To break things down step by step: You said and I will quote:

> However diverse the communities that live in the US are, they have to support the core ideas that make the US a nation. There are people in the world who do not support those ideas. It would be foolish to have too many of them within US borders.

I pointed out that many Native American tribes do not adhere or support many of the core ideals that make the US a nation, particularly considering the US as a nation was founded upon their bodies. You said it was foolish to have too many of those kind of people within the US border. Your argument essentially advocates for their removal.

So should they be 'deported'?

I too will break this down into little chunks.

1) The context of this discussion is immigration. 2) Native Americans are not non-citizen immigrants. They are US citizens. 3) Native Americans should not be deported for failing to support the core ideals of the US.

This seems to me entirely obvious, but I'm happy to make it explicit. You have already alluded to the solution to Native American populations who do not support the US's core ideals: sovereign reservations.

That's not how I interpreted his post. Not sure why you did.

I'll explain why I interpreted it that way. The conversation is about the deportation of immigrants. What I said was said in that context. The reply to my comment was therefore either about immigration or irrelevant to the topic at hand. Grice's Maxim of Relevance tells us to interpret contributions to conversations as attempts at relevance, so I did.

(In reality, I realized that bringing Native Americans into a discussion about immigration and deportation was an attempt to confuse the issues. That annoyed me so I decided to reply as if the commenter wasn't deliberately missing the point).

Though the discussion had long shifted to nationality and culture and was only slightly related to immigration at that point.