Comment by AProperFuckingPirate on 24/01/2025 at 14:53 UTC

14 upvotes, 3 direct replies (showing 3)

View submission: "Excluding Indians": Trump admin questions Native Americans' birthright citizenship in court

View parent comment

Yeah, how would that even work? Is there any contemporary precedent for this in this or any country or would it just be going back to the 18th century?

Replies

Comment by The_Eternal_Valley at 24/01/2025 at 19:44 UTC

24 upvotes, 1 direct replies

There are many examples of stateless people in the world today. There are the Bidoon people in the Arab world who have been getting kicked around between Iraq and Kuwait. No one wants to take them in apparently many of them are completely undocumented and get by with what little work the can do under the circumstances. Also the Rohingya from Myanmar are a high profile modern example.

None of the stories of stateless people in the modern day are good. But if this ever happened to Indian sovereignty it would be such a disaster as to be a worst case scenario, not only for tribes but for the government. If the government did this they would be creating a massive refugee crisis and likely an insurgency movement within their own borders.

Comment by notacanuckskibum at 24/01/2025 at 16:03 UTC

29 upvotes, 3 direct replies

Maybe going back to the 18 th century is the goal. Only white male landowners have rights, war is a good way to gain territory. Seems like that’s the vision.

Comment by Par_Lapides at 24/01/2025 at 18:02 UTC

5 upvotes, 0 direct replies

They don't need precedent. Republicans license have proven they do not care about legal standing or precedent, as they have a SCOTUS that will just side with them regardless.