this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
30 points (96.9% liked)

politics

20358 readers
5016 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/24646745

Is it weird that I see nothing objectionable about this one? Looks solid to me, other than bypassing a Senate vote.

There has to be some Monkey's Paw here somewhere, but I'm not immediately seeing it.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WhereGrapesMayRule 24 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

He argued in federal court today that members of native American tribes are not citizens.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] jordanlund 17 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Part of the birthright citizenship executive order:

https://www.salon.com/2025/01/23/excluding-indians-admin-questions-native-americans-birthright-citizenship-in/

The Justice Department then goes on to cite the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which predates the 14th Amendment by two years. The Justice Department attorneys specifically cite a section of the act that notes that  “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

The Trump administration then goes on to argue that the 14th Amendment’s language — the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — is best understood “to exclude the same individuals who were excluded by the Act —i.e., those who are ‘subject to any foreign power’ and ‘Indians not taxed.’” 

The Justice Department attorneys return to the topic of whether or not Native Americans should be entitled to birthright citizenship later in their arguments, citing a Supreme Court case, Elk v. Wilkins, in which the court decided that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to Citizenship.”

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh well that explains it then. By recognizing this tribe federally I bet he is tryng to revoke their citizenship so he can kill them later.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Follow the money. There has to be some profit downstream. Otherwise this would be a blanket recognizing for all tribes in the US. Maybe some quid pro quo for some resource, with the threat of removing the status if they don't comply?

[–] jordanlund 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It was to win North Carolina, of course now that he got the votes, he wants to block them from ever voting again.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

The promise was to get the votes, but to grant that promise suggests more to it.

[–] jj4211 3 points 4 weeks ago

But at this point, that should be moot either way, they are being born to people that have been recognized at citizens and nothing in the order seems to claim to be retroactive, and as far as I've seen, they only are claiming changes for children of non citizens.

While he's chock full of malice and corruption, I'm thinking that this one is potentially innocuous in nature. It's not like every single thing must have a catch, though I certainly appreciate folks looking out for what those catches are... He did promise the Lumbee tribe recognition and they have long actively sought that recognition, so this would seem to be a strangely straightforward move in a sea of weirdness.

[–] jordanlund 12 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Aha! Repayment of a campaign promise for NC voters:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-lumbee-tribe-nc-campaign-promise-2019969

"In September, Trump made a bold campaign promise to the Lumbee Tribe during a rally, vowing to grant them federal recognition if reelected. Speaking at the Aero Center near Wilmington International Airport in North Carolina, Trump addressed a crowd of supporters, including John Cummings, a Lumbee Tribe member and Robeson County board commissioner.

"The Lumbee Tribe has been wrongfully denied federal recognition for more than a century," Trump declared. "But now we're going to take care of it. We'll take care of it right at the beginning.""

[–] rigatti 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Kind of weird that he would actually follow up with that promise. I guess someone on his team remembered.

[–] jordanlund 14 points 4 weeks ago

On the same day they argue "indians" aren't citizens...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 weeks ago

AP News 11/29/24

When Kamala Harris and Donald Trump campaigned in North Carolina, both candidates courted a state-recognized tribe there whose 55,000 members could have helped tip the swing state.

Trump in September promised that he would sign legislation to grant federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe, a distinction that would unlock access to federal funds. He ultimately won North Carolina by more than 3 percentage points, in part due to continued support from Lumbee voters.