Birthright citizenship

[yankees60]

I guess we'll all find out together.

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

For certain!

[dualstow]

It sucks that Native Americans are getting harassed. It's insulting. But we all know they aren't going anywhere.

[ochotona]

And let me remind everyone, for White people this is "interesting random Constitutional law questions". Have a convo, then return to your Sunday paper and crossword puzzle, and please pass the strawberry jam.

For others it's existential.

[dualstow]

My father’s family was mostly murdered for their identity.
Being hassled by ICE? Nah, not so much.

[Xan]

I guess we'll all find out together.

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

It might seem normal to us today, but the citizenship situation of Native Americans is far from a slam dunk. What we're talking about is treatment of a conquered people by the conquerors. How many times in history have the conquered people been granted the rights and privileges of citizenship in the conquering nation, merely because they had been conquered? Such a thing is a very new idea.

[yankees60]

I guess we'll all find out together.

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

It might seem normal to us today, but the citizenship situation of Native Americans is far from a slam dunk. What we're talking about is treatment of a conquered people by the conquerors. How many times in history have the conquered people been granted the rights and privileges of citizenship in the conquering nation, merely because they had been conquered? Such a thing is a very new idea.

Don't conquered and conquerors connotate declared wars with armies on each side?

Is there any parallel with how the immigrants to area now known as United States treated the inhabitants who were already living there? In terms of total land mass and number of years?

Our "war" against the Indians went on for about 200 years?

Where was there one united Indian "army" during any of that time?

[Dieter]

Seems like the EO only applies to people who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of the order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... tizenship/

This one / for now, anyways

Yeah, even this one is an unconstitutional change, but, who knows what the future holds

Whether it’s unconstitutional or not depends on one’s interpretation of the 14th amendment, specifically the part about being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That will likely be decided by the SCOTUS in a couple of years.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 recognized that American Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States so the 14th amendment didn’t apply to them. Congress needed to enact separate legislation to grant them US citizenship. So the argument is that if the 14th amendment didn’t even apply to American Indians, why would it apply to anyone else not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

But like you said, who knows…

Interesting -- I didn't know that

Thanks for the info

Does make me think it's more likely to stick

The impacts (and possible future changes) will be "interesting"

[dualstow]

How many times in history have the conquered people been granted the rights and privileges of citizenship in the conquering nation, merely because they had been conquered? Such a thing is a very new idea.

The Romans did it (eventually).

[ochotona]

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

It's not bizarre. It tracks perfectly with history. Ethnically cleanse to Oklahoma via the "Trail of Tears" where it is thought 15,000 died of exposure and starvation. In order to make "Lebensraum" for Europeans. And even after that was done, destroy their language and culture in Indian boarding schools, where the children were subjected to sexual abuse and abuse in general, and if they died they were buried on site in unmarked graves, and their families just never heard from them again.

It's a feature, not a bug. The current politicians in charge just obtained a new software license to activate that feature. Hopefully the license expires in a few years... but I'm not predicting.


Abuse in the boarding schools

The children who were admitted into boarding schools experienced several forms of abuse. Depending on the Christian Faith, They were given European names or names of people of the Bible or for example; if the school was run by one of the orders of the Catholic Church then the children were given names from the Bible or of the saints of The Church, forced to speak English or Latin of the Catholic Church, and were not allowed to practice their culture. They took classes on how to conduct manual labor such as farming and housekeeping. When they were not in class, they were expected to maintain the upkeep of the schools or to attend church on Saturdays and Sundays. Unclean and overpopulated living conditions led to the spread of disease and many students did not receive enough food or they were poorly fed. Bounties were offered for students who tried to run away and many students committed suicide. Students who died were sometimes placed in coffins and buried in the school cemetery by their own classmates.

Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and admitted to these boarding schools. Their cultural traditions were discarded when they were taught about American ideas of refinement and civilization. This forced assimilation increased substance abuse and suicides among these students as they suffered mental illnesses such as depression and PTSD. These illnesses also increased the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.

As claimed by Dr. Jon Reyhner, he described methods of discipline by mentioning that: "The boys were laid on an empty barrel and whipped with a long leather strap". Methods such as these have left physical injuries and made the institutions dangerous for these children as they lived in fear of violence. Many children did not recover from their wounds caused by abuse as they were often left untreated.

[dualstow]

I was surprised to read last year that it happened in Canada, too.

[ochotona]

US, Canada, and Australia all treated non-Whites very brutally over time. We know how Australian aboriginals were treated - like sub-humans. They were analogs to our people of African ancestry. Non-white immigrants barred entry. I remember my parents told me that wanted to emigrate to US, Canada, or Australia, but they were not allowed to apply to Australia. They came to the US in the mid-50s. See below.

But see, Canada and Australia learned something. We are UNLEARNING and going back to the Andrew Jackson era. Trump loves Andrew Jackson.


Australian immigration:

Soon after Australia became a federation in January 1901, the federal government of Edmund Barton passed the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901; this was drafted by Alfred Deakin, who eventually became Australia's second prime minister. The passage of this bill marked the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian federal government policy. The key feature of this legislation was the dictation test, which was used to bar non-white immigrants from entry. Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy. These policies effectively gave British migrants preference over all others through the first half of the 20th century. During World War II, Prime Minister John Curtin reinforced the policy, saying "This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race." {Curtin University in Western Australia named after him... one of my grad school professors was from there}.

Successive governments dismantled the policy in stages after the conclusion of World War II, with the Chifley and Menzies governments encouraging non-British Europeans to immigrate to Australia. The Migration Act 1958 abolished the dictation test, while the Holt government removed discrimination against non-white applicants for citizenship in 1966. The Whitlam government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973.

[dualstow]

And of course the Han Chinese massacred non-Hans and subjugated the rest.
Let’s face it: around the world, people are … animals.

[glennds]

I guess we'll all find out together.

It is bizarre though that we would be talking about the birthright citizen status of Native Americans. Talk about paradox.

It might seem normal to us today, but the citizenship situation of Native Americans is far from a slam dunk. What we're talking about is treatment of a conquered people by the conquerors. How many times in history have the conquered people been granted the rights and privileges of citizenship in the conquering nation, merely because they had been conquered? Such a thing is a very new idea.

Not really. Rome did it. Depending on the conquered enemy they were either granted full citizenship rights including voting, or some modified limited rights. There is some documented history that Rome did so because it was deemed to be in their interest to assimilate people into participating society with the goal of being a stronger and richer Rome as a result. And I think most historians would agree that this proved to be a valid thesis that helped Rome grow in its power more than if it had remained a smaller, exclusionary citizenry.
Great Britain, Portugal, Spain and France are also modern examples where citizenship rights were granted to "conquered" people under a similar premise.

What is a little less common is a conquered people being granted rights and privileges only for the conquering country to later renege.

In fact, the consequences of countries reneging on their agreements is a subject that might make an interesting thread of its own. For example there is an open threat of levying tariffs on Canada and Mexico starting Feb 1. Whether or not this is a good idea is one question. But the fact that it is in clear breach of an existing agreement (USMCA f/k/a NAFTA) is another issue. Not to mention that USMCA was negotiated and signed by the current President, not a distant predecessor in a different era.

How can any country confidently come to an agreement with the United States in the face of a pattern of reneging on agreements and moving goalposts when it feels like it?

If you were the other country would you do it?
Maybe if you had no choice you would do it, but then would you start working on building new relationships and looking for other options to get out of the abusive relationship as soon as you could?

EDIT: I created a new thread on the latter part of my comment for anyone interested in discussing it! Love to hear other perspectives
viewtopic.php?t=13323

[Xan]

Good points all, I stand corrected!

[glennds]

Good points all, I stand corrected!

It was a good question. I have re-framed it in my mind into a variant though - Has it proven to be a better strategy historically for a conquering power to a) subjugate the conquered into a subordinate sub-class, or b) assimilate the conquered into their society with full citizenship rights and privileges?

I have a book somewhere called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. I seem to recall it talked about this issue. Later today I'll have a look.

[Xan]

Good points all, I stand corrected!

It was a good question. I have re-framed it in my mind into a variant though - Has it proven to be a better strategy historically for a conquering power to a) subjugate the conquered into a subordinate sub-class, or b) assimilate the conquered into their society with full citizenship rights and privileges?

I have a book somewhere called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. I seem to recall it talked about this issue. Later today I'll have a look.

I look forward to hearing what you find out!

[dualstow]

I just saw a graphic on PBS Newshour stating that ICE did more deportations in 2024 than in any other year since 2015. So, I guess that should be balanced against what technovelist would call TDS.

[yankees60]

I just saw a graphic on PBS Newshour stating that ICE did more deportations in 2024 than in any other year since 2015. So, I guess that should be balanced against what technovelist would call TDS.

TDS, though, needs to be balanced against TAS.

[dualstow]

Is the A acceptance?

[yankees60]

Is the A acceptance?

"Absolvement"!

[dualstow]

How do you feel about Sen. John Fetterman engaging with Trump? I llike it. I feel like he’s just being practical. Once upon a time, I thought Fetterman was a joke. Now he’s my hero.

[dualstow]

Ouch!
“Democrats Once Again Concerned About Who Will Pick Their Crops”
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-o ... heir-crops

[yankees60]

How do you feel about Sen. John Fetterman engaging with Trump? I llike it. I feel like he’s just being practical. Once upon a time, I thought Fetterman was a joke. Now he’s my hero.

It's sad that it's news that someone from the other party interacts with a president.

[glennds]

It was a good question. I have re-framed it in my mind into a variant though - Has it proven to be a better strategy historically for a conquering power to a) subjugate the conquered into a subordinate sub-class, or b) assimilate the conquered into their society with full citizenship rights and privileges?

I have a book somewhere called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. I seem to recall it talked about this issue. Later today I'll have a look.

I look forward to hearing what you find out!

Hello Xan,
I was not able to lay my hands on my copy of the book I was recalling. So I did what a techno geek would do and got into a dialogue with ChatGPT about it. Turns out I was correct in my recollection, but ChatGPT did the heavy lifting for us:

Yes, Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers touches on themes related to the treatment of conquered peoples, though it does not focus heavily on the specific issue of enslavement versus granting citizenship. The book is primarily a macro-historical analysis of how economic, military, and political power shapes the rise and decline of great states from 1500 to the 20th century. However, Kennedy indirectly discusses policies toward conquered peoples in the context of imperial expansion, governance, and resource management. Below are some relevant aspects:

1. Treatment of Conquered Peoples and Economic Management
Kennedy emphasizes the importance of economic efficiency and resource management in maintaining imperial dominance. The treatment of conquered peoples—whether they were exploited (e.g., through slavery or forced labor) or integrated into the economic system—had significant implications for a state's ability to sustain power:

Spain: Kennedy critiques Spain’s reliance on the exploitation of resources and forced labor (e.g., the encomienda system in the Americas). This extractive system enriched Spain in the short term but failed to create a sustainable economic base, ultimately leading to its decline.
Britain: In contrast, the British Empire’s emphasis on trade, economic incentives, and gradual integration of colonies into a larger economic framework (e.g., India) allowed it to maintain dominance for centuries.

2. Rome as a Model of Integration
Kennedy occasionally references the Roman Empire as a historical benchmark for managing conquered peoples. The Roman practice of extending citizenship (especially after Emperor Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana) is highlighted by historians as one reason for Rome’s stability and longevity. While Kennedy doesn't analyze this directly, the book's broader themes align with the idea that inclusionary policies often strengthen empires.

3. Exploitation vs. Assimilation in Imperial Decline
Kennedy explores how empires that relied heavily on exploitation of conquered peoples or territories often suffered from:

Economic inefficiencies: Over-reliance on forced labor or tribute systems (e.g., the Spanish Empire) often stunted local economies and hindered technological progress.
Rebellions and instability: Subjugation bred resistance, draining imperial resources (e.g., the Dutch Revolt against Spanish rule or anti-colonial uprisings in the British and French Empires).
Conversely, empires that granted rights or assimilated conquered populations often maintained greater stability. For example:

The British Empire in the 19th century benefited from a relatively decentralized governance model, though it remained far from equitable.
France under Napoleon extended elements of the Napoleonic Code to conquered territories, fostering some degree of loyalty (though also resistance in nationalist areas).

4. Labor Systems in the Age of Empire
Kennedy indirectly addresses systems of labor and their role in the economy:

The reliance on enslaved or subjugated populations in colonial economies (e.g., the Atlantic slave trade or Spanish silver mines in Potosí) is framed as a short-term advantage that often led to overextension and vulnerability.
Empires that created systems encouraging economic participation (e.g., the Netherlands’ commercial model) often achieved longer-term success.
5. Key Takeaway in Kennedy's Framework
Kennedy argues that empires thrive when they manage resources—including human capital—efficiently. Subjugation, particularly through slavery or oppressive systems, may yield short-term economic or military benefits but often leads to instability and rebellion. Meanwhile, policies of integration, such as granting citizenship or creating shared economic incentives, contribute to imperial sustainability.

Broader Context
While The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers does not explicitly analyze the dichotomy of enslavement versus citizenship, it provides a framework for understanding the consequences of these policies:

Empires that over-exploit conquered peoples or territories (e.g., Spain in the Americas) often enjoy short term gains at the expense of long-term decline.
Empires that integrate and incentivize participation (e.g., Rome, Britain in its commercial era) tend to sustain their power longer.

I hope you find this interesting. I last read this book about 30 years ago, thank you for giving me a reason to re-read it. Maybe it will hold relevance to our present global circumstances.

[dualstow]

You might be able to find some quotes using the Search Inside button if you know what you’re looking for.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... at_Powers/

For example, I searched for the word ‘conquered’ — a worthless search, but as an example, it did bring up text snippets.