Talk:Indian Citizenship Act

message: Is a national of India who gives issue within the US entitled, under this law, to claim US citizenship.  Whilst, no doubt, not the intention of this act, the word 'Indian' surely includes a national of India in addition to the intended meaning.  Has this been tested in court ?--Phillip Fung 09:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The law concerns Native Americans, not nationals of India. -Will Beback 03:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the previous comment. The issue of what Americans commonly understand the law to mean is known (i.e. "Indian" = native american). The question is different: would the US legal system understand this too, or would the term "Indian" also be taken at its plain meaning to include Indians ?--Ordew 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say for sure, but the confusing usage is familiar enough that I'd assume the courts, etc, are used to making the distinction. -Will Beback 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Loophole ?

message: I understand someone not liking the word "Indian".  However the title of the 1924 Act of Congress was "Indian Citizenship Act", which is also the name of this page.  It should not be changed.   I am going back and changing the word "Indian" to Native American on the rest of the page when it does not refer to the title of the Act. --Rcollman 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the quotes from the name of the act. --Cam 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles can't be change but other words should be changed

message: This article purports to quote from the statute:
: 
:: 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
: 
Did it really say "non citizens" with no hyphen, rather than "non-citizens" or "noncitizens"?  Treating "non" as a separate word like this, rather than as a prefix, is something I never heard of until fairly recent years, and seems to be done only by people born fairly recently. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Precision of this quote

message: The Native Americans shown in the photograph with Calvin Coolidge are not Osage. Their dress and symbols are all wrong. Probably Blackfoot or Northern Plains. I am trying to obtain a photo showing the real Osage delegation from someone in my tribe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.236.172 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I don't know if we can help you much. The official caption says they are Osage. Given that this is a 1924 photo, it wouldn't surprise me if it's completely wrong, but on the other hand, it's not really in accordance with wikipedia policy to decide something like that is wrong and try to correct it. Instead, you may want to approach the Library of Congress  and inform them that you believe the caption is inaccurate. Hopefully they will be more then willing to listen which will mean not only will the official caption be corrected (which is likely to be used by other researchers etc), but they may be able to invest the time to find out who the people in the photo really are. Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The photo is captioned incorrectly

message: The references in the article are printed oddly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.249.165 (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: An author has repeatedly submitted the following, "(The Fourteenth Amendment already defined as citizens any person born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excluded anyone who already had citizenship in a foreign power such as a tribal nation.)"
Attempts to correct the record have been rebuffed by the author.  In removing the "citation needed" reference, the author deleted with the explanation, "Well-established in law, read the rest of the article."  If this was indeed well-established, a citation could easily be supplied.
Let me offer reasons why the verifiability of this statement may prove difficult:
First, this interpretation of the the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is not the law as we know it.  Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, children born to foreign citizens, excluding citizens with diplomatic immunity, have been born US Citizens.  For the author's addition to be "well-established in law" it would, in the least, need to be legal.  This claim, i.e., that citizenship was not conferred to "...anyone who already had citizenship in a foreign power"  is specious at best, and certainly not consistent with Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
Second, Indian nations are not considered foreign powers, but "domestic dependent nations". 
U.S. Supreme Court Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1 1 (1831)
"The Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore an unquestioned, right to the lands they occupy until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our Government. It may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases; meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relations to the United States resemble that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our Government for protection, rely upon its kindness and its power, appeal to it for relief to their wants, and address the President as their Great Father."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teesa Alalah (talk • contribs) 18:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, we do not put citations in the lead, as the lead summarizes material placed in the body text with citations, but here, there are three references, all at the end of that paragraph, covering and sourcing this material.  Cherokee Nation v Georgia established the concept of domestic dependent nations and tribal sovereignty, but the Fourteenth Amendment contained specific exclusionary language in section 2 for "Indians not taxed" as well as the general language in section 1. (See Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Native_Americans )  The point of this article is that statutory changes were needed to grant Native people the rights everyone else had.  The lead could use a bit of rephrasing, though, so I will tweak it a bit.  Montanabw(talk) 07:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The "interpretation" you offer is your own.  I suggest that you are offering a false narrative in support of nativist feelings that have nothing to do with this article.  Your claim should be properly backed up in a verifiable source and you have not done this so far, as the existing footnotes support Coolidge's signing of the act.  You have made one erroneous claim already, by referring to indian nations as "foreign powers".  You do so again by suggesting that the Section 2 reference to "Indians not taxed" which is in reference to apportioning, extends to the citizenship clause (Section 1).  Use of the term was, in fact, debated, but it was rejected.  Senator Trumbull summarizes the sentiment succinctly, "I am not willing to make citizenship in the United States depend on taxation." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=15  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teesa Alalah (talk • contribs) 19:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Your interpretation is clearly the correct one legally, and any other interpretation is WP:FRINGE and not due any WP:WEIGHT at all. If the sock wishes to include such fringe material, than it will need to show how this is a significant fringe view. Otherwise, we just need to revert their edits as vandalism, on sight. Regards, GregJackP Boomer!  03:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Robert.  This cuts to the root of my concern.  With regard to the the Fourteenth Amendment, there has never been any question that children born in the US are US Citizens.  The rationale for exclusion of Indians from citizenship is deeply rooted in racism, denying due process in the dispossession of land, and denying voting rights, not in questions of nationality.Teesa Alalah (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a legitimate question of whether Native Americans were subject to its jurisdiction, but the matter of foreign jurisdiction, except for diplomats, misses the point.  A person born in the United States to German citizens is both a US citizen and a German citizen.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the lead to fit the material added in the first paragraph of the "History and background" section.  Obviously, if all Native people were citizens under the 14th Amendment, there would have been no reason for the 1924 statute.  I tossed the material on foreign nationals here to avoid mixing the issues.  (Though the Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_Clause section explains the details more thoroughly)  The argument that was made at the time was that Native people were "citizens" of their respective tribal nations, and thus, were generally not "real" citizens of the United States.  While I agree with Teesa Alalah that racism was most likely an underlying motivation, the reality is that Elk v. Wilkins settled the matter in 1884 and established the precedent that held until the law changed. Today that is not the case, but it was back then.  Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I have also added some material on Elk v. Wilkins to the article.   Noting the Congressional record cited above, I have to add the debate on the very next page, , wherein Hendricks stated, referring to Native people, "they are not now citizens, they are subjects..."  This is a sad part of US history, but we cannot whitewash that the 14th Amendment was not applied to Native people.  Montanabw(talk) 18:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Better.  If you really want to leave that interpretation in the lede though, I think the sentence should read, "...the amendment, along with other state laws, federal regulations, and court cases had been instrumental in denying Indian citizenship, or placing conditions upon it."  I say this because the article goes on to talk about so many other important facts: the Dawes Act, Elk v Wilkins is good (good add), military service.  The article used the word "piecemeal", and that's the way it was.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teesa Alalah (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But that exceeds the scope of this article; the point is the Fourteenth Amendment was what was interpreted under Elk v. Wilkins and the Congressional discussions in 1870.  You can't exceed the scope here and you are still failing to see how to interpret the statutory and constitutional provisions.  This is an article about a law, not a polemic about all the problems faced by native people.  I'm not "interpreting" anything, the lead states facts; most Native people were denied US Citizenship for decades and even this Act didn't grant full citizenship to everyone.  Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See my above comments. The article is fine as is, if the sock wants to add fringe material, then they need to justify it. GregJackP Boomer!  03:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That applies to everybody.  The reference to the 14th amendment was only recently shoe-horned into this article...and the author of these edits is now claiming it's that it's the principle reason, "the point" for the Act.  In fact, there are myriad reasons for the Act, several cited in the article itself.  It's not fringe material if its right here in the article.  All reasons for the Indian Citizenship Act are within the "scope".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teesa Alalah (talk • contribs) 06:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative Claim and Should be Removed or supported by Verifiable Facts 

message: A third opinion has been requested.  If the question has to do with language about the Citizenship Clause that refers to anyone who had citizenship in a foreign power, that language should be removed because it is just incorrect, because children born to foreign parents in the United States, while clearly citizens of the United States, may also be citizens of the country of their parents, if the country has jus sanguinis.  If that isn't the question, please explain what the question really is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Robert.  This cuts to the root of my concern.  With regard to the the Fourteenth Amendment, there has never been any question that children born in the US are US Citizens.  The rationale for exclusion of Indians from citizenship is deeply rooted in racism, denying due process in the dispossession of land, and denying voting rights, not in questions of nationality.Teesa Alalah (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a legitimate question of whether Native Americans were subject to its jurisdiction, but the matter of foreign jurisdiction, except for diplomats, misses the point.  A person born in the United States to German citizens is both a US citizen and a German citizen.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the lead to fit the material added in the first paragraph of the "History and background" section.  Obviously, if all Native people were citizens under the 14th Amendment, there would have been no reason for the 1924 statute.  I tossed the material on foreign nationals here to avoid mixing the issues.  (Though the Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_Clause section explains the details more thoroughly)  The argument that was made at the time was that Native people were "citizens" of their respective tribal nations, and thus, were generally not "real" citizens of the United States.  While I agree with Teesa Alalah that racism was most likely an underlying motivation, the reality is that Elk v. Wilkins settled the matter in 1884 and established the precedent that held until the law changed. Today that is not the case, but it was back then.  Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I have also added some material on Elk v. Wilkins to the article.   Noting the Congressional record cited above, I have to add the debate on the very next page, , wherein Hendricks stated, referring to Native people, "they are not now citizens, they are subjects..."  This is a sad part of US history, but we cannot whitewash that the 14th Amendment was not applied to Native people.  Montanabw(talk) 18:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Better.  If you really want to leave that interpretation in the lede though, I think the sentence should read, "...the amendment, along with other state laws, federal regulations, and court cases had been instrumental in denying Indian citizenship, or placing conditions upon it."  I say this because the article goes on to talk about so many other important facts: the Dawes Act, Elk v Wilkins is good (good add), military service.  The article used the word "piecemeal", and that's the way it was.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teesa Alalah (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But that exceeds the scope of this article; the point is the Fourteenth Amendment was what was interpreted under Elk v. Wilkins and the Congressional discussions in 1870.  You can't exceed the scope here and you are still failing to see how to interpret the statutory and constitutional provisions.  This is an article about a law, not a polemic about all the problems faced by native people.  I'm not "interpreting" anything, the lead states facts; most Native people were denied US Citizenship for decades and even this Act didn't grant full citizenship to everyone.  Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See my above comments. The article is fine as is, if the sock wants to add fringe material, then they need to justify it. GregJackP Boomer!  03:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That applies to everybody.  The reference to the 14th amendment was only recently shoe-horned into this article...and the author of these edits is now claiming it's that it's the principle reason, "the point" for the Act.  In fact, there are myriad reasons for the Act, several cited in the article itself.  It's not fringe material if its right here in the article.  All reasons for the Indian Citizenship Act are within the "scope".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teesa Alalah (talk • contribs) 06:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: The article says:
    The Act did not include citizens born before the effective date of the 1924 act, [...]
which seems to imply that the Indian Citizenship Act did not immediately grant citizenship to anyone at the time it became effective, because, obviously, all the people alive at that time were born before the effective date, and thus "not included" in the Act. (Although the wording in the sentence makes little sense anyway, as it says "citizens", but clearly the Act is to give citizenship to people who were not citizens, so would not include any "citizens" anyway.)
However, if that is true, then the first sentences in the paragraph become hard to understand. It says:
    The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted citizenship to about 125,000 of 300,000 indigenous people in the United States. To put these numbers in perspective, the U.S. population at that time was less than 125 million.
It granted citizenship to about 125,000 people at what time? Does it mean at the time of enactment of the Act? or within the whole period between the enactment of the Act in 1924 and 1940 when the Nationality Act of 1940 superseded it? If it meant within a period of time, then the "of 300,000" and the "the U.S. population at that time was less than 125 million" wouldn't make sense, because those seem to indicate a specific point in time rather than a period (what would it mean to say there were 300,000 indigenous people over a period of 16 years? how does it count people who were born or died in that period?). The only reasonable way to read this, I think, would be to mean it granted citizenship to 125,000 at the time of enactment of the Act, but then that contradicts the other statement about it not applying to people born before the Act. --73.252.250.104 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information about whether the Act gave citizenship to anyone at the time of enactment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian Citizenship Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011204536/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol4/html_files/v4p1165.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol4/html_files/v4p1165.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We should probably have a more general article on the broader history of Native American citizenship and activism, given the long timeline preceding 1924.--Pharos (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Native American citizenship]]