How Native Americans Might Respond to Calls for Immigrant Removal

(UNITED STATES) A renewed debate over who gets to belong in the United States 🇺🇸 has raised a blunt question with deep roots: if President Trump were to push the idea of removing all immigrants, could Native Americans call for the removal of everyone except the original peoples? The short answer, drawn from history and law, is no. Native Americans are the first peoples of this land, but they do not control federal immigration policy, and their sovereignty operates within limits set by treaties and federal law. Their leaders have also focused their advocacy on rights and recognition, not on expelling others.

At the core is a basic historical fact: Native Americans and Alaska Natives are the original inhabitants of what is now the United States, with their presence predating European colonization by thousands of years. Before contact, their population was estimated in the millions. Centuries of colonization, war, disease, and forced removal drastically cut their numbers and power.

That long pattern of loss explains why Native governments today do not set national policy on who can enter or remain in the country.

Demographics and the Impracticality of Mass Removal

Demographics matter. As of 2025, Native Americans make up about 2% of the U.S. population—roughly 6.8 to 9.7 million people, depending on how multiracial identities are counted.

By contrast, the vast majority of people in the country descend from those who arrived after 1492: European settlers, enslaved Africans, and later immigrants from every region of the world. That sheer imbalance shows why any idea of expelling non-Native Americans is neither realistic nor something Native communities are calling for.

Historical and Legal Context

Native nations hold a special legal position. They are recognized as sovereign, but their sovereignty is limited by federal law and by the treaty system, which the U.S. government often broke or narrowed over time.

• Native Americans are also U.S. citizens. Congress granted citizenship through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which means Native people hold rights under tribal law and federal law at the same time.
• The National Archives hosts the text and context of that statute. Readers can review the document at the National Archives: Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

That dual status helps explain the limits of the comparison with immigration policy. The federal government — not tribal governments — controls who may enter and stay in the country.

• From the 18th and 19th centuries onward, as the U.S. forced Native nations off ancestral lands and confined many to reservations, the power to decide national membership remained with Congress and the executive branch.
• Even today, when Native leaders press for stronger recognition of treaty rights, they are not positioned to set federal rules for immigration or residency.

Policy Debate and Practical Implications

Some Native leaders and advocates point out the irony of anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from descendants of settlers. They note the country’s history of displacement and broken promises toward the first peoples. But contemporary advocacy from Native organizations focuses on:

• Sovereignty and treaty enforcement
• Public health and education
• Land and water rights
• Justice for their own communities

They are not pushing to remove non-Native populations. In fact, Native Americans have themselves been questioned about their citizenship or immigration status by federal agents, underscoring how past and present policies have often targeted them rather than giving them control over national borders.

The idea of removing all non-Native Americans isn’t just unlikely; it would be legally and logistically impossible and would violate constitutional rights and international human rights norms.

Key practical obstacles include:

• Constitutional protections and due process requirements
• Protections for U.S. citizens
• Immense operational hurdles in enforcement
• Disruption to families, businesses, schools, hospitals, and local governments

Similarly, proposals to remove “all immigrants” run up against heavy legal checks and practical limits. Immigration enforcement already faces significant constraints from courts and statute.

Legal Structure vs. Public Rhetoric

For immigrants living in the U.S. today, the historical frame matters. It highlights that debates over who belongs often:

• Ignore Indigenous history
• Oversimplify modern law

Immigration rules are federal, and courts have a say. Congress sets categories, deadlines, and relief options. Agencies must follow the law. Communities—from tribal nations to immigrant neighborhoods—bear the human impact when policy shifts sharply between administrations.

For Native communities, the implications are different. The focus remains on sovereignty and treaty rights, not on controlling national borders. Many tribes work to:

• Strengthen their governments
• Improve services and health outcomes
• Expand language revival and cultural programs
• Protect cultural heritage and resource rights

They continue to face ongoing challenges tied to health gaps, resource rights, and recognition of treaty promises. When national debates turn to “who should be here,” they often reopen old wounds without offering concrete gains for Native families.

Legal Realities and Mixed-Status Families

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, framing immigration as a simple “in or out” choice misses the actual legal structure and the lived realities of:

• Mixed-status families
• Long-term residents
• U.S.-born children

It also sidesteps the fact that Native Americans did not choose to give up power over their lands and borders; that power was taken, and federal law has kept it. As a result, even if some argued Native peoples could “mirror” anti-immigrant positions, the law gives them no such lever.

In public debate, accuracy matters. President Trump’s past hardline statements on immigration have stirred strong responses, but they cannot erase the legal fact that Congress and federal agencies control admissions and removals, and courts review those actions.

Tribes operate as sovereigns in many areas of internal governance, yet they remain inside this federal framework. Confusing those roles only fuels anger without creating policy that holds up in court or helps families plan their lives.

Two Takeaways

• Historical status and modern power are not the same. Native Americans are the first peoples of this land, yet federal law controls national membership and immigration.
• Rhetoric about mass removal breaks down fast in practice. The legal system, constitutional rights, and basic logistics make such ideas unworkable—and harmful to millions.

Practical Advice

For people worried about their own status, it’s wise to:

1. Seek guidance from qualified immigration counsel
2. Watch official agency updates
3. Note that day-to-day immigration questions still turn on federal rules, deadlines, and court decisions

For Native families and governments, progress continues to depend on:

• Enforcement of treaties
• Respect for sovereignty
• Steady investment in community priorities

Conclusion

The comparison at the heart of the debate is powerful as a moral point but limited as a policy guide. Native Americans have been dispossessed and marginalized by federal action; they have not been empowered to decide who may live in the country. Their advocacy largely aims at rights, recognition, and justice—not exclusion.

Any national policy conversation that leaves out that history, or that treats immigration as a switch to flip, risks repeating past harms rather than fixing them.