Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Illegal immigrants welcomed by Indian tribes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:11 PM
Original message
Illegal immigrants welcomed by Indian tribes
Source: USA Today

OMAHA (AP) — For prices starting at $50, two non-federally recognized Indian tribes are offering membership to thousands of illegal immigrants, claiming they can achieve legal status by joining the groups.
But immigration authorities insist becoming a tribe member gives no protection against being deported. And immigration advocates condemn the practice, saying it defrauds immigrants of money and gives them false hope.

"You can't just decide to become a member of a tribe and all of a sudden legalize your status," said Marilu Cabrera, a spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

In Nebraska, some people reported paying up to $1,200 to join the Kaweah Indian Nation, which became the target of a federal investigation after complaints about the tribe arose in at least five states.

more...

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-17-illegal-immigrants_N.htm?csp=34
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Honestly, they should have every right to do so...
They are, after all, sovereign nations, are they not? Don't they get to decide WHO they accept into their tribes?

Well, setting aside that the Feds don't really want to treat them as though they deserve the status.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Apparently, the problem is the tribes are ripping people off
by giving them false hope. I agree they should be allowed, if they are considered truly sovereign. I'm confused about the fact these tribes are "not recognized" by the Feds. If they were, would they be allowed to accept new members? I am very ignorant in this area, but I thought the story raised some interesting questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It does raise some interesting questions. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. sovereign = Issue passports, and create a currency
And it would allow them to be wiretapped unmercifully because the are foreign agents. I think in all this there is a line of compromise.

However, there a thousands of "immigration" lawyers that take $1000s and do nothing more that fill out the forms for the folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. As I understand it,
To join the Western or Eastern Cherokee, one must be able to prove that an ancestor, such as a grandmother, was on the rolls that were taken of the Cherokees--there are a couple of them (Dawes Roll is the only one I can think of offhand). If you can prove your ancestry to someone on the rolls, you can join the tribe if you are a certain percentage Native blood (I'm thinking 1/32, but I'm not sure; I know if I could ever find my husband's Cherokee grandmother's family, he would be 1/4 Cherokee and eligible). You have to provide genealogical proof, much as someone must do to join the DAR. Each tribe has differing criteria, and it is often very difficult to prove, because, as my husband says, "A hundred years ago, it wasn't cool to be an Indian", and many hid their ancestry, calling themselves "Black Dutch".

I have friends who are members of the Choctaw Nation who are blond and blue eyed-but they have just enough Choctaw blood to make it. So I know for these two tribes at least, the criteria for being a member allows for people of mixed heritage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Here's a link that non-authoritatively answers the question.
http://www.slate.com/id/2096043/

And at least for the Kaweah Indian Nation, there's even a link to the document that provides what came to be the accepted rationale for denying them tribe status: http://www.indianz.com/adc20/Kin/V001/D005.PDF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. And there are many Mexicans who have Native American blood
Some of the tribes that were pushed off lands that are now part of the US moved to Mexico. I think they should have the right to be recognized as members of a tribe here. However, one big caveat--some of these Indian groups which charge money to join, are catering to whites who want to be declared Indians for various reasons. This is a rip-off of culture and everything else. My dear husband, who knows his grandmother was Native American, can't find the documentation to get on the rolls because his grandmother was adopted out as an infant. Well meaning friends have told him about these "tribes" and he won't join them because it feels to him to be dishonoring his ancestors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Popol Vuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-18-07 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. "Mexicans" are native americans
The word "Mexican" is a native American word derived from the word Mexica (pronounced: Ma-she-ca). The Mexica were the dominate group of the triple alliance known as the Aztec.

The word Mexican also is used to refer to all the native Americans who inhabited the valley of Mexico; this would include the Mexica, the Toltec, the Teotihuacanos.

Today people seem to think that Mexicans aren't native Americans. Don't know if this is because many Mexicans have some Spaniard blood mixed in them and people confuse that as mostly being Spanish, or if they simply just don't understand history beyond what the grossly inadequate history textbooks they've partially read in school taught them.

The simple fact on this subject is that Mexicans are native Americans indigenous to this continent - period. We are NOT Latinos. That is Latin and refers to Italian Europeans. We are NOT Hispanic. That is Spanish and refers to Spaniard Europeans. We are Mexicans; native Americans of Anahuac on the continent of Aztlán.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-18-07 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I didn't know that!
Thank you for enlightening me on the subject!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-18-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. The caste (casta) system imposed on Mexico by the Spaniards is
Edited on Sat Aug-18-07 02:22 PM by Miss Chybil
very intriguing and I'm sure continues to have affect today within the social consciousness of the Mexican people as well as those who live in close proximity to Mexico and other areas colonized/occupied by Spain. Here is a bit of information regarding how the many "levels" of the caste system were codified in the 18th century through art:

The production of casta paintings spans the entire eighteenth century. These works portray the complex process of mestizaje or race mixing among the three major groups that inhabited the colony: Indian, Spanish, and Black. Most of these paintings are comprised of sixteen scenes depicted on separate canvases, although occasionally the scenes are represented on a single, compartmentalized surface (painting 1).2 Each scene portrays a man and woman of different races with one or two of their progeny and is accompanied by an inscription that identifies the racial mix depicted. The series follow a specific taxonomic progression: at the beginning are scenes portraying figures of "pure" race (that is, Spaniards), lavishly attired or engaged in occupations that indicate their higher status. As the family groups become more racially mixed, their social status diminishes. In addition to presenting a typology of human races and their occupations, casta paintings also include a rich classificatory system within which objects, food products, flora, and fauna are clearly positioned and labeled.

Since the sixteenth century, Spaniards had transposed their own social schema onto their colonies in the New World. The subordination of State to Church and the ideology of limpieza de sangre (purity of blood)--where the absence of Jewish or Muslim blood defined an honorable Old Christian--were factors contributing to Spain's hierarchically organized society, whose members had clearly delineated social roles.4 When the Spanish colonized the New World, they brought with them this division of society into nobles and plebeians. By converting the Indians to the Christian faith, an imperative that gave justification to the colonial enterprise, Spaniards became the aristocracy of Mexico regardless of their origins or occupations. The supremacy of Spaniards (or whites) was remarked at the end of the colonial period by Alexander von Humboldt (1769 - 1859), a German natural scientist who traveled in the New World: "any white person, although he rides his horse barefoot, imagines himself to be of the nobility of the country."5 Indians, who, with the exception of their own nobility, were associated with agriculture, became the tribute-paying plebeians. Nevertheless, the Spanish system admitted the existence of an Indian Republic within the colony, which meant that the Spaniards recognized the existence of an internal hierarchy for Indian society. Because Indians were destined collectively to become "New Christians," they merited the protection of the Spanish Crown. Blacks, on the other hand, were brought to the New World as slaves and were in theory situated at the lowest echelons of society; they worked as domestic servants for the Spaniards and as laborers on the sugar plantations, mines, and estates. Blacks were considered a homogeneous group with no rights and were redeemable only on an individual level, once they had proven their loyalty to the Church and their masters.6 In practice, however, Spaniards often preferred Blacks to Indians and employed them to oversee Indian labor. By their association with whites, many Blacks came to occupy a de facto position superior to that of Indians.

While intermarriage among the three groups did not become common until the second half of the seventeenth century, sexual contact among Spaniards, Indians, and Blacks occurred as early as the sixteenth century.7 This resulted in the growth of a large group of racially-mixed people known collectively as castas-the general term used by Spaniards and creoles (Spaniards born in the Americas) to distinguish themselves from the large masses of racially-mixed people. By the end of the eighteenth century, approximately one quarter (25.4 percent) of the total population of Mexico was racially mixed.8 From the sixteenth century on a variety of names served to designate the different castas of Mexico. The most widely used terms were those referring to the mixtures between the three main groups: mestizo (Spanish-Indian), mulatto (Spanish-Black), and zambo or zambaigo (Black-Indian). In the seventeenth century two additional terms appeared: castizo (a light-skinned mestizo) and morisco (a light-skinned mulatto).9 By the eighteenth century a whole array of fanciful terms had been devised to refer to the different castas and their offspring. Several documents record these officially designed classifications, which include zoologically inspired terms such as lobo (wolf) and coyote, as well as names alluding to the racial indeterminacy of specific admixtures, including tente en el aire (hold-yourself-in-mid-air), and no te entiendo (I-don't-understand-you).10 While most racial taxonomies list sixteen mixtures, some enumerate fourteen, others nineteen or even twenty. These numerical differences point to the impossibility of definitively categorizing the racially mixed, impeding the creation of a fixed system of classification and representation.

Although most of these terms were clearly not applicable in ordinary communication, they suggest a basic principle: Spanish or white blood is redeemable; Black is not. In other words, while the purity of Spanish blood was inextricably linked to the idea of "civilization," Black blood, bearing the stigma of slavery, connoted atavism and degeneracy. This principle is explicitly stated in an illustrated manuscript by Joachin Antonio de Bafarás entitled Origen, costumbres, y estado presente de mexicanos y phillpinos (1763).11 The author, presumably a Spanish merchant living in Guanajuato, as inferred from the text, offers a description of the different aspects of the colony, including its history, government, industrial activities, forms of entertainment, military guilds, foodstuffs, population, and customs.12 An important part of his manuscript is devoted to the description of the generations of Mexico (fig.1), which are accompanied with illustrations that, in all likelihood, derive from the author's knowledge of the popular casta series (figs. 2, 3, 4). In his system of classification, Bafarás suggests that so long as Spaniards are mixed only with Indians, the blood can be purified. However, the mixture of Spanish or Indian with Black can never again be purified back to Spanish or Indian. In this system of identity-formation, Bafarás emphasizes the supremacy of the white pole to the Black.

http://www.gc.maricopa.edu/laberinto/fall1997/casta1997.htm


There is much more at the link along with the paintings this essay discusses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. Devil's advocate: Isn't this similar to what corporations do?
Not sure about the direction of money flow, but a Corporation A buys a Company B, then that Company B is in Corporation A's financial "tribe".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VP505 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think this line
explains it:
"In Nebraska, some people reported paying up to $1,200 to join the Kaweah Indian Nation"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. What a ripoff
OTOH, there is a sort of cosmic justice there. :rofl:

Kind of like the English only nutcases forgetting that that Spanish were in the southwest first and that is why so many of the place names are in Spanish. When they declare English the official language, are they going to change the name of San Francisco to St. Francis?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. wanna bet these "Indians" are a bunch of white guys?
Seriously, the laws defining who is an Indian is a joke to begin with. If you can be 1/128th Indian and still be considered a member of a tribe (as in the case of a tribe running casinos in Connecticut), as far as I'm concerned you ain't Indian. You're a white guy scamming the government.

Second, do the tribal members really accept these "new Indians" as full members of the tribe? That is, let them live on the reservation with them? Share in their federal grant money? Live in tribal housing? Marry their daughters? I'll bet not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neoma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. That's freaking awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-18-07 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
13. Doesn't Sound Right
Prior to 1890 or so, many of the southern and southwestern tribes did not get along at all with many of the Mexicans in that area along the border. And if the tribes charging money aren't recognized by the feds as authentic, then the money might as well be thrown down the sewer. Sounds odd. Possessing Indian/tribal blood is a big deal and a measure of pride, I always thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-18-07 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
15. Isn't that the way Ward Churchill went tribal ?
The cost wasn't as steep but he used it and waived it around like it was some sort of BS degree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC