How does tribal sovereignty work re: border patrol?

[darkstar]

The NG aside for the moment, can any DUers provide insight into how tribal sovereignty works in general re: Fed border patrol?

Over and above that, does the the NG deployment create any potential issues in this regard?

Thanks in advance,

ds

[Monk06]

1. Look at the Oneida decision in the NYSC................

The court threw out the Oneida claim for land reparations on
the grounds that to much time had passed before the issue went
before the court.

1) Every treaty I have seen granted natives rights in PERPETUITY.

2) Also the Oneida have since bought back some of their land and
asked that it be deemed native land and hence tax exempt. That request
was also thrown out.

Conclusion

Even when natives buy back their land the still can't call it native
land.

So much for tribal sovereignty in the US courts.

Meanwhile Northern Canadian natives and Inuit have full sovereignty
over millions of acres of northern territories. The Dena land treaty
in fact was the largest successful aboriginal land claim in WORLD
history sanctioned by the Canadian government after pressure from
Pope Paul II.

[darkstar]

3. Hmm...

But, for example, don't tribal lands have their own law enforcement agenices? I thought I recalled something about the Patriot Act/DHS having to massage some stuff, right memoranda of understanding, cooperative agreements, etc for Patriot Act 2.0.

Thanks for the response. Not trying to quibble. I agree w/ you on the near 100% violation of treaties historically. But as things stand now, are there any issues in play?

Off to look for some infor on PA 2.0 re: tribal lands.....

:hi:

[H2O Man]

5. The Oneida case

is interesting. There are four sections of the Oneida nation in several states, and in Canada. The NYS Turning Stone Casino group is not the same group that won the two cases in the US Supreme Court. There was, of course, a recent decision going against another part of the Iroquois Confederacy.

However, your question has more to do, as I understand it, with tribal territory that spans a border. In Iroquois terms, that would be the Mohawk land that includes parts of Canada and NYS. There has been tensions at various times between Canadian forces, NYS Police, tribal factions, etc. At issue has been sovereignty, land uses, and political control -- traditional versus non-traditional.

Some, but not all, territories have police forces. In some cases, they consist of largely Indian people. In other cases, including where casinos are involved, there are outside people brought in. The Turning Stone Casino group has numerous retired state and county police, for example.

[darkstar]

6. Here's something from '03

http://www.millernash.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=278

Congress is currently considering a bill (S 758) that would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the "Act") by removing tribal governments from the definition of "local governments" and giving them the same status as states when it comes to addressing homeland security issues on tribal lands. The amendments, as currently drafted, will have three main impacts: (1) amend the Act to reflect the legal distinction between local governments and tribal governments; (2) help secure the country; and (3) recognize, for purposes of homeland security, that tribal governments have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government to enforce criminal, civil, and regulatory laws on their lands. The latter has created controversy for reasons outlined below, making passage of the bill without significant amendments unlikely.

Correcting Legal Status
The Act currently includes tribal governments in the definition of local governments—an incorrect classification because tribal governments are recognized under the U.S. Constitution as separate sovereigns and dependent wards of the United States. Local governments, on the other hand, are political subdivisions of the states. By removing tribal governments from the definition of local governments, the Act will accurately reflect the legal relationship between tribal governments and the United States.

Congress has set aside $28 billion for homeland security in fiscal year 2004. But because tribes are currently classified as local governments, they cannot directly receive any funds; rather, in order to obtain funding for homeland security programs, such as bioterrorism and emergency preparedness, tribes must go through state and local governments, which have their own needs for homeland security funding. Distinguishing tribal governments from state and local governments should correct the problem and will aid tribal governments in obtaining the necessary resources to respond to threats of terrorism.

Securing the Country
Tribal lands make up 260 miles of the Canadian and Mexican borders, and tribal governments are the principal, and often the only, law enforcement protecting those portions. Furthermore, tribal governments have dams, power plants, nuclear facilities, bridges, railroads, and other key infrastructure on their lands–all of which are vulnerabilities that terrorists could exploit. By allowing tribal governments to be included, consulted, and involved in the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security, including information analysis and infrastructure protection, science and technology, emergency preparedness, and training of law-enforcement officers, the tribal governments' knowledge of their lands' potential vulnerabilities can be used to safeguard against terrorist attacks.
(more, including legal precedents)
*****

This "local government" snafu and the Mexican border on tribal lands are the aspects I recall. I'm guessing S 758 passed in a watered down version?

:hi:

[Monk06]

8. Thanks. Very interesting citation. Bookmarked for further reference. n/t

[Monk06]

7. The Kanesatake (Oka), Kahnawake (Caughnawaga) and Akwesasne (Saint-Régis)

Reserve lands are an interesting case. One the Canadian side
the are subject to treaty agreements with the British Crown
On the American side those rights were extinguished by the war
of Independence. The Iroquois under Poundmaker were neutral while
the Mohawk under Brant sided with the British.

So the Canadian Mohawk were given territory in the Grand River and
and held onto their traditional territory at Kanesatake including all
previous rights to self government. (at least initially)

The American Iroquois were given small reserves under federal jurisdiction.

The interesting thing is that Kanesatake, Kahnawake and Akwesasne were called
the Eastern Gate of the Iroquois Confederacy and the Iroquois had the formal
title of Guardians of the Eastern Gate as well as control over the Iroquois War
Council.

So the Warriors you heard about in the news view themselves in the traditional
role of Guardians of the Eastern part of the old Confederacy. The Iroquois Defense
Department if you will.

Another interesting point is the US Federal system of a Republic of Independent States
was modeled after the Iroquois system,

[H2O Man]

9. On the "waarior society"

I have known a number of the guys who were in the warrior society for many years. Like any other group, there were things I agreed with them on, and things I held a different view on.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Sovereign means sovereign...it means that you have sovereignty

:rofl:

[darkstar]

4. Why didn't I see that coming....

snarf-gurgle-gulp