Replies

That's in interesting article but it's argument is fatally flawed by the fact that once the legislation was passed the interpretation of the law was passed to the courts. The case used for illustrating this point is Wong Kim Ark. To oppose that you'd need a court interpretation (upheld) that an Indian was ruled not a citizen even though he was born not under the jurisdiction of his tribe ("distinct political communities") and inside the US. Do you have one?

The individual in ELK V. WILKINS doesn't meet that standard because, "he does not allege that the United States accepted his surrender, or that he has ever been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen by the state or by the United States. Nor is it contended by his counsel that there is any statute or treaty that makes him a citizen." AND
"Under the Constitution of the United States as originally established, "Indians not taxed" were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were apportioned among the several states," http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html

As the court mentioned in that case, Indian tribes are dealt with by treaty/legislation and their members have their own jurisdiction outside the taxing districts of the states. This has nothing to do with illegal aliens.