive and exploitative ways. This makes the notion of Native Americans lacking subjection to U.S. jurisdiction utterly absurd.
Furthermore, the administration’s assertion raises the chilling specter of mass disenfranchisement. It’s a dangerous precedent that could lead to further erosion of rights and protections for marginalized communities. This action is hardly about legal technicalities; rather, it’s a naked power grab, aimed at stripping Native Americans of their citizenship and their land.
The hypocrisy is particularly galling. The very same individuals who claim Indigenous peoples have insufficient grounds for birthright citizenship frequently assert a historical right to land based on a supposed ancestral claim. Such a perspective completely ignores the brutal displacement and genocide inflicted upon Native Americans for centuries. To now deny them their birthright citizenship is an appalling act of historical revisionism and legal chicanery. The land rightfully belongs to the people who inhabited it for millennia before European colonization, making their claim to citizenship far stronger than any based on recent immigration.
The timing of this legal action is also suspicious, given the high stakes involved. This challenge to birthright citizenship is not a minor legal matter; it’s a direct assault on the sovereignty and self-determination of Native American tribes. It is a deeply cynical and potentially catastrophic move with severe consequences for Indigenous peoples and the future of the nation. This action fuels a dangerous narrative that justifies dispossession and further oppression of already marginalized communities.
It’s not just about land; it’s about voting rights. Native Americans have a proven tendency to vote Democratic, and this legal challenge may be intended to suppress their political participation. Removing voting rights from a substantial bloc of voters would be profoundly undemocratic, and it is a dangerous move that undermines the integrity of the electoral process.
The core of the issue lies in the inherent contradiction between the assertion that Native Americans aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction and the reality of their subjugation under U.S. law for centuries. The government has historically controlled their land, resources, and lives, making the lack of “jurisdiction” claim a blatant falsehood. This makes the current legal challenge a thinly veiled attempt at land grabbing and political suppression.
Ultimately, this attempt to deny birthright citizenship to Native Americans is not just a legal battle; it is a moral and ethical outrage. It represents a shameful chapter in the ongoing struggle for justice and equality for Indigenous peoples in the United States. This action warrants the strongest possible condemnation and opposition. The full weight of legal and political action must be brought to bear to defend the rights and sovereignty of Native Americans and prevent this dangerous precedent from taking hold. The international community should also take note of this egregious violation of human rights and exert pressure on the United States to rectify this grave injustice.