Trump's attempt to overturn birthright citizenship uses century-old Native American case
Navajo Nation advises citizens to carry state identification due to immigration raids
Indigenous people in the U.S. are worried by President Donald Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right, using a 19th century case that denied citizenship to a Native American.
The 14th Amendment reads that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Last week, Trump issued an executive order that would eliminate it, but a federal judge blocked the order temporarily shortly after 22 states quickly mounted a legal challenge.
In court, the Justice Department used the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins as a legal analogy to justify Trump's executive order. Arguing that "birth in the United States does not by itself entitle a person to citizenship, the person must also be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States," it said the case found members of tribes "are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to citizenship."
At the time, Indigenous people weren't considered citizens of the United States. John Elk was a Ho-Chunk man who expatriated himself from his nation to claim birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
"John Elk … moved to the city of Omaha in Nebraska and argued he has separated himself from his tribe, and he seeks to vote in an election," said Gregory Ablavsky, Marion Rice Kirkwood professor of law at Stanford Law School.
Ablavsky said Native Americans were excluded from birthright citizenship because of their affiliation to their tribes.
"Elk's argument [was], 'I have left my nation … and by severing my ties to my tribal community, I have now therefore legally become a birthright citizen," said Ablavsky.
"But the Supreme Court rejected that argument."
Ablavsky said that when the U.S. Constitution was created, it was unclear to the United States government, what power they had over Native American tribes.
"Congress was not clear that it had the constitutional authority to legislate for Native peoples at all directly; it also was the law that state authority did not apply to Native Americans who were living within Indian Country," said Ablavsky.
"So the analogy is, I think, unpersuasive and historically ignorant."