![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 2, 2007, June 2, 2008, June 2, 2009, June 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021. |
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)
The law says that the Indian applying for citizenship would needs to be born within the boundaries of the US. Today, anyone of any nationality who is born here has automatic citizenship.
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)
This article purports to quote from the statute:
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)
Did this act enable Charles Curtis' (VP during Hoover's Presidency) citizenship? 69.174.171.59 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC).
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)
The references in the article are printed oddly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.249.165 ( talk) 13:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
The lead is supposed to summarize the article body. If the citations are needed, they can be placed at the appropriate location in the body of the article. Cites are here. [2] [3] [4]
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 2, 2007, June 2, 2008, June 2, 2009, June 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021. |
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)
The law says that the Indian applying for citizenship would needs to be born within the boundaries of the US. Today, anyone of any nationality who is born here has automatic citizenship.
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)
This article purports to quote from the statute:
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)
Did this act enable Charles Curtis' (VP during Hoover's Presidency) citizenship? 69.174.171.59 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC).
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)
The references in the article are printed oddly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.249.165 ( talk) 13:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
The lead is supposed to summarize the article body. If the citations are needed, they can be placed at the appropriate location in the body of the article. Cites are here. [2] [3] [4]
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
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)