“[Native Americans], without doubt, like the subjects of any other foreign Government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the United States; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people. —Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1857”
And over the years other methods of Indians obtaining citizenship were recognized:
1. Treaty provision (as with the Mississippi Choctaw) 2. Registration and land allotment under the Dawes Act of February 8, 1887 3. Issuance of Patent in Fee Simple 4. Adopting Habits of Civilized Life 5. Minor Children 6. Citizenship by Birth (The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) 7. Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces 8. Marriage to a U.S. citizen 9. Special Act of Congress.
But Indians were never born US citizens until 1924.
And therein you miss the point. The European men who had Children in this Nation were presumed to be here for the purpose of staying and becoming citizens. The Children who are born here of any European parents were automatically granted citizenship upon birth. The Children of Indians were automatically excluded from citizenship upon birth.
If the rule upon which birth citizenship is based is that of being "born on the soil" then why were Indians treated differently?
You don't seem to be able to grasp that this is evidence against your "birth on the soil" rule. It is, in fact, proof that the "born here" rule was never regarded as the standard by which the citizenship of offspring was based. It was the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in ADDITION to the "born here" rule, which held sway as demonstrated in Ex Parte Reynolds.