41–50 of 80 posts
It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.
Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.
Further, laws depend upon which country you are in, not citizen of. If I Followed UK law in the US, I wouldn't get very far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.
Sure doesn’t seem like it’s constitutionally sound. If they’re born in the country, they’re citizens. Personal affiliation isn’t specified in the constitution or its amendments.
So, out of curiosity, do these treaties belong to the public domain now?
The physical documents are not PD, because the concept has no meaning in the physical realm.
Photographs are works separate from the objects they show, but the same limitation as to government works as above applies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the treaty violates the U.S. Constitution I am not a constitutional law expert, but I believe that under article 6 section 2 (the supremacy clause) treaties are held to be equal to the constitution. Thus, there is a very high bar for a treaty to by nullified based on contradicting the constitution. There is very little case law on this, and I believe the only instance in which an international executive agreement (…
[flagged]
Then don't be. No one is forcing you. Just leave.
Yes, terrible things were done in the founding of America, but terrible things happened all over the world throughout history (including between warring native tribes). But what we need to take from this isn't that our ancestors were horrible human beings, but that they did wrong things and more importantly, we need to strive to learn from it, not repeat their mistakes and generally be better people.
> the current property "owners" are criminal trespassers in my view.
Then pretty much every single American is a trespassers because basically the entire United States (or North America in general) was settled by native American before the Europeans "discovered" it, and in most cases, they didn't sell them their land.
I wonder what things would be like if the European settlers hadn't displaced the indigenous Americans. (If the American Indian way of life evolved and was still predominant today.) It's an interesting mental exercise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Mexico rural indigenous peasants were treated as subhuman garbage. White landowners pretty much did what they liked: murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, forced labor, mass-murder, destruction of whole villages, forced relocation, ... Within living memory, indigenous people would have their property stolen or destroyed by Spanish-speaking thugs with no legal recourse, would be forced into labor, would be murdered or r…
By the way, why did Southern states import slaves from Africa instead of enslaving local people?
----
sidenote: They also bought people who knew how to cultivate indigo for dyes. This meant that indigo was the dye most-available for the continental army in 1775.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.
ITT: you're all feeding the troll.
It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.
Native Americans had Spanish citizenship almost 300 years earlier and also retained their lands, affiliation, and culture under the law of the Spanish Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Indians
“Spanish explorers arrived on California's coasts as early as the mid-16th century. In 1769 the first Spanish Franciscan mission was built in San Diego. Local tribes were relocated and conscripted into forced labor on the mission, stretching from San Diego to San Francisco. Disease, starvation, over work and torture decimated these tribes.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.
The European immigrants likely had dual citizenship, so why not the Native Americans? It was extremely unfair and served no purpose. And regarding your point under two laws. Any American citizen living overseas has to follow both US law and local law. Its not difficult. You don't even need dual citizenship to be in this situation. If the constitution said nobody could have dual citizenship, like Japan as one of many…
It definitely served a purpose--to attempt to wipe out tribal identity and force assimilation.
That being said, dual citizenship was outright banned during most of the 19th and 20th centuries.
To this day naturalized citizens symbolically renounce their former citizenships.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"