Trump’s Border Wall: It Should Never Happen

Updated:
Posted in: Immigration Law

Donald Trump has promoted a xenophobic immigration policy from the outset of his presidential campaign. He declared that Mexico was exporting “criminals,” “killers,” “rapists,” and “drug deals” to the United States. To deal with this situation, Trump announced he would build a wall along the Mexican-United States border, for which he would force Mexico to pay costs.

As with most Trump proposals to “make America great again,” he has been long on promises and short on details. In the months since the official launch of his campaign on June 17, 2015, however, journalists have forced him into giving some details of the wall he envisions, and most recently the Washington Post pushed him to provide a general explanation of how he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

Trump’s wall typifies his governing ideas and tactics. He has simply tossed out a thought without carefully thinking it through. As a result, it is unrealistic and unworkable. It would likely cause more harm than good. No informed person with whom I have spoken believes any good could come from such a wall, although there is no shortage of bad things that could occur.

Nor is there public clamor for such a draconian sealing of our southern border. According to the latest Pew Research Poll only about a third of Americans support the idea of a wall, with Republicans predominately favoring it. Pew reports, “By nearly two-to-one (63% to 33%), Republicans and GOP leaners favor building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. By contrast, just 13% of Democrats favor building a border wall, while 84% are opposed.”

This hair-brained idea should never come to fruition because even if it could be built, it would be a monument to isolationism and nativism Donald Trump espouses, and hardly be worth the expense for it is not a solution to our nation’s immigration problems.

Trump’s Mexican Border Wall

The border between the U.S. and Mexico runs through four American states: California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The border is a highly diverse terrain from ocean waters (Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico) to urban areas (e.g., from San Diego and Tijuana to Brownsville and Matamoros) dominated by arid deserts. Yet two major rivers (Colorado and Rio Grande) cross the border from the U.S. to Mexico, which also have farm lands, deltas, and rugged mountain areas. The border runs 1,989 miles and every year no fewer than 350 million people cross it—legally! There are 35 border cities, with 45 crossing points and 330 ports of entry, not to mention that over 12 million people reside along the border.

Designing and building a “beautiful and massive” wall on this complex terrain would be a major engineering challenge, and Trump has been anything but consistent in describing the wall he envisions. For example, Trump says his wall will have “a big, beautiful door” so the “good ones” can come back in, but how will that door handle 350 million people who cross the border each year, many doing it daily? Trump has described his wall as low as 25 feet tall and at other times as high as 55 feet. Sometimes he has his wall running the entire border, other times only 1,000 miles, plus the 670 miles of high steel fencing Republicans spent $2.4 billion to keep illegal immigrants out of the U.S.

Clearly, Trump is promoting a concept, not an actual proposal. When you look closely at implementing his idea, difficult, if not impossible, problems abound. To build such a wall the Mexico-U.S. Boundary Treaty would have to be renegotiated. Even more difficult would be acquiring the necessary privately owned real estate (with widely-unpopular eminent domain proceedings requiring years of litigation). Much of the border runs though the public lands held by National Parks, yet with 84 percent of Democrats opposed to a wall, it is not likely Congress would approve this ecological, environmental and political disruption of prime American wilderness, the home to countless endangered and protected species. The seasonal ebbing and flowing Colorado and Rio Grande rivers will require a wall designed to allow the water out without letting people in.

Trump, of course, brushes aside all problems, and while he resists being pinned down with specifics, The Washington Post recently got him to explain how he would pay for this project. His explanation, however, further documents that this is Trump campaign blather for those gullible enough to buy into his fantasy policies.

The Cost of Trump’s Wall

Trump’s claim that he will force the Mexicans to pay for his wall raises two fundamental issues: How much will it cost? And how will he make the Mexicans pay for a wall for which they have said—at least a current and past president of Mexico—Mexico will not pay?

When Trump discussed the cost of his wall on MSNBC, in early February 2016, he said we only need 1,000 miles because of natural barriers, and that would cost $8 billion. He explained the wall would be made of precast cement, “probably 35 to 40 feet up in the air. That’s high; that’s a real wall. It will actually look good. It’ll look, you know, as good as a wall is going to look.” A few weeks later, Trump upped the cost to $10 to 12 billion. But none of these cost numbers could be verified by a Washington Post fact checker. The Post estimated the cost would be more like $25 billion.

The Post also quizzed Trump on his claim that Mexico would pay for his wall. Trump explained his funding scheme to Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. Envisioning a 1,000 mile wall, Trump provided a two-page memo explaining that he was only looking for “a one-time payment of $5-10 billion” from Mexico, which Trump said Mexico would be happy to pay because if they did not, as president he would use his executive powers to cut of the flow of billions of dollars in payment immigrants send home to Mexico, a cut off that would decimate the Mexican economy. The Post reported that almost “$25 million was sent home by Mexicans,” and Trump claims “the majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens.”

Initially, Trump said would use the USA Patriot Act’s antiterrorism provisions to prevent money transfers from the United States to Mexico, making poor Mexicans the equivalent of terrorists to block their remittances, which would hobble the Mexican economy. Like all Trump policies, when glitches arise, he amends his thinking. Trump recognizes that his interpretation of the USA Patriot Act might not pass judicial muster, so he has added a few other broad fee schemes to pay for the wall such as increasing fees on “all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats,” “increase fees on all border crossing cards—of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year,” “increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico,” “and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico.” In other words, it will be the Mexican people—not the government—who will pay for Trump’s wall.

The Absurdity of It All

Of course, Trump’s wall is connected to his plan to deport some 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. Once he rounds them up—another impossibly complex proposal he has never fully explained—he wants to keep out “the bad ones,” thus the wall.

Border security is a real issue that Democrats have recognized as well. Hillary Clinton agrees we need to better secure our borders, but she views Trump’s wall for what it is—all talk and no solution. Right-wing websites, like the Daily Caller, have posted charts showing the impact of walls built in Europe in halting immigration. But the porous borders of Europe are very different than ours, and fences no doubt do keep women and children out, but not the “bad ones,” who Trump says are his target.

Brendan Lenihan, a former U.S. Border Patrol officer now attending law school, looks at the politicization of border security when he addresses related environmental issues along the Arizona-Mexico border. Lenihan says that every Border Patrol agent with whom he has spoken about border security understands there can never be total control of a border. Lenihan cites studies by the Cato Institute that looked at the Cold War border between East and West Germany, “the most heavily fortified in modern history,” yet it “was successfully breached a thousand or so times each year.” The Cato study found:

There is simply no way for a large, open and democratic country like the United States to construct and maintain perfect border defenses. It is hard to think of another issue where the public debate is so utterly at odds with what the government can realistically achieve.

Building Trump’s wall would be expensive folly. It will not keep out “the bad ones.” But it will wreck the ecology of the southwestern United States. Such a wall would certainly serve as a monument to Trump’s ugly-American thinking. So before any such project is started, President Trump should order the Park Service to cover the Statue of Liberty in black, for her symbolic welcoming to immigrants can be declared dead when he starts building a massive Trump wall.

  • Gay

    Build the wall.

    • Doris241@openmailbox.org

      Get paid $90 every day for working over the internet from your own home for couple of h a day… Get paid regularly on a weekly basis… All what is required is a laptop or computer, internet access, along with some spare-time… SELF40.COM

      fgdfgfdgdfgfd

  • bogart

    Spoken like a true DEMOCRAT. Good boy.

    • Joe Paulson

      Cato cite suggests a possible libertarian nod.

      • Sarah85996

        as Adam responded I didnt even know that a mother able to make $8172 in one month on the internet . visit this site CLCK.RU/9v7Gt

  • My guess is that he knows it will never happen, but he also knows that those statements are getting him the GOP nomination.

  • kevinl4000

    Ugh. Facts. They always mess everything up.

  • Mark Kahle

    To John Dean, author of this tripe.

    Just what exactly do you have against the rule of law… you know that pesky idea that makes a Republic possible at all?

    The wall is already law. Kicking out illegal aliens is already law. Making any who enter the US in a manner prescribed by statute is already law.

    To write a story such as yours that suggests that we ignore standing law is the exact same as advocating the overthrow of the government and their legal responsibilities, the will of the people and their representatives as well attacking the single core value of our nations existence.

    Shame on you.

    • Joe Paulson

      “The wall is already law.”

      More info might be helpful. There is a border, sure, but where is a “wall” — as in an actual physical barrier like the one that used to be in Berlin — the law?

      • 98C3LCMT9Y4

        There are portions of wall all along our southern border – perhaps learning about what is already there would make your comments seem less silly if you educated yourself first.

        There have been news reports for decades about tunnels UNDER the barriers erected by the US government along our southern border. Were you asleep, to ignorant to remember that evidence, or merely not interested in that history?

        • JG4

          El Chapo who???

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4

            El Paso Intelligence Center: who, what, & why?

        • Joe Paulson

          “The wall” is not law because there are some short walls and fences there now [not “like the one used to be in Berlin”]. Trump supports a large continuous structure much more complex the one in place. I phrased my comment in a certain way for a reason.

          • 98C3LCMT9Y4

            Nice [but failed deflection] attempt at changing the question after you find out how incredibly false [to stay nothing of how stupid] your “challenge” was.

            You whined: There is a border, sure, but where is a “wall” — as in an actual physical barrier like the one that used to be in Berlin — the law?

            And. that ‘Berlin” wall also did not stop people from leaving the area that it was supposed to to “secure.” But, then, you lack any knowledge of history of Berlin & so many other topics.

            Nowhere in your whiny comment was a requirement to have a continuious ‘wall’ – just that there BE a WALL & there IS a WALL.

            Perhaps you are too stupid to realize that property owners also have rights about the land they own all along our southern border. Some have refused access & what is in effect, giving away, their land to the government – thus, no WALL as it has been proven over & over that they really are not the panacea what you mistake as the ‘real’ problem.

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    We already have a wall. It’s policy to catch and release.

  • Sav Man

    Not only that but animal migration is a real threat if there are to now be walls. A better strategy is to fully fund border services which means amping up patrols and making a real effort to work with Mexico who enjoy the financial benefits of free trade. The ‘wall’ should be though of virtual, rather than a physical barrier.

  • SleepingGiant

    ‘Illegal’ immigrants = not ok
    ‘Legal’ immigrants = OK!

    What’s so hard to understand Stupid people?

  • Frank Willa

    economy
    Mr Dean, thank you for being a voice of reason. In my view, launching this policy could set off a trade war; Mexico could stop shipments of goods produced by American firms in Mexico intended for sale in the U.S., impose tariffs and perhaps get other nations to join them. But most obvious would be that if not by land then be sea…illegal immigrants could come in on the beaches of our coastline, or through Canada first.. I think the better policy would be to get Mexico to transform itself into a modern middle class dominated economy that its citizens would not need to flee to find a good life in a lawful land.

    • Phread

      Wait. A good analogy of what you have said is this. Your house is flooding; instead of turning off the water, you want to fix your neighbors house before you fix your own.

      • Frank Willa

        Wrong. But I will use your analogy., The source of the flood is from your neighbors’ house, you can not turn off the water from your house- the valve is in your neighbors’ house.. Building a wall will only stop the flow from one direction; not stop the flow. There is no valve in your house to turn off; your house is not the problem. You have it backwards- I am the one that wants to turn off the water, you do not. In my view an analogy for your approach is that it is like treating a symptom rather than curing the disease.

        • Phread

          No. You are mistaken. We must treat the symptom (build the wall) in order to keep the patient alive (The United States). We are a country of Citizens who have come here legally. It is a matter of Law and not feelings. Stopping or even curtailing the flow from Mexico through a combination of better enforcement and the wall will give this Country the time to figure out if Mexico is salvageable or not.

          • We have tried amnesty before closing the boarder years ago, it has only got worse. The idea is to find a way to stop non-authorized boarder crossings. First is to control the crossings, working with Mexico is a good idea except that it is known on both sides of drug cartel safe houses on Mexico side for crossers that carry contraband or paying for crossing. This has been documented in films and news, Mexico knows about the cartels. It has now been documented that the cartel associates get a premium to transport Arab persons of questionable ties across the boarder. Barriers have been and are every day used in both civil and military situations, they may not stop the intruders but slows down the intruders so enforcement can be accomplished.

  • Victor Grunden

    There are many valid points in regard to treaties. The one negotiated in 1970 during Nixon’s tenure was required because someone discovered a Texas irrigation firm illegally diverted the Rio Grande putting about 500 ac. of American land south of the river. America gave the land to Mexico and awarded American citizenship to the “Mexicans” living there. It seems the fence has been built far north of the Rio Grande in places because there is to be no interference with the river flow. That has landlocked some Americans from their property. The Colorado River treaty was breached in the Reagan Years and denied water rights to the Navajo, Utes, Apaches and Mexico. I mention this because few people got excited until Trump said he would build a wall. Now ecology has been raised in opposition. There are national parks and wildlife refuges where a fence could be built without violating any treaties that are currently be trashed by illegal alien traffic. There are places along I-10 where fences can be built. And the list goes on. That leaves a shrinking area to be monitored by high tech devices in combination with police personnel. So Trump exaggerated. Show me a political figure that doesn’t. Like the one proclaiming the net positive effect of illegal immigration.

    • Paul R. Jones

      Sadly, there is a myth perpetuated by faux federal Indian common law that “Indian tribes” are entitled to water that flows through federal land they are merely tenants on with rights of occupancy and use only as the United States has no ‘treaties’ with its own constituency with “Indian ancestry/race”…nothing about ‘water rights’ that flow by acts of God…water that flows by Act of God cannot be controlled by individuals or corporations…only by We, the People. Mexico is a nation state recognized in the world community…water issues with Mexico have been and will in all likelihood continued to be a political ‘hot potato’ well into the future.

      • Victor Grunden

        There are so many different treaties with Indians tribes over nearly about anything but the mentioning of impeding Colorado River flow as justification to not build the border wall was a stretch to say the least. I think Colorado River flow to Mexico was just restored this year. The water and electricity to Hoover Dam was supposed to be apportioned among the western states. Originally there was a limitation on the number of acres one person could get subsidized water from Lake Mead for irrigation. Seems like it was 640 ac.(1 section). Now it goes to mega farms. Illegals trespass on private property and should a rancher interfere it is the rancher that gets prosecuted. Some may welcome a fence. Some may not. But at least they should have a choice.

        • Paul R. Jones

          Dear Victor
          Sorry. There is no such thing as an “Indian treaty” as of THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924. Why? Because, We, the People, do not have treaties with We, the People…that is, the United States does not have treaties with its own constituency. I would not argue the water issue beyond saying that the flow of water by a Godly act cannot be controlled by individuals or corporations but by We, the People. Problems arise when Congress loses sight of that fact…usually for money into their own pockets or well-financed campaign contributors to their campaign coffers. As for “illegals” trespassing, I agree the property owner should not be prosecuted for protecting his property. Our Constitution places responsibility for securing this Republic’s borders from ‘invasion’ of anyone not legitimately authorized to enter. And, in my opinion, when the national government cannot or will not so protect the citizens of the various states of the union from such ‘invasions,’ it is incumbent upon the states to so protect their citizens…that is where many states along the Mexico border have legitimate complaints against the national government with Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas being a cases on point. Upstate New York is another state that has illegals flowing into their state from Canada over faux Indian reservations. I read in some article that an estimated 1000 persons per day are streaming across the Arizona/Mexico border each day. I agree, some will welcome the fence and some won’t…which position a person takes probably depends on whether it is their land being trespassed and or huge influx of illegals impacting the state’s financial resources in all of the problems created by illegals on medical, education, health, jobs, crime etc.

          • Victor Grunden

            I am not sure where you are getting your information but yes we do have treaties with Indian tribes that still live on reservations. Without belaboring the subject may I suggest going to the Library of Congress Law Library Website and enter Indian treaties. Two important cases, one shutting down a coal shipping port and another involving dam removals on the Snake River, were recently decided on the basis of Indian treaties. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed discrimination based on Indian Heritage. The citizenship act you mentioned had more to do with restoring lands to members of Indian tribes than citizenship. From a personal standpoint my wife has Creek and Cherokee heritage of which one was chief of the Creek(Muscogee), my granddaughter has French Canadian-Indian heritage, my mom supported the Indian reservation in Brainerd, MN for years, I worked with the Lakota Sioux some while ago and at one time the American Government gave surplus planes to anyone willing to fly physicians around for the Indian Health Agency. Casinos, bingo games and tax free cigarettes are all a result of Indian treaties still in force. From that aspect the Indian Nations have their own tribal law and can grant or deny anyone access to their reservation. Indians have their own toll roads and control large sections of interstate, U.S., state and local highways in Oklahoma. It would come as quite a surprise to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureaus of Land Management, Interior, National Park Service and several other agencies that no Indian treaties exist.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Dear Victor,
            Sorry. You are being lied-to by the feds. As of THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the United States Constitution…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race.” There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution whereby a citizen of the United States/States of the Union is made distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race.” Here is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that defines U.S./State citizenship and in the June 30, 1926, letter from Fitzgerald, citizenship makes moot anything relating in the Constitution to “Indians.” The Constitution makes for no provisions for We, the People, to have treaties with We, the People…that is, the U.S. Government has no Constitutional authority to make or hold to treaties with its own constituency ergo the ‘treaties’ you reference do not exist. Sadly, politicians continue to spew this hoax. Here is the question that politicians refuse to answer: WHERE IS THE PROCLAMATION RATIFIED BY 1/3RD OF THE VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT AMENDS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO MAKE THE HEALTH, WELFARE, SAFETY AND BENEFITS OF A SELECT GROUP OF U.S./STATE CITIZENS DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR ‘INDIAN ANCESTRY/RACE?’ Title 25-INDIANS is an un-ratified “IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE” to the United States Constitution and does not exist nor do any federal/state common law flowing from Title 25-INDIANS. U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” living on what is commonly known as a “Indian reservation” are merely tenants with right of occupancy and use only…the land is owned by We, the People, with but a very few exceptions. I have all of the federal documents to prove this if you are interested.

            As for the fact there are no “Indian treaties” being a surprise to various federal department like BIA, they already know. It is politicians who continue the fraud. There is nothing in the Constitution whereby a federal agency controls the metes and boundaries of a citizens of the United States/States based on that person’s “Indian ancestry/race!” Read the decision in OSBORN…Once a person becomes a citizen of the United States, Congress has no authority to ‘…enlarge or abridge those rights!

            Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 738 738 (1824) A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.

            Preface to Volume 44 of the Statutes At Large (which first adopted the present U. S. Code)

            P R E F A C E

            This Code is the official restatement in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925, now scattered in 25 volumes–i. e., the Revised Statutes of 1878, and volumes 20 to 43, inclusive, of the Statutes at Large. No new law is enacted and no law repealed. It is prima facie the law. It is presumed to be the law. The presumption is rebuttable by production of prior unrepealed Acts of Congress at variance with the Code. Because of such possibility of error in the Code and of appeal to the Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large, a table of statutes repealed prior to December 7, 1925, is published herein together with the Articles of Confederation; The Declaration of Independence; Ordinance of 1787; the Constitution with amendments and index; tables of cross references to the Revised Statutes, the Statutes at Large, the United States Compiled Statutes, Annotated, of the West Publishing Co., and the Federal Statutes, Annotated, of Edward Thompson Co.; an appendix with the general and permanent laws of the first session of the Sixty-ninth Congress; and finally an exhaustive index of the laws in the Code and appendix.

            The first official codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States was made in 1874 and followed by a perfected edition in 1878. From 1897 to 1907 a commission was engaged in an effort to codify the great mass of accumulating legislation. The work of the commission involved an expenditure of over $300,000, but was never carried to completion. More recently the task of codification was undertaken by the late Hon. Edward C. Little as chairman of the Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives, who labored indefatigably from 1919 to the day of his death, June 24, 1924. The volumes which represented the result of his labors were embodied in bills which passed the House of Representatives in three successive Congresses unanimously but failed of action in the Senate.

            * * *

            Scrutiny of this Code is invited. Constructive criticism is solicited. It is the ambition of the Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives gradually to perfect the Code by correcting errors, eliminating obsolete matter, and restating the law with logical completeness and with precision, brevity, and uniformity of expression.

            Address criticisms to Chairman of the Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

            WASHINGTON, June 30, 1926

            ROY G. FITZGERALD, Chairman.

          • Victor Grunden

            Your reply went to comments but it would be most informative to see the federal documents you reference.

          • Paul R. Jones

            I am sorry but is seems JUDICIAL VERDICT will not approve my post to give you the additional documents. I have tried twice…if it shows up, great.

          • Victor Grunden

            No problem. There are whole courses of study on Indian Law. Family member members on all sides are into genealogy so your assertion of no treaties involves a massive amount of wealth. You would be amazed how many people claimed Indian heritage when the tribes became wealthy from casinos and Alaskan oil.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Dear Victor,

            Sadly, College course studies on “Indian law” is a hoax foisted off on the unknowing citizenry of the United States. And, law schools continue to teach the myth which, in turn, puts out more lawyers who buy the hoax. I have presented this question in state court many times to lawyers of all strips and none have provided the Proclamation to the court…the cases are pending: ‘WHERE IS THE PROCLAMATION RATIFIED BY 1/3RD OF THE VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT AMENDS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO MAKE THE HEALTH, WELFARE, SAFETY AND BENEFITS OF A SELECT GROUP OF U.S./STATE CITIZENS DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR ‘INDIAN ANCESTRY/RACE?’

            As for the wealth flowing from natural resources to U.S./State citizens residing on federal land merely as tenants because of their “Indian ancestry/race,” you are correct…money is a huge problem as politicians refuse to acknowledge the common law Title 25-INDIANS at the core of the fraud is just that: A FRAUD.

            An example from living history…JIM CROW LAWS flourished in the United States as a result of the Plessy vs. Ferguson 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision making it Constitutional for ‘separate but equal,’ laws segregating Negros from Caucasians that was over-turned by Brown vs. The Board of Education in 1954. Huge amounts of money was involved in resisting the Supreme Court decision well into the early 1960’s resulting in the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. Plessy was taught in law schools as ‘good law.’ Title 25-INDIANS is taught in law schools. Why? Because no one challenges this Title 25-INDIANS for what it is: RACIAL LEGISLATION by federal fiat…un-ratified IERS.

            Is there a solution: YES. Title 25-INDIANS vanishes. U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” become just like every other non-“Indian” U.S./State citizen paying taxes on revenue flowing from business enterprise, including casinos, conducted on federal land just like corporations that conduct business in National Parks. There is no special treatment. No more tax free income. No more free government hand-outs. No more of anything that denotes ‘distinguishable’ treatment of a U.S./State citizen based on their “Indian ancestry/race.”

            As for royalties flowing from natural resources on federal land commonly known as an “Indian reservation” which do not exist post 1924 CITIZENSHIP, the sale of resources becomes income derived from federal land with taxes being paid to We, the People.

            This raises a unique question: SHOULD THE LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS AN INDIAN RESERVATION BE RETURNED TO THE STATES IN WHICH THE LAND EXISTS BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE USE BY RACE DOES NOT EXIST? In turn, the states also benefit from taxation of business enterprises conducted by a closed corporation made up of U.S/State citizens with a specific “Indian ancestry/race” just like any other closed corporation.

            Another even more controversial solution would be for We, the People, to deed the land commonly known as an “Indian reservation” to the enrolled members of that tribe as a closed corporation with the states handling such business enterprises as any other closed corporation including the taxes on the land whether improved land or not. In the event the closed corporation could not pay their respective taxes on the improved/un-improved land, casinos, et al, then the closed corporation would have to sell the land, business enterprise(s) for back taxes just like any other business enterprise like ranching has to pay their respective taxes on the land to the states.

          • Victor Grunden

            I will have to check out Title 25 but remember before 1924 Citizenship Act, the reservation land in question was a result of various peace treaties that settled Indian wars with various tribes. The Dawes Act obliterated tribal ownership and gave it to individuals. The corruption that ensued is well documented. Much of the territory that was granted under the Homestead Act was previously Indian land forfeited in peace settlements. Any land not homesteaded was considered surplus lands that the government granted to citizens of the United States without Homesteading. Surplus lands was the impetus for the 1924 Citizenship Act. Otherwise Indians were not eligible to get their own land back. It is important to remember that all Acts of Congress are defined by case law. It is an understatement to say recent case law has determined Constitutional law. Which is the reverse of what should happen. That’s how we got anchor babies.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Dear Victor,
            Well said. I would disagree with the notion that ALL ACTS OF CONGRESS ARE DEFINED BY CASE LAW as not true. All acts of Congress must be for the health, welfare, safety and benefits to the citizenry in a demographic area of a state or the union as a whole. Any other form on Congressional legislation is an ‘IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE’ (IERS) to the United States Constitution with a life expectancy of no more than 12-months at which time the “IERS” legislation must be shown to be for the health, welfare, etc…..or it is null. Title 25-INDIANS, is such a piece of legislation. Politicians don’t understand that simple fact…repeatedly.

          • Victor Grunden

            Well, Mr. Jones, I have sought high and low for the legal definition of Irregular Engineering Standards Change to the U.S. Constitution and have been unable to find it. It would be helpful to know your source since an internet search of it constantly turns up your comments on other Indian Matters. The Osborn case was in the 1820’s when much of America was owned by the French, Spanish and Russians. The Title 25 was just amended May 1, 2016. It’s first paragraph says all Indian activity must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior with the Bureau of Indian Affairs acting as agent. U.S. Codes codify Acts and Laws passed by Congress. In addition to that the respective agencies establish regulations. When the codification started, it clearly states no laws are being repealed or new laws enacted. Territories and possessions have different laws than the states, yet their residents are considered U.S. citizens. Ditto the District of Columbia. There is a current controversy among landowners whose land was taken for railroad right-of-ways. When the railroads were abandoned the landowners were supposed to get the property back. Yet the federal government said the land only had to be used for transportation and bike trails constituted transportation. That’s an example of an agreement between the government and a class of individual citizens. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934(Wheeler-Howard Act)sits the citizenship of Indians out in better detail. Much of Indian law refers back to treaties as the basis for the law so while technically treaties may no longer exist, the practical outcome is the same while being more expedient to reference treaties. As for racial discrimination laws, all non-whites were discriminated against. In Plessy v. Ferguson, Plessy was actually a mulatto whose white half wanted to sit in the front rail cars while Louisiana Judge Ferguson said his black half took precedence and he had to sit in back in one of the “Jim Crow” cars. The Brown v. Topeka Board of Education reversed the separate but equal doctrine because the girls father was a doctor and they had moved into the better neighborhoods of Topeka, KS. The girl had to be bused across town to a Negro school due to segregation. Upon discovery it was found the Negro school was not equal to the white school in her district. But, this all involves people that were either here or arrived at our shores legally. The Trump border wall is about illegal entry and the laws are very clear on that. Anchor babies are a distortion of our immigration laws because under current interpretation anyone born on American soil or in air and ocean space from foreign parents is automatically citizens. Since there is no codification of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, a court ruling could make all such citizenship null and void. Many illegal non-citizens claim citizens rights. It is all very murky but whatever your problem is with Indians, there is ample precedent setting law and established practices.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Dear Victor,

            “Irregular Engineering Standards Change” (IERS) to the U.S. Constitution are Congressional/Executive Order enactments that do not conform to United States Standards established in 1947 originally to deal with military/DOD contracting to insure military hardware met specific standards of quality, workmanship, etc. to be in conformance for the health, welfare, safety and benefits of the citizenry of the United States. This principle was applied to legislation as well…that being all common law-state and federal-must be for the health, welfare, safety and benefits of the citizenry within a demographic area of a state or the union. Can common law-state and federal-be enacted that does not conform to the United States Constitution? YES. For national emergencies, like KATRINA or SANDY or national security imperative like 9/11 issues can enact “Irregular Engineering Standards Change.” But, these IERS enactments have a life expectancy of 6 to12 months at which time the legislation must be ratified as an amendment to the Constitution which takes about five years for Congress, Presidents and State Legislatures to ratified the amendment. If there is no ratification of the IERS, it is null. Members of Congress, and Presidents know what an “IERS” is and does…but, all seem to fail to ratify these “IERS” and they continue to be ‘referenced’ with ‘take-off IERS’ piled on top of un-ratified IERS as good law and this is continued for decades upon decades as in Title 25-INDIANS.

            In short, Congress DOES NOT FOLLOW THROUGH on the ratification process and no one takes notice the original “IERS” (Title 25-INDIANS in this instance) is still being used and amended into perpetuity with none of the ‘take-off’ amendments to the “IERS” carrying any legislative weight as the original enactment is null. Congress in putting good law out in front of law that is null.

            Title 25-INDIANS is an un-ratified IERS and does not exist! In the Roy G. Fitzgerald letter, this single sentence says it all: No new law is enacted and no law repealed. It is prima facie the law. It is presumed to be the law. The presumption is rebuttable by production of prior unrepealed Acts of Congress at variance with the Code.

            Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 738 738 (1824) A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.

            CITIZENSHIP IS THE “…REBUTTABLE BY PRODUCTION OF PRIOR UNREPEALED ACTS OF CONGRESS AT VARIANCE WITH THE CODE!” That CODE being Title 25-INDIANS!

            Congress has no Constitutional authority to enact legislation to ‘…enlarge or abridge…’ citizenship! Title 25-INDIANS CANNOT “…enlarge or abridge…” U.S. Citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHP ACT OF 1924.

            What you see taking place in Congress is the perpetuation of this fraud…there is no Title 25-INDIANS. Sadly, my challenges to Title 25-INDIANS citing the same federal documents and Constitution rights, privileges, and immunities resulted in pending civil now criminal cases in Arizona. I do not have the bully pulpit nor deep pockets.

            As for “anchor babies,” that flows from the 14th Amendment…common law-state or federal-cannot change that without an Amendment. The misinformation regarding ‘anchor babies’ is people do not understand that a ‘baby’ born in the United States, Territories and Protectorates to non-U.S. Citizen parents legally (people working for foreign businesses here on work duties from Japan or Germany, etc. but not diplomatic servers) or illegally in this country does not become a citizen until their 18th Birthday at which time they chose. The problems stem from the fact politicians do not or will not deport the illegal alien parents with their baby back to the parent’s homeland. After 18-years, the child can state its citizenship.

            Lastly, all common law-state or federal-flowing from Title 25-INDIANS is null. Why? Because Title 25-INDIANS itself is null. It is irrelevant to enact good legislation May 1, 2016, citing Title 25-INDIANS that does not exist. Every piece of common law-state and federal-that cites Title 25-INDIANS as its source of authority is fatally flawed…they do not exist. Why? Again, because these common law enactments-state or federal or Presidential Executive Order or by Referendums or Initiative cannot show where the legislation is for the health, welfare, safety and benefits of the citizens of a demographic area of a State or the Union.

            Victor, in closing, once “Indian” citizenship was achieved in 1924, Congress has no authority to ‘…enlarge or abridge…’ that citizenship. Neither can Presidential Executive Orders nor Presidential Executive Order Tribes or by Referendum or Initiative.

            As for United States Codes for the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, I am not aware these 3-Amendments as not being codified in the 50 United States Codes…unless the Code is an “IERS” like Title 25-INDIANS.

            Victor, your last sentence: “It is all very murky but whatever your problem is with Indians, there is ample precedent setting law and established practices….” is not supported by United States Constitution Standards…there are no more “Indians” in the United States after THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.

            Again, common law-state or federal-cannot ‘…enlarge or abridge…’ one’s citizenship

          • Victor Grunden

            Irregular Engineering Standards Change and the acronym IERS doesn’t seem to correlate but it is government. I am not sure what you mean by the term common law. Common law is more of an English practice. The 50 U.S. Codes are basically shorthand for the Statutes at Large. At some point Title 25 will be reduced to actual law. The general term health, safety and public welfare is so ambiguous and subject to interpretation that Congress can justify about anything they want. Since I am unable to find IERS under the Congressional Law Library, Indian Law. Library of Congress, Congressional Parliamentarian or Supreme Court Law library as a last resort it is time to call elected officials and court personnel. As for civil and criminal cases, if it involves Indians affairs there are other U.S. Code titles that also govern Indian activity.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Hi Victor,
            We have made full circle…as of THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen.

            Title 25-INDIANS and any other federal common law in any of the other United States Codes identifying a select group of U.S./State citizens that are made “…distinguishable…” because of their “Indian ancestry/race” is an “IERS;” and, none have been ratified by 1/3rd of the voters of the United States to amend the U.S. Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of this select group of U.S./State citizens in a demographic area of a State or the Union “…distinguishable…” and does not exist. Congress/Presidents have no U.S. Constitutional authority to “…enlarge or abridge…” one’s citizenship turning on ancestry/race. Common law-state or federal-is law enacted by legislatures. The other law being Constitutional law such as the Articles and Amendments. Common law-state and federal-must comply with the United States Constitution…even “IERS” must comply after 12-months or they are null.

          • Victor Grunden

            The discussion was about illegals, Trump’s Wall and ecology, specifically the Colorado River. Having had a short stint with the government in dam building and hydrology the Engineering changes are not new to me. It usually involves a politician wanting something that doesn’t meet standards. Or in the case of the military, if something can’t meet specs, the specs are modified. The F-35 is a case in point. I’m familiar with Executive orders and Congressional mandates but I am not familiar with IERS. The acronym doesn’t match the words and a search turns up a few strange societies and some scientific ones. All U.S. Codes, CFRs and Acts are referenced by a number and Congressional Record. Or a section or paragraph in the Constitution. The reference number is what I am seeking. As for enlarging or abridging there are numerous government acts that do just that. In the Affordable Care Act the Amish, a religious sect, is exempted. The Catholic Church and it’s members are not and are forced to comply with acts contrary to their beliefs. The matter of the legality of secession has never been settled but the Confederate States had to agree to a non-secession clause before they were readmitted to the Union. There have been people with deep pockets and bully pulpits dispute the Indians rights by treaty but they have lost of late. And it isn’t changing anytime soon but I’m just interested in this IERS procedure.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Hi Victor, You are getting there. This sentence has no Constitutional authority to exist. The concept Congress passes such, does not make it good law…it makes these enactments “IERS” that after 12-months absent ratification are null: AS FOR ENLARGING OR ABRIDGING THERE ARE NUMEROUS GOVERNMENT ACTS THAT DO JUST THAT. As for the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, Congress enacted legislation that is currently being challenged by States…whether the lawyers for these states understands what an “IERS” is and does, remains to be seen. Law schools no longer teach Constitutional law…they teach case law which is a big difference. The PATRIOT ACT is another common law that is being challenged by individuals, businesses and states for portions that do not conform to Constitutional Standards…the 4th Amendment being one.

            People with deep pockets and the bully pulpit that challenged “Indian treaties” began with a losing strategy to start with…they start by accepting as good federal common law that Title 25-INDIANS was good common law…it does not exist for the reasons I’ve already provided. Title 25-INDIANS is a ‘drop-file,’ ‘hodge-podge,’ ‘File Thirteen’ containing various faux treaties and enactment prior to THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT that were ‘bundled together’ and stuffed in Title 25-INDIANS all of which was made moot by Citizenship. See Fitzgerald’s June 30, 1926, letter where he clearly states that federal common laws Titles are merely prima facie of the law and any federal Title that is at variant with an un-repealed Act of Congress can challenge the Title…the text is explicit in Fitzgerald’s letter you already have.

            Victor, re-read Fitzgerald’s letter and OSBORN v.

            Sadly, today’s lawyers are too stupid to read those two documents and demand the Indian advocate to produce THE PROCLAMATION RATIFIED BY 1/3RD OF THE VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT AMENDMENTS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO MAKE THE HEALTH,WELFARE, SAFETY AND BENEFITS OF A SELECT GROUP OF U.S./STATE CITIZENS DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR ‘INDIAN ANCESTRY/RACE?” Folks who get into disputes with faux “Indian tribes” are mired in accepting ‘federal Indian common law’ that does not exist post CITIZENSHIP.

            If you have a burning desire to explore ‘IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE’ to the United States Constitution, I suggest you call your Congressional representatives and ask them…and don’t take NO for an answer. I asked the question to Darral Issa’s minions whether they knew was an “IERS” was in a meeting in Washington, D.C. several years ago…the question scared the crap out of the lawyers in the room with several getting up and leaving. None would speak with me after that question. Congressional members know what an “IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE’ (IERS) is and does…the public does not!

            While our original discussion was about illegals, Trump’s Wall and ecology, Congress habitually enacts legislation that are “IERS” and then promptly fails to FOLLOW THROUGH with ratification within 12-months. Then, Congress ‘amends’ the “IERS” with ‘take-off’ IERS into perpetuity with the original “IERS” never being ratified. All subsequent enacts as ‘take-off’ “IERS’ are null as putting good law out in front of a law that does not exist has no weight in Court. Sadly, attorneys and judges don’t understand the concept nor do they present the challenges to “IERS” in court because their law schools didn’t teach Constitution Standards…they taught case law.

          • Victor Grunden

            It’s the IERS concept that interests me. If laws are being passed by Congress as a whole and treaties ratified by the Senate that have no legal standing, then there is no need for the legislative branch. The Constitution provides for temporary Executive action when the legislature is not in session because the intent was to have citizen legislators. The Security Act of 1947 specifically directs the President to prepare a plan for government operation in the event of national emergencies where operation of the legislature and courts would be impractical. Each President has done so by Executive Order and is usually accused by his critics as wanting to establish a dictatorship. The Constitution also provides such powers. People repeatedly accuse President Lincoln of repeating violating the Constitution during the Civil War. The practical matter is that he did technically because he didn’t suspend the Constitution which was within his right but would have caused more states to join the Confederacy. It was Indian law at that time that was a significant cause of the Civil War. Part of the territories won in the Mexican-American War was Kansas-Nebraska and had Indian inhabitants. The country wanted an inter-continental railroad. The railroad wanted settlers not Indians along the railroad. To get settlers the territories had to become states. Many of the settlers were from slave states. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 undid the Missouri Compromise and allowed each state as it became a territory to choose free or slave. So the territories became states, Indian land was taken and given to settlers and a bloody feud between free and slave factions ensued for 7 years before the Civil War. So, under your theory of IERS if the law taking the Indian land was an IERS it seems that a substantial portion of America must be returned to the Indians along with redress for all the wealth taken and injustices suffered. But even today, Indians take a back seat to illegals in this country. But as for Title 25, it like every other U.S. Code is an abridged version to all the Statutes and Amendments to a particular area of Law. If you choose to challenge Title 25, you must go to the Statutes from which Title 25 is developed. Once done, you may get your day in court. But, again, it’s the IERS legal concept that I’m interested in.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Victor, sorry. You are misunderstanding the application of “IERS.” Yes. An “IERS” can be enacted but after 12-months, it must be shown to be for the health, welfare, safety and benefits of the citizenry in a demographic area of a state or the union. If not, it is null. If yes, then it must be ratified by 1/3rd of the voters of the U.S. to amend the Constitution. Prior to THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, faux treaties with “Indians” were put forth…I suggest you do a web search on these alleged Indian treaties and determine how many were ratified by the U.S. Senate. General Crook’s ‘treaties’ with the Arizona Indian tribes does not constitute a ‘treaty’ within the meaning of the Constitution as they were not ratified by the Senate.

            Tribes were conquered in war thus losing land. While “Indians” were moved from one location in the U.S./territories, by alleged treaties, the real means of moving Indians from one location to another was by military action. After citizenship, there are no “Indian treaties,” ratified by the Senate or not.

            Your assessment “…But even today, Indians take a back seat to illegals in this country…” has no proofs as it is your opinion. Such a position would also name any U.S./State citizen that ‘take a back seat to illegals in this country. “So, under your theory of IERS if the law taking the Indian land was an IERS it seems that a substantial portion of America must be returned to the Indians along with redress for all the wealth taken and injustices suffered” has no legitimacy either as the rule of war overcomes that position. Were your position correct, then much of the U.S. would be under British, French and Spanish ownership. I did not say that “…But as for Title 25, it like every other U.S. Code is an abridged version to all the Statutes and Amendments to a particular area of Law.! I stated that Title 25-INDIANS is an un-ratified “IERS” having no U.S. Constitutional Standards authority to exist…it is not law!

            Victor, your last sentence is an excellent place for you to start: “If you choose to challenge Title 25, you must go to the Statutes from which Title 25 is developed. Once done, you may get your day in court”…find the Statutes at Large from which Title 25-INDIANS flows? A reminder, Statutes at Large flow from the U.S. Constitution ergo, you must find the source in that document whereby a group of citizens can be made ‘…distinguishable…’ because of their “Indian ancestry/race!”

            As for Lincoln, he had no authority to ‘suspend’ the United States Constitution. His suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was questionable and his Emancipation Proclamation only ‘freed’ slaves in the States of Rebellion and not in states not in rebellion.

            Remember, that prior to THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, they were not U.S./State citizens.

            Lastly, the CIVIL WAR was not fought over slavery. It was fought over ‘states’ rights. A portion of the overall war included slavery but was not the primary reason for the Civil War.

          • Victor Grunden

            The reason Indians are taking a back seat to illegal aliens is precisely because they are now citizens. The U.S. government chooses not to enforce our immigration laws thereby denying all citizens equal protection under the law. The Migration and Reform Act of 1962 that replaced Title 50 dealt specifically with refugees and their dependents. It has been modified by Executive Order by every President since. Refugees are to follow a process and that does not include illegally crossing the border to gain further entry. The President in times of war if the legislature and court cannot meet is authorized to assume complete control when the war is within U.S. borders. That is why bunkers are now built just outside Washington, D.C, W. Virginia and Pennsylvania for the Continuity of Government. Official government had no refuge in Lincoln’s time. The last challenges under the law was when Connecticut sued Melvin Laird and the U.S. government over the Vietnam War. The War Powers Act as you probably know gave LBJ the power to conduct the Vietnam War. Yes, I know the overriding legal principle in the Civil War was states rights. But, the issue that brought that to the forefront was slavery. The Plains Indians took advantage of the situation before and during the Civil War. Treaties and agreements were entered into by Army officers by Presidential Authority. Many were violated before Senate approval and wars continued. The Indians eventually lost and certain treaties were formalized. The reason for the Indian Citizenship Act of 1925 and the subsequent Indian Restoration Act of 1934 was because white people were stilling selling Indian land. Since Indians were not citizens before 1925 they were unable to vote or claim surplus property. When a new law is introduced it is given a Public Law number and enumerates what laws it replaces. There is nothing in either act that replaces former Indian law and the Census Bureau still asks for ethnic classification. Yes, the Indians lost land in wars. But under war settlement they were given tracts of land known as reservations. Unfortunately for the Indians they got Oklahoma atop a vast oil resource and the Black Hills of North Dakota a rich source of gold. It is the taking of those lands that I was referencing. But I’m still no closer to finding IERS in written law. Only your assertion. Rule changes, emergency declarations, temporary orders, etc. is easily found. Not so with your IERS.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Hi victor,
            The example of an “IERS” you are looking for is Title 25-INDIANS. Title 25-INDIANS is the perpetuation of a fraud upon the Constitution as an “IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE” to that document…in short, Title 25-INDIANS, a ‘hodge-podge,’ ‘paper dragon,’ ‘drop-file,’ ‘file 13,’ and does not conform to U.S. Constitution Standards…Title 25-INDIANS makes distinguishable citizens of the United States/State because of their “Indian ancestry/race” and there is no U.S. Constitutional authority for it to exist…and yet, it continues to chug along. Why? Because no one sees the ‘elephant in the living room!’ Re-read what Fitzgerald said in his June 30, 1926, letter and re-read SCOTUS decision in OSBORN. victor, there is no such thing as “…replaces former Indian law…” post 1924 CITIZENSHIP. Now, justify the existence of Title 25-INDIANS as legitimate federal common law post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.

            If you do not like the acronym “IERS,” then use un-Constitutional enactment.

            Any common law-state or federal-that cannot show the source of authority in the Constitution to enact the legislation, then you are dealing with an un-Constitutional change…Congressional folks call it an “Irregular Engineering Standards Change” to the United States Constitution…I encourage you to call your state’s Representative or Senator and put this question to them: 1. Have you heard of the phrase ‘IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE’ (IERS)… try Cong. Darral Issa for example…as I said in an earlier post, I put that question to his lawyers in a face-to-face meeting in D.C. several years ago and several walked out of the meeting and none would talk to me about “IERS” after the initial meeting 2. Where is the proclamation ratified by 1/3rd of the voters of the United States that amends the U.S. Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”

            The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 is yet one more ‘take-off’ “IERS” to Title 25-INDIANS that is an un-ratified “IERS” and does not exist. The 1934 enactment put “good law out in front of a law that does not exist.”

            What is commonly known as an “Indian Reservation” does not exist post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924. The Oklahoma land set aside that was once known as an Indian reservation is not owned by “Indians” but by We, the People. And, all such land in Oklahoma set aside for non-U.S. Citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” pre-1924 citizenship are Presidential Executive Order federal enclaves that vanished upon citizenship as there in no Constitutional authority for a President post 1924 citizenship to set aside land owned by We, the People, for the exclusive use of a select group of U.S./State citizens because of that citizens “Indian ancestry/race.”

            Victor, there is no such thing as “Indian law” as to have such is de jure racial legislation which is foreclosed by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
            Once again, We, the People of the United States do not have ‘treaties’ with We, the People of the United States with “Indian ancestry/race”… such federal common law would be an un-ratified “IERS.” The Constitution makes for no such provisions for treaties with its own constituency!

            These newly minted U.S./State citizens became tenants on these lands with “…right of use and occupancy only…” ownership resides with We, the People and these ‘tenants’ should rightfully be paying rent on the land to We, the People.

            Victor, these web pages are too large to post so here is the header. Victor, call it up and read the text. Keep in mind that as of THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, this text is moot. The text references these words over and over: “…right of use and occupancy…” not ownership!

            INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES

            Vol. IV, Laws (Compiled to March 4, 1927)

            Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington : Government Printing Office, 1929.

            ________________________________________

            Home | Disclaimer & Usage | Table of Contents | Index

            ________________________________________

            PART III.— EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATING TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS FROM JULY 1, 1912, TO NOVEMBER 23, 1927.

            ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | IDAHO | KANSAS | MINNESOTA | MONTANA | NEBRASKA | NEVADA | NEW MEXICO | NORTH DAKOTA | OKLAHOMA | OREGON | SOUTH DAKOTA | UTAH | WASHINGTON | WISCONSIN | EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATING TO INDIANS ON PUBLIC DOMAIN | EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS

          • Victor Grunden

            Justia didn’t want to post my explanation, but what makes Title 25 an IERS and not the other 48 Titles. Title 50 was replaced by Public Law.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Hi Victor,
            I, too, have had JUSTIA not publish a reply. United State Code Title 25-INDIANS is an un-ratified “IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE” to the United States Constitution because it makes a citizen of the United States and States in which the person resides ‘distinguishable’ because of that person’s ancestry/race. U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS is a ‘hodge-podge,’ ‘File 13,’ ‘drop-file,’ ‘paper dragon’ that was ‘lumped together’ with alleged ‘Indian treaties,’ and federal common law statutes prior to THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, at which time, all previous common law and alleged “Indian treaties” were made moot by the United States Constitution itself to include all references to the “Indian Commerce and Treaty Clauses.” See Hon. Roy Fitzgerald’s June 30, 1926, letter regarding “…any un-repealed Act of Congress at variant with the Code…” can be challenged as lacking Constitution authority to exist…THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, does just that…especially when read in concurrence with SCOTUS Osborn v. decision I have provided in a previous post.

            Victor, UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 50 has not been replaced with PUBLIC LAW according to GOOGLE and the United States Government web site.

            WIKIPEDIA had this on Title 50:Title 50 of the United States Code outlines the role of War and National Defense in the United States Code.

            Chapter 1: Council of National Defense

            Chapter 2: Board of Ordnance and Fortification

            Chapter 3: Alien Enemies

            Chapter 4: Espionage

            Chapter 4a: Photographing, Sketching, Mapping, Etc., Defensive Installations

            Chapter 4b: Disclosure of Classified Information

            Chapter 4c: Atomic Weapons and Special Nuclear Materials Information Rewards

            Chapter 5: Arsenals, Armories, Arms, And War Material Generally

            Chapter 6: Willful Destruction, Etc., Of War Or National-Defense Material

            Chapter 7: Interference With Homing Pigeons Owned by United States

            Chapter 8: Explosives; Manufacture, Distribution, Storage, Use, And Possession Regulated

            Chapter 9: Aircraft

            Chapter 10: Helium Gas

            Chapter 11: Acquisition Of And Expenditures On Land For National-Defense Purposes

            Chapter 12: Vessels In Territorial Waters of United States

            Chapter 13: Insurrection

            Chapter 14: Wartime Voting by Land and Naval Forces

            Chapter 15: National Security

            Chapter 16: Defense Industrial Reserves

            Chapter 17: Arming American Vessels

            Chapter 18: Air-Warning Screen

            Chapter 19: Guided Missiles

            Chapter 20: Wind Tunnels

            Chapter 21: Abaca Production

            Chapter 22: Uniform Code of Military Justice Repealed – see Title 10 of the United States Code

            Chapter 22a: Representation Of Armed Forces Personnel Before Foreign Judicial Tribunals

            Chapter 23: Internal Security

            Chapter 24: National Defense Facilities

            Chapter 25: Armed Forces Reserve

            Chapter 26: Gifts for Defense Purposes

            Chapter 27: Reserve Officer Personnel Program

            Chapter 28: Status of Armed Forces Personnel Appointed to Service Academies

            Chapter 29: National Defense Contracts

            Chapter 30: Federal Absentee Voting Assistance

            Chapter 31: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

            Chapter 32: Chemical and Biological Warfare Program

            Chapter 33: War Powers Resolution

            Chapter 34: National Emergencies

            Chapter 35: International Emergency Economic Powers

            Chapter 36: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

            Chapter 37: National Security Scholarships, Fellowships, and Grants

            Chapter 38: Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability

            Chapter 39: Spoils of War

            Chapter 40: Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction

            Chapter 41: National Nuclear Security Administration

            Chapter 42: Atomic Energy Defense Provisions

            Chapter 43: Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism

            United States Code Titles As Positive Law

            The following titles of the United States Code have been enacted into positive law by the act enumerated below [those NOT so enacted are placed within brackets]:

            Title 1, General Provisions–Act July 30, 1947, ch. 388, § 1, 61 Stat. 633.

            Title 3, The President–Act June 25, 1948, ch. 644, § 1, 62 Stat. 672.

            Title 4, Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States–Act July 30, 1947, ch. 389, § 1, 61 Stat. 641.

            Title 5, Government Organization and Employees–Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, § 1, 80 Stat. 378.

            Title 6, Surety Bonds–Act July 30, 1947, ch. 390, § 1, 61 Stat. 646, as amended June 6, 1972, Pub.L. 92-310, Title II, § 203(4), 86 Stat. 202, and repealed Sept. 13, 1982, Pub.L. 97-258, § 5(b), 96 Stat. 1068. See, now, Title 31, Money and Finance.

            [Title 7, Agriculture]

            [Title 8, Aliens and Nationality]

            Title 9, Arbitration–Act July 30, 1947, ch. 392, § 1, 61 Stat. 669.

            Title 10, Armed Forces–Act Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, § 1, 70A Stat. 1.

            Title 11, Bankruptcy–Pub.L. 95-598, Title I, § 101, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2549.

            [Title 12, Banks and Banking]

            Title 13, Census–Act Aug. 31, 1954, c. 1158, 68 Stat. 1012.

            Title 14, Coast Guard–Act Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, § 1, 63 Stat. 495.

            [Title 15, Commerce and Trade]

            [Title 16, Conservation]

            Title 17, Copyrights–Act July 30, 1947, ch. 391, § 1, 61 Stat. 652, , as amended Oct. 19, 1976, Pub.L. 95-553, Title I, § 101, 90 Stat. 2541.

            Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure–Act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 1, 62 Stat. 683.

            [Title 19, Customs Duties]

            [Title 20, Education]

            [Title 21, Food and Drugs]

            [Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse]

            Title 23, Highways–Pub.L. 85-767, § 1, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 885.

            [Title 24, Hospitals and Asylums]

            [Title 25, Indians]

            [Title 26, Internal Revenue Code]

            [Title 27, Intoxicating Liquors]

            Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure–Act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 1, 62 Stat. 869.

            [Title 29, Labor]

            [Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining]

            Title 31, Money and Finance–Pub.L. 97-258, § 1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.

            Title 32, National Guard–Act Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, § 2, 70A Stat. 596.

            [Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters]

            [Title 34, Navy (repealed)]

            Title 35, Patents–Act July 19, 1952, c. 950, § 1, 66 Stat. 792.

            [Title 36, Patriotic Societies and Observances]

            Title 37, Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services–Pub.L. 87-649, § 1, Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 451.

            Title 38, Veterans’ Benefits–Pub.L. 85-857, § 1, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1105.

            Title 39, Postal Service–Pub.L. 86-682, § 1, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 578, as revised Pub.L. 91-375, § 2, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 719.

            [Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works]

            [Title 41, Public Contracts]

            [Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare]

            [Title 43, Public Lands]

            Title 44, Public Printing and Documents–Pub.L. 90-620, § 1, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1238.

            [Title 45, Railroads]

            Title 46, Shipping–.

            Subtitle II, Vessels and Seamen–Pub.L. 98-89, § 1, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 500.

            [Title 47, Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs]

            [Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions]

            Title 49, Transportation–.

            Subtitle I, Department of Transportation–Pub.L. 97-449, § 1(b), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2413.

            Subtitle II, Part C, Chap. 31, Motor Carrier Safety–Pub.L. 97-449, § 1(b), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2413.

            Subtitle IV, Interstate Commerce–Pub.L. 95-473, § 1, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1337.

            [Title 50, War and National Defense]

            VII

          • Victor Grunden

            I was derelict in not checking recent Titles but the Title 50 of today and Title 50 of 1926 is very different. Even today HR8291 was introduced in 2015 to further amend Title 50. A provision to prosecute Nazi war criminals is now desired when right after WWII we forgave them for scientific and Communist Party member knowledge. It was during the flurry of espionage and immigrant, refugee and escapee legislation that Title 50 was incorporated in other areas including Public Law. The Title 10/Title 50 debate continues to this day mostly affecting Joint Special Operations Command. The various government websites will note that they are not the complete version and some records, especially historical, are only available by print request. The private websites also note they are incomplete and for legal purposes the print annotated version must be obtained for anything other than prima facie, accepted, law. That brings us back to your “Irregular Engineering Standards Change”, Title 25 and Indian citizenship. All the Titles have had technical amendments approved by the Office of Law Revision and are a compilation of different statutes, Acts of Congress and court cases. Beyond subject matter there is no difference between Title 25 and the other Titles. To be governed under Indian Law a person must be a member of a federally recognized tribe, live on a reservation and be at least 50% Indian blood. Just like there are Negroes, there are Indians. It’s a matter of race regardless of citizenship. Those not part of a recognized tribe are not considered subject to the Bureau of Indians Affairs but are eligible for preferential treatment under the various civil rights laws. Recognized tribes were a result of treaties whereby the Indians forfeited land for peace. That gave the government surplus land to distribute to Homesteaders. You keep citing individual cases from different eras that prove nothing because terms change and laws are legally amended. Title 50 use to include Articles of War that described all the military punishment and it differed according to service. Thus the Uniform Code of Military Justice was approved and replaced the Articles of War. Seaman of The U.S. Navy can no longer be flogged for a variety of offenses. But, of all the legal processes, it seems Irregular Engineering Standards Change as applied to Congressional actions is very elusive and the only example you can furnish is about Indians. Is there a different example?

          • Paul R. Jones

            Hi Victor,

            Sadly, your reply is mired in faux “Indian common law” that does not exist. You have not provided an answer to my question: “WERE IS THE PROCLAMATION….” There is no Constitutional authority for any citizen of the United States “…to be governed under Indian Law…”. There is no such Constitutional authority for any federal/state statute to recognize any group of citizens (or individuals for that matter) to be made distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race!” There are NO INDIAN TREATIES! THERE ARE NO MORE INDIANS…ONLY U.S./STATE CITIZENS WITH ‘INDIAN ANCESTRY/RACE’ ENTITLED TO NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN EVERY OTHER NON-INDIAN U.S./STATE CITIZEN. Victor, you have provided no such Constitutional Amendment to that affect. All common law-state and federal-must be for the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a demographic area of a state or the union as a whole…simply put, common law must conform to the Unite States Constitution…IERS must conform after its life expectancy of 12-months has lapsed…then, it must be ratified by 1/3rd of the voters of the United States to amend the Constitution to make the “IERS” conform.

            I can offer two additional examples of ‘IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE’ (IERS) to the United States Constitution:
            1. Farm Subsidies and 2. Portions of the PATRIOT ACT regarding ‘warrant-less’ eavesdropping on U.S. Citizens on United States territory.

            Again, Victor, re-read Fitzgerald’s June 30, 1926, letter, THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924 and then Osborn v. SCOTUS decision regarding U.S. Citizenship guaranteed protections whereby Congress/Presidents/Referendums/Initatives cannot ‘…enlarge or abridge…’ that citizenship.

          • Victor Grunden

            Articles I,II and III enumerate the powers of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts respectively so there is no need for amendments. All reference treaties. Indian Nations were treated as sovereign nations until 1887 and the Dawes Act. At that time treaties were no longer created but the faux Indian law you reference reflected back to treaties. From 1887 to 1924 the only Indians becoming citizens were those committing to abandoning hunter-gatherer lifestyle and becoming civilized. Like it or not, the census accounts for race and ethnicity as mandated by the Constitution. Originally it was to insure that only white male adult property owners voted and congressional districts apportioned thusly. The Warren Court came up with the “one man(person), one vote rule in apportionment and the Voting Rights modified it even further, but the Constitution still clearly states that Indians must be accounted for separately. As for The Patriot Act, there is much to question about it, but it was passed by Congress and signed by the President. It was a think tank product that former Senators Warren Rudman(R) and Gary Hart(D) authored but it did follow the proper legislative process. As for farm subsidies, every five years a Farm Bill is introduced and passed. Between USDA, a farm co-operative, a Fortune 500 agribusiness, farm lobbying organization and active commodity trader both personal and organizational, I’ve been a part of 10 farm bills and have never seen your IERS. Farm subsidies covers a broad category. The ethanol subsidy for instance doesn’t go to farmers but to blenders and users via EPA mandate that also mandates oxygenated fuels. SNAP, WIC, EBT, school lunches, commodities(peanut butter, cheese, honey) is also part of USDA budget. That is under regulatory law although abused. Most regulatory law requires a NPRM, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, with a comment period before Congress approves any changes. And that takes us to the Code of Federal Regulations(CFRs) that are a product of the various Titles. Indian nations no longer own the reservation land but is held in trust due to the abuses after the Dawes Act mandated individual ownership but ironically since Indians were not citizens they couldn’t apply for Homestead grant on surplus lands. To correct the injustices, the faux Indian law as you call it was enacted and modified over the years. The Undersecretary of Indian Affairs at BIA must now be from a federally recognized tribe and I’m pretty sure Herbert Hoover’s Vice President was an Indian.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Victor, sadly, you remain mired in the myth that Congress and Presidents and Governors and Referendums and Initiatives can make a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race!” You have yet to show me in the Constitution where the authority for Congress et al to do so. You are ignoring OSBORN and Fitzgerald’s letter. And you are totally ignoring the Constitution. Post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, all previous legislation and asserted ‘treaties’ were made Constitutionally moot. Events prior to the 1924 Act are of historical note only having no Constitutional legitimacy in relationship to the newly minted citizenry nor do these events have any meaningful purpose in present-day court-state or federal-beyond their historical dates. Stare Decisis makes moot common law court decisions regarding “Indian” cases rendered before Citizenship and post citizenship. Why? Because the parameters of the case pre-citizenship changed by citizenship post 1924. Read BLACK’S LAW definition of Stare Decisis.

            All common law legislation-state and federal-must be for the health, welfare, safety and benefits of the citizenry in a demographic area of a state or the union as a whole…show me the Constitutional authority for Congress/Presidents/Governors/Referendums/Initiatives to ‘pay’ farmers not to grow products…particularly when the original purpose of ‘farm subsidies’ was to protect 25% of this countries citizenry from disaster in the 1920s and early 1930s when 1 in 4 citizens were on a farm usually as a family. Today, there is less than 1% of the citizenry engaged in farming with most farming being done by giant agri-farms like Archer Daniels Midland, Con-Agra et al. and yet ‘farm subsidies’ are continued not to protect 1 out of 4 citizens from collapse but to line the pockets of giant corporations…such legislation are “IERS”

            There is no Constitutional authority to establish a federal agency to ‘regulate’ any person or persons who are citizens of the United States/States because of their “Indian ancestry/race” in the form of the Bureau of Indian Affairs/Department of Interior.

            Victor, you have not be able to get past the notion that there are citizens of the United States/States who can be made distinguishable from all other citizens because of their “Indian ancestry/race”…that does not exist! There is no such thing as “Land held in trust” by We, the People, for the sole benefit of another group of U.S./State citizens because of that other groups “Race/Ancestry!”

            Victor, produce the Proclamation that amends the Constitution to do so.

          • Victor Grunden

            American legal system is not common law or statutory law but a mixture of the two. Under common law a judge decides each case on it’s own merit. Under statutory law the case is decided strictly under the statutes. Judges are not bound by stare decisis, or previous decisions, except in cases of appeal unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions. That’s the whole point of appeals. For whatever reason you have convinced yourself that your interpretation Native American status in modern day America is right and have cherry picked a few legal decisions covering different eras and legislation and created a legislative mechanism that I can’t find. In my world of financial trading it’s called “talking your position’ by seeking only information that justifies your position. It’s a sure fire way to lose money. But, under your definition of no special privileges, the modern day civil rights legislation would all be rendered unconstitutional. The Constitution gives clear authority to the Congress to enact laws and the Senate to approve treaties entered into by the President. There is no need for Constitutional Amendments. As for farm subsidies they have been enacted by the proper legislative process. The way they are used today is far different than the intent of the original Agricultural Adjustment Act, but that doesn’t make them unconstitutional. In the 1980 Farm Bill, corporations were paid for grain storage but farmers were not. When grain prices dropped so low that farmers were to receive subsidies the Reagan Administration decided to pay in kind(PIK)with grain thinking they could save storage costs while not having to dispense money they didn’t have. It turned into such a boondoggle that even brokerage houses were trading PIK certificates. Then there was the Export Enhancement Program and dairy buyouts. The Conservation Reserve Program that seen non-farmers buying farms at FmHA foreclosure sales and paying for the farm with CRP payments. It didn’t help farmers or the rural communities they supported but it was done with constitutionally enacted legislation. During all those battles and more where I had contact with state agricultural commissioners, farm organization lobbyists, senators, representatives both federal and state, governors and a bevy of lawyers I don’t recall encountering anything like your IERS. But, good luck and to demonstrate how things change there was a time an Indian artifact collection could earn a Boy Scout merit badge while now it can earn you a prison sentence. Grave desecration has been a state crime for some time but was not applied to Indians until recent federal legislation. There have been two recent Supreme Court decisions. One approving a special privilege for an Indian tribe and one denying. So you can have the last word and if you need another project, check out where the lithium deposits are that will be needed for the government subsidized “Green Revolution”. Hint:American taxpayers own it but subsidies will be paid to mine it.

          • Victor Grunden

            I really didnt intend to reply but since you have posts all over the web making the same points, on behalf of my Indian friends and acquaintenances here is the Constitutional Authority. It is the Supremacy Clause or Article 6, clause 2 of the Constituion that states treaties along with federal laws shall be supreme over all other laws. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act clearly states, “”the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. Therefore the restrictions upon the trust property-real or personal-of Indians are not removed by the passage of this act. Questions relative to control or management of trust property are, therefore, not changed by the act but are to be handled on their own merits as heretofore”. The 1934 Indian Restoration Act and subsequent legislation all passed in accordance with the Constitution further affirmed the treaties still in existence and the legality of Indian Law. So, Mr. Jones, if that is your real name, there is the Constitutional Authority. As for common law or precedents, many state officials have tried to make your argument and they all lost. And they had deep pockets and clout so that isn’t the problem. Something you probably aren’t aware of is that Indians are subject to state and federal law even after being convicted of the same crime in Indian court. They are the only citizens subject to double jeopardy. You won’t acknowledge the Constitutional authority but there it is.

          • Paul R. Jones

            JUSTIA has not posted my reply 3-times…one more try.

            Victor, I admire your persistence in defending Title 25-Indians… but, sorry Victor, you have not provided any Constitutional Amendment(s) whereby a citizen of the United States is made distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race.” The Indian Reorganization Act (and any other “Indian” cited common law post CITIZENSHIP) is common law lacking any Constitutional authority (Victor, produce the STATUTES AT LARGE drawn from the Constitution itself) to make a citizen distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race!” Nor have you and your friends overcome the explicit definition of U.S. Citizenship in (Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 738 738 (1824))

            Your citation of the Supremacy Clause is misdirected.

            “An especially interesting piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that the Treaty Clause was intended and understood by the Framing and Ratifying Conventions not to authorize the President and Senate, by a treaty, either (a) to override the Constitution, in whole or in part, or (b) to make domestic law (as distinguished from governance of relations with foreign governments), was provided by a statement by Jefferson–presumably reflecting at the time the prevailing opinion among governmental leaders also and especially leaders in Congress–in his 1801 A Manual of Parliamentary Practice”

          • Victor Grunden

            1801: Alien and Sedition Laws passed; slavery legal, later illegal; women couldn’t vote, later could;senators appointed by state governors, later public election;indentured servitude often for ocean passage legal, later illegal;apprenticeship for skilled training for a period of seven years at no pay and apprentice leaving before seven years was subject to jail or return to master, later illegal;Indian Nations were considered sovereign nations and each tribe treated differently. Jefferson”s opinion was a guide and his interpretation of the Supremacy clause but that doesn’t make it law. Witness the U.N., SEATO, NATO, free trade agreements and foreign trade zones that do violate the commerce and war clauses. Citizenship was also defined in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Religious Freedom Act was because of Indians and their right to use hallucinogens in tribal rituals. Also covered in military law because of an Indian U.S. Air Force pilot testing positive for mescaline. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary you are convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong. There is something in the U.S. Navy known as Fleet Admiral bullheadedness. It produced the largest peacetime naval disaster as a Fleet Admiral who would brook no criticism ordered two battleships to turnabout toward each other when virtually every officer on deck each ship new they would collide yet would not voice their opposition. They collided with great loss of life and property and the Admiral couldn’t justify his decision. Your decision and opinion is yours and not as consequential but should Trump get to build his wall, Indian law will be considered. It will be considered opinion and not what is often referred to as jailhouse or truckstop lawyers that interpret laws to fit their situation. It’s been entertaining and interesting that after constant citations of the Indian Citizenship Act that when the very wording in the Act disputed your claim, it wasn’t cited.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Hi Victor, as of the INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, there are no more “Indian reservations” as there is no Constitutional authority for setting aside federal land for the exclusive use of another group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race!” You and your friends have offered no such Constitutional proofs to overcome what I have already given you…there are a group of US/State citizens with Indian ancestry/race entitled to no more and no less that every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. There are no “Indian treaties” for the same reason…they are U.S./State citizens…U.S./State citizens do not have treaties with U.S/State citizens.

            Victor, my simple question remains: “WHERE IS THE PROCLAMATION….” that makes a citizen of the United States and State of the Union distinguishable because of their ancestry/race…perhaps your Indian friends have such an Amendment to the Constitution to make their ancestry/race distinguishable…I would like to see it. If not, we have come full circle…they are citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” residing on land owned by We, the People as tenants. Neither you nor your Indian friends have provided anything to over come what I have provided. And, everything I have provided came from the Constitution itself or from a SCOTUS decision on citizenship. Even the federal documents I provided merely affirm U.S./State citizens residing on what is commonly known as an “Indian reservation” are merely tenants with no ownership with but a very few exceptions in Florida…who should be paying taxes on the land. In reference to the Citizenship Act of ‘tribal property…that refers to structures and business enterprise not the land!

            Your reference to the INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, “”the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property” does not mean the land…it means buildings and enterprise…the land is held in fee by We, the People, not the tenants…the tenants have “…use and occupancy only…”. The tribe cannot sell the land because the tribe does not own the land…it is not their property! Ask your Indian friends if they have ‘fee’ title to any land on their faux “Indian reservation?”

            Again, post CITIZENSHIP there are no “Sovereign Indian nations” in this country as there are no more “INDIANS.” A close examination of the “Indian” use of drugs was based on religious protections just as having a Bible or Koran in prison. You’ll have to show me where “citizenship” was defined differently in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that was not already established in the Constitution and in SCOTUS decision in OSBORN V. Remember, common law-state and federal-must conform to the United States Constitution Standards.

            Trump’s wall has no Constitutional authority to consider any input from U.S./State citizens based “Indian law,” it does not exist! I’ve more than proved the point…they are CITIZENS period.

            Victor, no where in the INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924 can you offer proof any subsequent common law can ‘…enlarge or abridge…’ that Constitutional-guaranteed citizenship and neither have any of your Indian associates!

            Victor, I agree. This had been an entertaining and interesting dialog. We disagree. Sadly, you were not able to provide an answer to my simple question.

          • Victor Grunden

            You have been given ample proof that has stood court tests even when challenged by heavily financed and influential corporate and state/local governments. You choose not to accept anything that disproves your “faux” interpretation of the law which is enhanced by taking things out of context. Legal documents constantly refer back to different sections and that is why there is an annotated version of U.S. law. Word meanings change over time. Gay sure doesn’t mean happy any more. The mention of land held “in fee” is not the same as “land held in trust”. Oklahoma State University has a detailed history of Indians as sovereign nations, to protected lands, to Dawes Act which did give individual title to land, Homestead Act and distribution of surplus lands, to Indian citizenship thru today’s laws. All passed legally and constitutionally. By your own admission, the judiciary and legislative people you talk to give you short shrift. It would be interesting to see any legal document that you or anyone else has filed supporting your claim with references and supporting laws and or cases. Because if the only supporting documents are the ones you have cited they have all been replaced by existing law not withstanding your assertion that they were replaced unconstitutionally with some ephemeral IERS process.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Good Morning, Victor,
            My question remains un-answered….they are citizens of the United States and States in which they reside…where is the Constitutional source of authority for Congress/Presidents/Referendums/Initiative to change their status as citizens from other citizen. Victor, you have not provided such a source and pointing to current common law does not make it Constitutional. There are no more “Indians” just U.S./State citizens entitled to no more or less than every other non-Indian U.S. citizen. Every thing you cited prior to the Citizenship Act of 1924 is history. Every Indian common law post Citizenship is an un-ratified “IERS” and does not exist. Ask your colleagues and Indian friends to put my Proclamation question to Mr. Darrel Issa just as I did and see what happens. Just because Congress enacts legislation does not make it Constitutional.

            All in all, Victor, we disagree. We have kept the dialog civil. Hopefully, anyone who has been following our dialog can make their own decisions as to whether a citizen of the United States can be made distinguishable from other citizens because of their “Indian ancestry/race.”

          • Victor Grunden

            You have been given the answer many times over. You refuse to accept it. Laws currently in effect whether they were passed in 1787 or 2016 is the legal authority. The Constitution in Article I, II, and III gives authority to legislators to change laws with Court approval. Otherwise there would be no need for elections. States and people can also change laws but the requirements are more stringent. Mr. Issa I believe is of Lebanese descent and whether citizen or naturalized I don’t know. He made his fortune selling Viper car alarm systems after transitioning a Citizens Band radio company. Now he is caught up in the whole Mexican-ATF gun running case which is interesting because there are numerous instances of gun running cases in military, Indian and criminal law involving Indians. The odds of me talking to anyone other than a phone jockey in Mr. Issa’s office is slim to none so questioning Mr. Issa, or any other elected official isn’t a valid option. For Indians to be treated under Indian law, they must be a member of a federally recognized tribe and living on a reservation as per respective Indian treaties when they were treated as sovereign nations and as amended by later Congressional Acts. You seem to feel the Indians have special rights and advantages but if they did, those arriving here illegally, on visas of all types and as refugees would seek benefits under Indian law and not under the Civil Rights or Immigration Acts. They don’t because the benefits are much better and they get benefits even though they aren’t citizens. Indians have to prove their 50% blood and heritage to get “special rights”. That’s the irony of the situation Trump wishes to address, people arriving here wanting benefits granted to U.S. citizens in general by force of law because they were victims of slavery, discrimination or abrogation of treaties. We are currently in what was referred to in Plato’s Republic as “tyrannical democracy”. It s when legislators in order to retain power import foreigners for various reasons with the goal of bringing in people that will keep them in power when the citizens would turn them out of power if given a true vote. Just as Indian land was given to settlers and miners, today private, public and Indian land is either given to illegals or people stretching the definition of refugees and immigrants. Today it is being done by due process where it was done illegally in the past when it involved Indians. You don’t and wont agree, but the proof has been offered for Indian affairs.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Clearly, Victor, you do not understand what citizenship as defined by OSBORN.

            We disagree.

          • Victor Grunden

            Check out American History, Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Federal Indian Law by N. Bruce Duthu. It has numerous examples of Indian citizenship including dual citizenship. In America’s eugenics period in the late 19th and early 20th century one had to be Caucasian to attain citizenship. Depending on one letter defining citizenship when America was but a fraction of what it is today is suspect to say the least. In 2010 America signed a UN treaty regarding indigenous people but made certain exceptions for American Indians. Our disagreement is about your insistence that there are no Indians, no special agreements because of Indian ancestry and Indian jurisprudence is unconstitutional and created by a legislative maneuver I have yet to find.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Victor, you remain mired in a common law that does not exist within the meaning of the United States Constitution…neither Congress nor Presidents nor Referendums nor Initiatives nor treaties can ‘…enlarge or abridge…’ one’s U.S./State citizenship. Period. Holding to your position would mean that JIM CROW LAWS would still flourish by simply having legislators, Presidents and treaties saying so.

            Citizenship and the U.S. Constitution-guaranteed protections of one’s citizenship cannot be made more plain that what SCOTUS stated in:

            Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 738 738 (1824)

            A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.

            Victor, if you do not like OSBORN, here is a second SCOTUS decision affirming that Congress cannot “…enlarge or abridge…” one’s U.S./State citizenship…Congress has no Constitutional authority to make a citizen ‘…distinguishable…’ because of their ancestry/race. Any common law doing so lacks Constitutional authority.

            Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) provided more on citizenship (sovereignty of the individual):

            Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra, overruled. Pp. 256-268.

            (a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment; and a mature and well-considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 257-261. (b) The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that

            “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . .” completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the cancellation of petitioner’s citizenship. Pp. 262-268.

            361 F.2d 102, reversed.

            (b) The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . .” completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the cancellation of petitioner’s citizenship. Pp. 262-268. 361 F.2d 102, reversed.

            These SCOTUS decisions have not been over-ruled.

            We disagree.

          • Paul R. Jones

            United States Supreme Court citations of OSBORN v. BANK OF US. 22 U.S. 738 (1824) to affirm citizenship guarantees…take your pick:

            OSBORN v. BANK OF U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824) March 19, 1824 No. 80

            AMERICAN NAT’L RED CROSS v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992) June 19, 1992 No. 91-594

            AGRICULTURAL BANK v. TAX COMM’N, 392 U.S. 339 (1968) June 17, 1968 No. 755

            IDAHO v. COEUR d’ALENE TRIBE OF IDAHO, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) June 23, 1997 No. 94-1474

            SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA v. FLORIDA, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) March 27, 1996 No. 94-12

            PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL & HOSP. v. HALDERMAN, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) January 23, 1984 No. 81-2101

            STATE OF LOUISIANA EX REL. ELLIOTT v. JUMEL, 107 U.S. 711 (1883) March 5, 1883

            EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) March 23, 1908 No. 10

            QUERN v. JORDAN, 440 U.S. 332 (1979) March 5, 1979 No. 77-841

            WELCH v. TEXAS HIGHWAYS & PUBLIC TRANSP. DEPT., 483 U.S. 468 (1987) June 25, 1987 No. 85-1716

            VERLINDEN B. v. v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) May 23, 1983 No. 81-920

            MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. THOMPSON, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) July 7, 1986 No. 85-619

            LEBRON v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, 513 U.S. 374 (1995) February 21, 1995 No. 93-1525

            ROWLAND v. CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) January 12, 1993 No. 91-1188

            AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. v. DALLAS COUNTY, 463 U.S. 855 (1983) July 5, 1983 No. 81-1717

            WILL v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) June 15, 1989 No. 87-1207

            ALDINGER v. HOWARD, 427 U.S. 1 (1976) June 24, 1976 No. 74-6521

            HAGANS v. LAVINE, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) March 25, 1974 No. 72-6476

            ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL v. SCANLON, 473 U.S. 234 (1985) June 28, 1985 No. 84-351

            NORTHERN PIPELINE CO. v. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO., 458 U.S. 50 (1982) June 28, 1982 No. 81-150

            GLIDDEN COMPANY v. ZDANOK, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) June 25, 1962 No. 242

            FRANCHISE TAX BD. v. LABORERS VACATION TRUST, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) June 24, 1983 No. 82-695

            US TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) May 22, 1995 No. 93-1456

            POWELL v. MCCORMACK, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) June 16, 1969 No. 138

            BUTZ v. ECONOMOU, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) June 29, 1978 No. 76-709

            U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) March 28, 1898 No. 132

            CARLSON, v. GREEN, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) April 22, 1980 No. 78-1261

            SCHNEIDER v. RUSK, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) May 18, 1964 No. 368

            FINLEY v. UNITED STATES, 490 U.S. 545 (1989) May 22, 1989 No. 87-1973

            BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) March 26, 1962 No. 35

            D. H. OVERMYER CO. v. FRICK CO., 405 U.S. 174 (1972) February 24, 1972 No. 69-5

            CRAWFORD-EL v. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) May 4, 1998 No. 96-827

            FONG YUE TING v. US, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) May 15, 1893 No. 108

            D.C. COURT OF APPEALS v. FELDMAN, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) March 23, 1983 No. 81-1335

            US v. ‘OLD SETTLERS’, 148 U.S. 427 (1893) April 3, 1893 No. 176

            ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) April 5, 1971 No. 24

            HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. SPERLING, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) December 11, 1989 No. 88-1203

            PEREZ v. LEDESMA, 401 U.S. 82 (1971) February 23, 1971 No. 60

          • Victor Grunden

            The list of cases cited is rather small in light of the volume of all cases surrounding Indian legal disputes. But, I will review them in time. But, the story was about Trump’s wall to keep out illegals. Under today’s definition of benefits associated with citizenship anyone making it across the borders of America is entitled to citizenship. It will be interesting to see how those cases might affect that policy. As for Indians, there is a case in American courts where the judge ruled that because of British sovereignty and we defeated the British, then America had the right to treat Indians as subjects.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Hi Victor,
            Your sentence “Under today’s definition of benefits associated with citizenship anyone making it across the borders of America is entitled to citizenship” has no federal common law statute legitimacy…either a person enters the United States legally as noted in common law or illegal as in ‘crossing’ the border with Mexico or Canada…there is no TODAY’S DEFINITION.

            Again, there is no such thing as “INDIAN LEGAL DISPUTES.” It is a myth perpetuated illegally by politicians…politicians have no Constitutional authority to ‘regulate’ a citizen turning on ‘ancestry/race.’

            Again, all “Indian cases” pre-citizenship are merely historical footnotes as the 1924 citizenship made such cases MOOT. And, there is no such bases for “Indian cases” post citizenship and there are no more ‘INDIANS’…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race.”

            I believe the historical issue RE. British, is called the DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY. And, you are correct in noting that DOCTRINE is found in court decisions post Citizenship…it is a historical reference ONLY. Again, once citizenship was achieved, the United States Constitution takes the person up and all of the Constitution-guarantees are applied…once THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924 was enacted, Congress/Presidents/Referendums/Initiatives/Treaties have no Constitutional authority to “…enlarge or abridge…” those guarantees.

            Lastly, once THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924 was enacted, they became citizens as is clearly noted in OSBORN; and, they became We, the People, as citizens entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian citizen. U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” would not, in my opinion, be describes as SUBJECTS to be treated differently because of their “Indian ancestry/race” …they are citizens and our Constitution makes for no provisions to ‘treat’ them differently.

            As for Trump’s wall to keep out illegals, that remains to be seen. There are plenty of federal common statutes to regulate legitimate persons entering the United States…it is the estimated 1000 per day flowing across the border with Mexico that is troubling for every state that has a border with Mexico. Enforce the current laws! While Canada has a longer border and it, too, has illegal crossing (like through the faux Mohawk reservation in up-state New York) it is not like the Mexico border.

            Victor, there are more SCOTUS citations of OSBORN that are on-line I found on FINDLAW’s web page when I typed-in OSBORN…they changed their format and that portion of their web page doesn’t have that search engine. I found the cases noted. Hopefully, if you open up each one and do a word search for OSBORN, you will see how the case is referenced in the SCOTUS decision. The web may offer other SCOTUS case search engines that I didn’t find. In any case, OSBORN has not been over-ruled.

          • Victor Grunden

            Illegals don’t have citizenship rights and legal immigrants are supposed to be self-supporting but a federal judge decided otherwise and Congress refuses to challenge the decision or write definitive new laws. Indian law on the other hand can be found in international law, maritime law, military law and tribunals, treaties and various Acts of Congress, Statutes at Large and summarized in various Titles of the U.S. Code. But I use a variety of legal search services and as time permits will review the cases cited.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Victor, we’ve been over this ground before….where is the Constitutional Amendment that makes a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?” Where is the Constitutional Amendment changing the Treaty Clause making treaties with U.S./State Citizens based on “Indian ancestry/race?” International law does not trump Constitutional protections of being a citizen. Everything you noted above has no Statute at Large flowing from the Constitution post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924 to make any of it stand up to my Proclamation question.

          • Victor Grunden

            Without exhaustive research the closest authority would probably be the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1970 which I believe was a result of a study ordered by President Nixon and conducted by John Roberts who is now Chief Justice.

          • Paul R. Jones

            What is the INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1970 source of Constitutional authority?

          • Victor Grunden

            The same as all other Civil Rights Acts I suppose. It was passed in a Constitutional manner within the powers defined by Articles I, II and II of the U.S. Constitution.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Victor, that answer does not work. Asking my question another way: Where is the STATUTE(S) AT LARGE whereby a citizen of the United States/States can be made distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race” specifically in the INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1970? The pasted court decisions affirms that just because Congress enacted legislation, does not mean the legislation conformed to the Constitution.

            1. Where there are conflicts of law, the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land because it was created first by the sovereign people. It says so right in the document itself.
            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
            [Article VI, United States Constitution]
            2. The Statutes at Large (S.A.L.) have the next highest precedence, because they are created by Congress from the authority derived from the U.S. Constitution.
            3. Next comes the U.S. Code, which implements the Statutes at Large. Some titles are enacted into positive law while others, such as the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, are not. Titles of the code that are not enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of law that can be rebutted using the Statutes At Large from which they are derived.

            Court decisions:

            1. [N]othing becomes a law simply and solely because men who possess the legislative power will that it shall be, unless they express their determination to that effect, in the mode pointed out by the instrument which invests them with the power, and under all the forms which that instrument has rendered essential. (Caine v. Robbins, 131 P.2d 516, 518 (Nev. 1942) citing Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 6th Ed., p. 155.)
            2. Those rules and solemnities, whether derived from the common law or prescribed by the Constitution, which are of the essentials of law making, must be observed and complied with, and, without such observance and compliance, the will of the Legislature can have no validity as law. (Vinsant, Adm,x v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266, 277 (1871).)
            3. Under subsec. (a) of this section the United States Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large if the two are inconsistent. Stephan v. U. S., Mich. 1943, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 319 U.S. 423, 87 L.Ed. 1490. See, also, American Export Lines, Inc. v. U. S., 1961, 290 F.2d 925, 153 Ct.Cl.; Baltan Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., D.C. Cal. 1950, 94 F.Supp. 796.
            4. Where an inconsistency appears between the United States Code and the Statutes at Large, the Statutes at Large prevail over the Code. Peart v. Motor Vessel Bering Explorer, D.C. Alaska 1974, 373 F.Supp. 927.The code establishes prima facie what the laws of the United States are, but to extent that provisions of the Code are inconsistent with the statutes at large, the latter will prevail. Best Foods, Inc. v. U. S., Cust.Ct. 1956, 147 F.Supp. 749.
            5. The code establishes prima facie what the laws of the United States are, but to extent that provisions of the Code are inconsistent with the statutes at large, the latter will prevail. Best Foods, Inc. v. U. S., Cust.Ct. 1956, 147 F.Supp. 749.

          • Victor Grunden

            As you have noted, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land so if the Constitution guarantees certain rights ti citizens, the Statutes at Large are not needed for justification. If people are denied those rights because of race the Congress can establish laws to guarantee those rights. In the case of Indians it gets more complicated because they were here first. The European powers were the immigrants. Each European nation and Indian tribe had separate and distinct relations. The original 13 American colonies broke away from England and eventually attained the current United States through purchase and war. The indigenous people came with the territory but had no say in the agreements between conqueror and conquered. That’s where International Law was of effect. The territories were often governed under military law and Indians were denied citizenship. California had some of the most egregious laws which required Indians to become “civilized” by abandoning their hunter-gatherer ways and learn modern practices. Any Indian failing to do so could be subject to re-training by working for a white man. There are ample other examples but quite simply if Civil Rights was enacted on behalf of the Negro population because of slavery and Jim Crow, the Civil Rights legislation because of Indian ancestry is also Constitutional which reigns supreme over the Statutes at Large. The other problem is that Negro slaves gave up no land. The Indians, although from another tribe, sold Manhattan, N.Y. to early settlers. Then there is all that railroad property and settlers land from the Homestead Act. Indian law can’t be divorced from property law, contract law or fiduciary law since the U.S. government assumed plenary powers in Indian affairs. The question then becomes, “Did the United States government act legally and constitutionally in all Indian matters”? If so there is no need for special legislation. If not, then redress can be sought. And special legislation is the cheapest route. If the Japanese can seek compensation for their internment camp experience in WWII, it would seem that Indians could do the same for their experiences. The U.S. Constitution set the Indian Nations aside as sovereign nations. The Dawes Act of 1887 ended that by allowing individual title to Indian land and ending the treaty process. That was an extension of “holding land in trust” for Indians which ended their sovereignty. Where is the legal authority from the Constitution for that action?

          • Paul R. Jones

            Good Morning, Victor,
            You are still mired in “Indian common law.” We have gone over the historical ground before…it hasn’t changed. Once citizenship was achieved, everything prior to that date became history. NO TREATIES. NO SEPARATE STATUS. The Japanese internment has been shown to have been un-constitutional years later. Victor, provide the source of authority from the Constitution for legislation to make a citizen of the United States and States distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”

          • Victor Grunden

            It was not only Japanese but also Germans and Italians that were sent to internment camps. Which the President every right to do under Articles of War. The unconstitutionality part was because of property seizures mostly under California law. That is what Osborn v. Bank of the United States was about. The state of Ohio decided to tax the Bank of the United States, a charter corporation created by an Act of Congress, and did seize with violence a sum of money delivered to State Treasurer Osborn in violation of a court order. The reference to citizenship refers to the power of Congress to create laws and entities beyond original jurisdiction defined in the Constitution but cases arising from that can be heard in any court in the land. Citizenship rights of naturalized citizens stem from the Constitution and does not need Congressional action. Judge Marshall was making a distinction between original jurisdiction and Acts of Congress and used citizenship as an example. Many of the Indian citizenship laws and Acts were under treaty law. Each one specifically stated that tribal rights were retained and even after treaties were ended in 1881 the aboriginal rights of Indians were retained. Even in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Even today under the Indian Claims Commission these rights are taken into consideration. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1970 was about bringing tribal law in line with U.S. Courts. States have sought taxing authority under various venues and have generally been denied so if your position had any merit, it would seem somewhere out there at least one state would have entered it. For years United States policy was Indian elimination and that fact cannot be ignored when reviewing cases involving Native Americans. Nor can the Constitutional fact that Congress can write laws and approve treaties. That’s why the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was written. Approximately two-thirds of the Indians already had citizenship under about a dozen previous acts and provisions. It was creating a lot of confusion, mostly around property and marital law, so Congress granted citizenship while preserving tribal rights to all Indians. That was 100 years after Osborn v. Bank of the United States and has not been rule unconstitutional. But if you want to prove your point, and have been injured or affected in any matter, you are free to file suit in any court in the land to prove your point.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Hi Victor,
            You continue to provide history…provide the answer to my question.

          • Victor Grunden

            History provides the answer. You are mixing state-to-state relations with individual-to-state relations. As noted in the Constitution, Congress was authorized to deal with Indians. Not in the context of individuals but as sovereign nations. All the treaty actions confirms the intent. For some reason, Indian affairs were handled by the Department of Interior and not the Department of State. There was controversy over this at the time but as more Indian lands, reservations, were managed by the federal government, the Department of Interior became the overall manager. But the treaty mechanism was still the same. As long as Indians were on reservations they were ruled and benefited from tribal law. Once off the reservation, they were governed like anyone from any foreign country if they were not citizens. Once they became citizens, they were governed like any other citizen except in certain states they were not allowed to vote until the 1957 Civil Rights Act. The Constitution very clearly states that Congress has the right to write laws including those that affects Indians. They did so and in the case of the Indian Citizenship clearly state that American citizenship does require forfeiture of Indian citizenship anymore than dual citizens from Israel, Canada, Mexico, Italy or any other country has to forfeit their citizenship. The authority is in the Constitution in both sovereign rights and individual rights. It’s that simple.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Sadly, Victor, you are once again wrong. There is no such thing as ‘DUAL CITIZENSHIP FOR INDIANS’ as there are NO “Indians” within the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution…only U.S./state citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924. Again, you have provided no amendments to the Constitution whereby a citizen of the United States is made distinguishable because of their ancestry/race. You have not provided any authority for Congress or Presidents or Initiatives or Referendums to make a citizen distinguishable because of their Indian ancestry/race. There is NO INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF ANY SOVEREIGN INDIAN NATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES!

            The Constitution says no such thing as Congress being able to ‘write’ legislation to regulate the mets and boundaries of a citizen because of their “Indian ancestry/race” or any other race; and, to date, you have provided no Constitutional authority to that extent. There are no ‘sovereign nations’ of any kind in the United States…the Constitution recognizes but two sovereigns: National and State governments and ultimately, the true sovereign is the individual citizen! England’s Embassy and Consults are representative locations as a sovereign nation recognized internationally and are guests in the United States that can be ousted by We, the People, at any time. An England citizen can likewise be ousted from the United States at any time by We, the People and holding to your position, every “Indian” can be ousted as well.

            Again, Victor, in OSBORN, once citizenship is achieved, Congress has no authority to ‘enlarge or abridge’ that citizenship and that includes any legislation that subordinates (a.k.a. abridges) U.S/State citizenship to another claimed citizenship in this country such as England…that is, a U.S. citizen that claims to have ‘dual’ citizenship with England cannot have legislation-state or federal-that subordinates U.S,/State citizenship to England’s citizenship…U.S. citizenship is superior and cannot be changed by legislation-state or federal…that removes any ability to legislate change for any citizens based on ancestry/race! This Constitutional guarantee is clearly spelled out in OSBORN, among other SCOTUS decisions and in Beys Afroyim v. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State Citations 387 U.S. 253 (more) 87 S.Ct. 1660; 18 L.Ed.2d 757

            Prior history 250 F. Supp. 686 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); 361 F.2d 102 (2nd Cir. 1966); certiorari granted, 385 U.S. 917 (1966)

            Holding: Congress has no power under the Constitution to revoke a person’s U.S. citizenship unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. In particular, citizenship may not be revoked as a consequence of voting in a foreign election.

            The Constitution’s Treaty Clause has no authority in it authorizing ‘treaties’ between We, the People and We, the People…there are no “Indian treaties” post citizenship and you provided no amendments ratified by 1/3rd of the voters of the United States to amend the Treaty Clause whereby We, the People have treaties with a select group of other U.S./State citizens because of that other groups Indian ancestry/race. Same for the Commerce Clause.

            Victor, in short, you have provided no Constitutional authority whereby any legislation-state or federal-can ‘enlarge or abridge’ a U.S./State citizen’s Constitutional-guaranteed protections.

            Once again, we have made full circle…produce the answer to my Proclamation question. They are citizens plain and simple. U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” are entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. Period.

          • Victor Grunden

            I gave you the answer you sought which I knew you wouldn’t accept. You have invested an inordinate amount of time to establish your version of Indian laws, treaties and citizenship. At first it was because of IERS and beyond some cloakroom jargon like “log-rolling” or “pork barrel politics” I can find no evidence of any laws being passed by this process. My main interest was in 49 C.F.R. U.S, citizenship for Indians is no longer abridged or expanded after the 1957, 1960 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts. Using the Osborn decision means that citizenship rights were expanded by the Civil Rights Acts since at the time of Osborn many citizens did not have the right to vote. The other body of law concerns the treatment of Indians as sovereign nations and until you understand, or accept, that your mistaken notion of no Indians, Indian law or the various Indian Nations then nobody can convince you of your err in thought regardless of the proof presented. But the discussion was about Trump’s wall and illegals and in that vein some of the areas traversed is what is generally known as Indian country and therefore subject to Indian tribal law since the illegals are not citizens of the United States. Depending upon P.L. 280 status the illegals could be subject to state laws of trespass and other crimes. But, there are ten companies attempting to tie up all the water in the world. Any stock search on water companies will yield their names, and your position would be especially advantageous to them. So you have the proof and as the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”, any more time is simply futile.

          • Paul R. Jones

            No. You didn’t give me the answer to my question….you parroted back common law that does not exist in accordance with UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION STANDARDS IE

            “…citizenship for Indians is no longer abridged or expanded after the 1957, 1960 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts. Using the Osborn decision means that citizenship rights were expanded by the Civil Rights Acts since at the time of Osborn many citizens did not have the right to vote…”

            that has no foundation in the Constitution you can provide to ‘enlarge or abridge’ or as you have phrased it “…EXPANDED BY CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS…” citizenship clearly defined in OSBORN to make a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable. Nor can you provide any STATUTES AT LARGE for anything turning-on or flowing-from TITLE 25-INDIANS post citizenship. Fitzgerald’s letter is explicit and you have provided nothing to overcome his letter.

            In addition to all other Constitutional prohibitions for ‘SOVEREIGN INDIAN NATIONS’ in the United States I have provided is the Constitution’s ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4 that ‘INDIAN TRIBES ARE NOT A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT NOR CAN CONGRESS CIRCUMVENT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION:
            “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

            Holding to your premise there are “Indian Laws, treaties, sovereign Indian nations and citizenship” in those Nations, each and everyone of those “Sovereign Indian Nations” would be regulated by Title 50 specifically the EXON-FLORIO ACT provisions….the same provisions used to regular foreign nations with the follow restrictions at a minimum on each tribal member:
            1. No voting or holding any public office in state or federal departments.
            2. Taxes paid to state and federal agencies for personal income and business/enterprise taxes and fees including auto licenses
            3. No welfare of any kind including INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES, NO INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT, et al
            4. Subject to all state and federal laws in which they reside.
            5. Be prepared to be deported as an Illegal alien
            6. No printing of any form of money or postal stamps or license plates
            7. No establishing of any form of military
            8. Controlled by all financial laws in the United States including movement of monies within and without the United States.
            9. No blocking or inhibiting easements for public utilities, or highways or waterways.

            I suggested you contact Mr. Darrel Issa to get an explanation of what an ‘IRREGULAR ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHANGE” to the United States Constitution is and does…you opted not to do that. You can also contact Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court for a definition of an “IERS.”

            Any more of my time providing to you United States Constitution Standards clearly defined in that document and unequivocal federal documents in Fitzgerald’s letter and SCOTUS decisions refuting any legitimacy of Title 25-INDIANS will be futile as you have not overcome any of these presentations by providing the Constitutional source of authority for the common law enactment. Parroting back common law that lacks Statutes At Large nee Constitutional authority goes nowhere.

            Victor, we disagree.

          • Victor Grunden

            The Constitution is not common law. Indian citizenship in the larger United States is not preferential in any way. You insist on using citizenship to justify your position on Indian law which involves treaties, commerce clause and reservations of land. In all instances the treaties and Acts clearly states that members of federally recognized tribes are not forfeiting their tribal rights and a tribal form of government will exist. Indian nations are not states. If anything was IERS it has to be the Affordable Care Act and Chief Justice Roberts said it was constitutional.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Sorry. Victor, once again, you have not provided any Constitutional authority to make a U.S./State citizen post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924 distinguishable. And, I did not say the Constitution is COMMON LAW…however, the common law-state and federal-you cite regarding faux federal Indian common law has no source in the Constitution to exit…it is a hoax. You have not provided any Statute at Large founded on our Constitution post 1924 Indian citizenship Act to make a U.S./State citizen distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race!” U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” can claim/call themselves anything they want but the Constitution recognized their U.S./State citizenship only and Congress/Presidents/Initiatives/Referendums cannot ‘…enlarge or abridge…’ that citizenship based on their Indian ancestry/race or any ancestry/race.

            Victor, please provide the amendments to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, (Treaty Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) of the United States Constitution whereby a U.S./State citizen is made distinguishable from all other non-Indian ancestry/race citizens. Lastly, Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 is explicit: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…” and faux federally recognized Indian tribes are not in any way, shape or form a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT!

            Victor, you continue to parrot back faux federal common law ie. Federal Indian Programs/Law, but cannot provide any source of Constitutional authority for their common law-state and federal-enactments that conform to our Constitution.

            Victor, we continue to disagree.

          • Victor Grunden

            Statute 66, P.L.414 of June 27, 1952 Title III, Chapter 1, Sec 301(a)(2) formalizes what all the Indian citizenship Acts by Congress clearly stated. Granting of Indian citizenship does not interfere with their tribal rights. That is a law made by Congress and the Constitution gives the Congress to make laws. Had Congress cancelled all previous Indian laws and treaties the chaos in commerce would have been unimaginable.

          • Victor Grunden

            Statute 66, P.L.414 of June 27, 1952 Title III, Chapter 1, Sec 301(a)(2) formalizes what all the Indian citizenship Acts by Congress clearly stated. Granting of Indian citizenship does not interfere with their tribal rights. That is a law made by Congress and the Constitution gives the Congress to make laws. Had Congress cancelled all previous Indian laws and treaties the chaos in commerce would have been unimaginable.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Sorry. Statute 66, P.L.414 of June 27, 1952 Title III, Chapter 1, Sec 301(a)(2) is common law that has no authority post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, that regulates a citizen by race…its an un-ratified IERS.

            2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

            1. Victor, this paragraph is common law that can show no source of authority in the United States Constitution to identify a group of citizens to be made distinguishable
            2. U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” residing on land commonly known as an “Indian reservation” are merely leasing tenants of the land…they do not own it. What physical assets/buildings belong to the enrolled members as tenants in common but not the land. The few “Indian tribes’ who have fee to the land as noted in a previous source of information i gave you pay taxes on the land to the State of Florida just like any other land owner.
            Your argument that “Had Congress cancelled all previous Indian laws and treaties the chaos in commerce would have been unimaginable.” is irrelevant to the United States Constitution…the Constitution itself made null Title 25 et al and all common law-state and federal-flowing from it post 1924 CITIZENSHIP ACT
            3. Neither Congress nor Presidents nor Initiatives nor Referendums can enact any common law-state or federal-that is in conflict with the Constitution…even an “IERS” must comply after 12-months…all common law-state and federal-must comply with the Constitution. Title 25 et al is an un-ratified IERS…I have already provided that information via federal documents, OSBORN and Fitzgerald’s letter that affirms the fact that THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, made moot Title 25 et al.

          • Victor Grunden

            Essentially anything that doesn’t support your position is flawed in some way. Many of the legal cases you listed involved an Indian tribe. That means Indian tribes are a legal entity or they wouldn’t be able to sue or be sued in a court of law. But, Articles I,II, and II of the Constitution outlines law making procedure and the administration of laws, Acts of Congress creates laws that are listed as Statutes at Large and Public Law. The titles and U.S. codes are essentially an abridged version for most legal purposes. The U.S. Constitution specifically identifies Indians as a race to be dealt with exclusively by the federal government. The only thing left is to determine the validity of IERS .

          • Paul R. Jones

            Victor, you are once again mired in faux federal Indian common law.! My position is straight out of the United States Constitution…a position you have not overcome. NO COMMON LAW POST THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, has any Constitutional authority you can provide that makes a U.S./State citizen distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race,” and I have covered that ground many times citing the Constitution itself and SCOTUS decisions regarding citizenship. And, once citizenship was achieved, all “Indian” common law/alleged “Indian” treaties were made null by the Constitution. All common law post the CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, naming a U.S./State citizen with “Indian ancestry/race” that makes them distinguishable have been “IERS” and you have shown that none have been ratified and, therefore, do not exist!

            A group of U.S./State citizens calling themselves “Indians” can sue in state and federal courts BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHEREBY THEY CAN BE MADE DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR ANCESTRY/RACE! There is a group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen…you have provided no Constitutional change to that tenet. Neither Statutes at Large/United States Code can enact common law that does not conform to the United States Constitution and their is NOTHING IN THE DOCUMENT making a U.S./State citizen distinguishable because of their ‘ancestry/race!’ You have not provided any change to Fitzgerald’s letter that any common law at variant with the Constitution can be challenged and Title 25 INDIANS is just such a common law…it is a ‘drop-file,’ ‘hodge-podge,’ ‘file thirteen,’ of un-ratified “IERS” not in conformance with the Constitution.

            The United States Constitution identified a group of people commonly called “Indians” in the Commerce Clause (Treaty Clause) up to the date common law enacted by Congress and signed by the President making all who were not already citizens, citizens: THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924. As I have repeatedly shown in OSBORN, the United States Constitution then “…takes them up…” as citizens entitled to all Constitution-guaranteed protections one of which is their ‘citizenship’ cannot be “…enlarge or abridge…” by common law. You have provided nothing to change that Constitution-guaranteed protection.

            My position has not and is not Constitutionally flawed.

            You have provided nothing that changes the Constitution-guaranteed protections one’s citizenship can be ‘…enlarge or abridge..’ by common law-state or federal.

          • Victor Grunden

            Actually no group calling themselves Indians can sue in any court. They must be a federally recognized tribe. The suit must be on the basis of former treaties, Acts and agreements. For those purposes they must be at least 50% “Indian blood”. For rights under the various civil rights programs apparently high cheekbones work. But the civil rights programs and Indian treaties and rights are two different things. The examples you listed based on Osborn were about the right of states to tax national banks, sovereign immunity, states right to waterways, aboriginal title, and authority of bankruptcy judges to award damages and the eternal decisions of which court, local, state, administrative, district on up to the Supreme Court should be the final authority on the case. None involved citizenship. But the Constitution specifically gives the federal government exclusive authority over Indian commerce and the right to regulate commerce. Indian commerce was conducted as a tribe until the Dawes Act when individuals were allotted property. That Act created a lot of the property lawsuits of today. In other instances where property was granted to individuals it always led to loss of property and an odd mix of non-tribal members owning property in and amongst tribal lands. But before I contact some union and agricultural lobbyist about your IERS is there a specific common law that you consider lawfully and constitutionally enacted for comparison purposes?

          • Paul R. Jones

            Victor, you have missed the whole point in our dialog…there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the United States Constitution…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. There is no such Constitutional authority you have provided that makes a U.S./State citizen distinguishable…there is no such thing as a “federally recognized tribe!’ It is a political myth!

            You continue to parrot the myth but cannot provide the Constitutional source for your message. Parroting back historical events post citizenship are merely historical events no longer Constitutional relevant.

            You are misreading OSBORN. OSBORN’S DICTA IS EXPLICIT IN DEFINING CITIZENSHIP and has not be overruled and has been referenced many times in SCOTUS decisions regarding common law and or attempts by government to ‘strip’ citizenship away from a citizen.

            Victor, ONCE CITIZENSHIP WAS ACHIEVED, THERE ARE NO MORE “INDIANS!”

            Victor, you have yet to overcome Fitzgerald’s letter…I suggest you re-evaluate these sentences with OSBORN: . No new law is enacted and no law repealed. It is prima facie the law. It is presumed to be the law. The presumption is rebuttable by production of prior unrepealed Acts of Congress at variance with the Code.

            THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924 IS: THE “…REBUTTABLE BY PRODUCTION OF PRIOR REREALED ACTS OF CONGRESS AT VARIANCE WITH THE CODE.. THE CODE IS TITLE 25-INDIANS.

            Victor, contact Darrell Issa’s office. Or, SCOTUS and have them tell you what an “IERS” is and does. I put that question to Issa’s staff. With whomever you elect to contract, present this quesiton and demand an answer: WHERE IS THE PROCLAMATION RATIFIED BY 1/3RD OF THE VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT AMENDS THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE THE HEALTH, WELFARE, SAFETY AND BENEFITS OF A SELECT GROUP OF US./STATE CITIZENS DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR INDIAN ANCESTRY/RACE?”

            I already gave you examples of “IERS” in previous discussions.

          • Victor Grunden

            I am not seeking an example of IERS but an example of a law that you consider constitutionally and lawfully enacted.

          • Paul R. Jones

            18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

          • Victor Grunden

            Thanks

          • Paul R. Jones

            You are welcome.

          • Victor Grunden

            Interesting choice. The 1917 Espionage Act that established the pertinent 50 U.S. C. sections that became similar 18 U.S.C. sections also includes interference with foreign commerce. The Mother Jones trial was the most famous trial prosecuted under the Act. A lot of classified information is more about political embarrassment than security. President Clinton wanted to extend this to any former government employee divulging any information relating to their government position. LBJ and Nixon refused to use it against war protesters but Nixon used it against Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers. (The FBI break-in to his psychiatrist office rendered it moot.) The overall constitutional question has always been, “Does it abridge a citizens rights of free speech”? There was a time that using 18 U.S.C. as authority for a military law the military would delay issuance of a discharge for up to ten years after a person left military service. Anything the government deemed harmful during that time could result in prosecution under the UCMJ. Speaking German although there were a lot of German immigrants that could only speak German was a crime under this Act in WWI. And without the Congressional Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec 793 can’t exist. Just as an interesting side note, German communities in America that were sending money home to relatives in Germany in WWI and got in trouble under this Act, were selected as P.O.W. camp sites in WWII because they understood German making it harder for Germans to plot escapes. But there is no difference between that and Indian law as far as method of establishment. It’s just you agree with one and not the other. And we disagree.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Sorry. Statute 66, P.L.414 of June 27, 1952 Title III, Chapter 1, Sec 301(a)(2) is common law that has no authority post THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, that regulates a citizen by race…its an un-ratified IERS.
            2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
            1. Victor, this paragraph is common law that can show no source of authority in the United States Constitution to identify a group of citizens to be made distinguishable
            2. U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” residing on land commonly known as an “Indian reservation” are merely leasing tenants of the land…they do not own it. What physical assets/buildings belong to the enrolled members as tenants in common but not the land. The few “Indian tribes’ who have fee to the land as noted in a previous source of information i gave you pay taxes on the land to the State of Florida just like any other land owner.
            Your argument that “Had Congress cancelled all previous Indian laws and treaties the chaos in commerce would have been unimaginable.” is irrelevant to the United States Constitution…the Constitution itself made null Title 25 et al and all common law-state and federal-flowing from it post 1924 CITIZENSHIP ACT
            3. Neither Congress nor Presidents nor Initiatives nor Referendums can enact any common law-state or federal-that is in conflict with the Constitution…even an “IERS” must comply after 12-months…all common law-state and federal-must comply with the Constitution. Title 25 et al is an un-ratified IERS…I have already provided that information via federal documents, OSBORN and Fitzgerald’s letter that affirms the fact that THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, made moot Title 25 et al.

  • Interesting comments. Let me say that I am NOT comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. There was only one Hitler. However, I think it makes increasingly obvious sense to compare Trump’s most rabid supporters to the early supporters of the Nazi Party. (I claim the exemption to Godwin’s Law, since I knew Mike long before he proposed the usenet-oriented law and also because usenet is dead.) Nor am I saying you have to be stupid to support Trump–but it obviously helps.

  • G.N.M.

    Apparently Mr Dean is not concerned in the least about illegal immigration. Wall or no wall, America needs to secure its borders. This article is nothing more than rhetorical pap.

  • Paul R. Jones

    Dear John,
    If your article was to ‘stir the pot,’ you were successful
    If your article was to ‘obscure’ existing federal common on Immigration, you were successful
    If your article was to ‘beat-up’ on Mr. Trump’s proposal that is voiced by U.S. citizens who are being punished by huge influx of undocumented aliens on their state’s border with Mexico, you were successful.
    If your article was to avoid the condemnation of states who have to deal with illegal border crossings and the huge financial drain on already strapped state budgets, avoid execution of existing federal common law and finally, avoid the national government’s Constitutional responsibility to keep the borders of this nation and the citizenry therein safe, you were successful.

  • Victor Grunden

    I would be very much interested in the federal documents listing that you are using to support your case. Settlements with the Eastern Indian tribes were different than those with the Plains Indians. If you are correct, many of the royalties paid to the Indian tribes for minerals and oil, as paltry as they are, should have went to the U.S. Treasury. Or, after the Dawes Commission split Indian Nation property to individual tribe members, it should have went to the members. The oil companies bought most of the mineral rights in Oklahoma. There is a female professor at Oklahoma State University that extensively researched this topic. No treaties would make all the casinos illegal and oversight by BIA illegal. The Library of Congress just records the nations business. No politics involved.

    • Paul R. Jones

      Dear Victor,
      You have the first two documents: Fitzgerald’s June 30 1926, and OSBORN decision. As of THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924, there are no more “Indians”…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. The feds are lying to you and everyone else.

      I replied with the remaining federal documents assuming JUDICIAL VERDICT approves of the post.

      Sadly, no one challenges the notion the feds can pass common law that makes a select group of U.S./State citizens ‘distinguishable’ because of their “Indian ancestry/race.” To make such a distinction requires an Amendment to the Constitution approved by 1/3rd of the voters of the United States. And, there is no such Amendment.

      As for “Eastern Tribes,” …tribes East of the Mississippi River, they, too, vanished upon the CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.

      You are correct. “Indian reservations” is land owned by We, the People, inclusive of all natural resources. Any ‘royalties’ paid to the tenants is by grace of We, the People. One of the 3-federal documents i proved gives you the proofs that such royalties go to We, the People but is given to the “Indian” tenants as an act of grace by Congress and Congress has no Constitutional authority to do so absent approval of We, the People as the royalties belong to We, the People derived from natural resources on said land.

      Once the CITIZENSHIP ACT of 1924 was passed, all “Indian treaties and common law” prior to citizenship was made moot and no common law post CITIZENSHIP can be enacted to ‘…enlarge or abridge…” citizenship by Congress or Presidents absent an Amendment.

      • Victor Grunden

        As with any legal document all language must be considered in context but most Indian tribes would have gladly concurred with your interpretation. They would have retained control of their own lands. That means they, not the Bureau of Indian Affairs, would have negotiated the sale of their resources. The Dawes Act opened up individual ownership and the corruption that ensued allowed for BIA oversight when in reality those that committed crimes up to and including murder should have been prosecuted. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act eliminated Indian discrimination and via affirmative action gave Indians special rights. But, it is interesting that it was the Spanish and Mexicans that enslaved the Western Indians originally and took Indians lands but after being defeated in the Mexican-American War now lay claim to the Southwest which includes a lot of Indian territory. But, I will review the documents and consult with some of my Indian friends of old.