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.
I would have thought that was abundantly clear. What other time subsequent to the 14th amendment were Indians not regarded as citizens?
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.
Except Indians who were born here between 1868 and 1924. They were not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" in such a manner as to be Citizens.
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.
There is a form of fallacy argument in which an opponent says something which is true, but which is not germane to the discussion, yet is presented as a rebuttal to a point. Your information about diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the fact that Indians born here were not citizens prior to 1924.
Both statute law and case law can be altered by new statutes, new interpretations and new judicial rulings.
Another thing which is true, but does not rebut the point you have been asked to address.