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. :)
You’re talking about the history prior to 1924? Today, all American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians are U.S. citizens and all are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I don’t think the law of the land could be any clearer; anyone who is a citizen or resident of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Case law has made exceptions for persons with diplomatic immunity;
members of a foreign invadng military on U.S. soil; and persons on foreign public vessels inside U.S. territorial limits.
Both statute law and case law can be altered by new statutes, new interpretations and new judicial rulings.