Indians have/had treaty rights.
American Indians have sovereignty on tribal lands. Indians off of a reservation are “subject to the jurisdiction of” federal and state law. An exception does not make a rule.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gave U.S. citizenship to approximately 125,000 persons out of more than 300,000 American Indians in the U.S.
The Constitution refers to “Indians Not Taxed.” which meant reservation, tribal land-based Indians. Many non-reservation Indians had been granted state (and thus federal) citizenship prior to 1924.
One example: Greewood LeFlore was Principle Chief of the Choctaw Indian Nation and in the 1840s, LeFlore was elected Mississippi state representative and senator. He was a fixture of Mississippi high society and a personal friend of Jefferson Davis. He was elected to represent Carroll County in the state house for two terms, and elected by the legislature as a state senator, serving one term.
Irrelevant. So did many countries in the world at that time. This point does not speak to the "jurisdiction" issue.
American Indians have sovereignty on tribal lands. Indians off of a reservation are “subject to the jurisdiction of” federal and state law. An exception does not make a rule.
An exception disproves the rule. Especially when it is an exception with millions of iterations.
The Constitution refers to “Indians Not Taxed.” which meant reservation, tribal land-based Indians.
And how much more "taxed" are foreign Indians, such as the majority coming up through the Mexican border currently?
You are not going to be able to argue that Non Taxed Indians from within our border have a lesser citizenship status than do Non Taxed Indians from outside our border.
Go ahead and try. I think we could all enjoy a bit of levity. :)