[ExTxMarine]

But at the time of the 14th American Indians were not considered ‘under the jurisdiction of the U.S.’

And yet, we had Indians who were arrested, imprisoned, and even executed by the United States for crimes committed within the United States during this timeframe (from the passage of the 14th to the Indian Citizenship law).

This would seem to make the whole "jurisdiction thereof" not just meaning "subject to the local laws and ordinances". So, it would seem that the importance was about to whom else they may owe allegiance.

Illegals have a RIGHT to be given a US TAXPAYER-FUNDED ATTORNEY and the right to speak to their respective embassies for ADDITIONAL legal advice and assistance. That would seem to be something we Americans don't have...because we are only legally bound to the jurisdiction (control of) the United States. Illegals are legally bound to their home countries; they are subject to the jurisdiction (control of) their home country!

[hanamizu]

“And yet, we had Indians who were arrested, imprisoned, and even executed by the United States for crimes committed within the United States during this timeframe”

---

As I understand it, yes, if an Indian broke a law in settled territory, he was subject to arrest and punishment. But if one Indian stole from or killed another Indian out in the wilderness, it was left for the Indians to deal with.