As far as sovereignty goes, Spain and France are not located within the geographic boundaries of the United States, unlike Indian nations.
The US has had special treaty relationships with the indigenous peoples born on the land that was to become the United States of America that go back to the time before the Revolution and the Articles of Confederation. Because of the treaty and statutory status of American Indians, they were considered as not being born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” if a person was born on a reservation and was an enrolled member of a tribe or nation.
The Supreme Court decision to exclude John Elk from US citizenship in Elk v. Wilkens in 1884 was rendered moot forty years later by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924:
“BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.” Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.] SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CHS. 233. 1924.”
Signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.
Not all Indian tribes were located within the Geographical boundaries of the United States. Their children weren't recognized as Citizens when born within our territorial boundaries the way the Children of the naturalized French or the Spanish were.
But even so, what's that got to do with the point? If the unimpeachable rule is merely birth within the territory, what does it matter that the Indian nations existed within or without our borders?
The US has had special treaty relationships with the indigenous peoples born on the land that was to become the United States of America that go back to the time before the Revolution and the Articles of Confederation.
We had special treaty relationships with the Emperor of China too, but the Gray court was having none of that!
The Supreme Court decision to exclude John Elk from US citizenship in Elk v. Wilkens in 1884 was rendered moot forty years later by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924:
And why do you regard the time it took relevant? The only thing salient is that the norm was one way, and then a law changed it. What about this argues for "natural law"? The Before or after? Which one was the "natural law" as referred to in 1787?
Oh geeze, and now he's going to quote it, as if THAT has any relevance to the point!
“BE IT ENACTED ... blah blah blah... Signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.
Why on God's green earth do you think quoting that supports your argument? By what incomprehensible function of your mind do you conclude that the way to sway an argument is to produce excellent evidence against your position?
How is the existence of an act which specifically demonstrates that being born on our soil was not sufficient, supposed to benefit your claim?
The Indian Citizenship Act (1924)
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.
Approved June 2, 1924
Source: Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol. IV, Treaties (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1929), p. 1165.
The Act even uses the phrase "non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States", and on top of that it's CONDITIONAL! Whoever heard of a "natural citizen" being Conditional upon how their rights are affected in a foreign sovereignty?
Again, why on earth do you think there is anything here to support your argument?