Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush wants to put his anti-Mexican fence through an Indian reservation

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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:19 PM
Original message
Bush wants to put his anti-Mexican fence through an Indian reservation
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 01:34 PM by NNN0LHI
So what do we do about the Indian reservation that straddles the fence? Tom Tancredo has the answer. Fence them in too. Real nice huh?

Don

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197374 /

<snip>TANCREDO: Well, we were going to havefor one thing, we were going to have a problem with them regardless of thisof this commitment. You know, they have athe fact is that they have sovereign immunity for a lot of things because they are a sovereign nation. So we were going to have a problem there anyway, believe me. This other part...

CARLSON: Wait. What do you mean sovereign nations? Wait, hold on.

<snip>TANCREDO: Well, thats athats a good question. Thats a good question.

In Arizona theres an Indian tribe, the (INAUDIBLE), that actually overlaps the border. And they claim, of course, that they should be allowed to come back freely, that they should not be bound by any sort of restrictions on that. And that if we do anything like putting a structure over their land, their reservation, that they can have veto power. That was going to be a problem before thisthis thing ever started.

<snip>TANCREDO: Well, youre absolutely right, of course. Thats the wholethats another debate that I thought we had settled about the reason why you need to have a fence.

Actually, in terms of the Indian reservation thing, I could have lived with that, because you know what? Idif they were going to complain about it, if we couldnt get it through a court, which we would probably have to go to court on, I would build a fence around the reservation, on ouryou know, I mean, on the inside part, the part that overlaps into the United States. You build it on that part instead of the border. Youre still going to do the same thing in the long run.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Two things I learned on DU about Indian Reservations:
(1) They're not really as sovereign as they should be.

(2) Even if they were, they're not immune to the same corruption that we're dealing with on the Federal level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's almost as though Bush doesn't know what "tribal sovereignty" means.
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 01:26 PM by Marr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. that is a classic! -nice speed on posting it too :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Haha- thank you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. sovereignty means
you're sovern. So glad you cleared that up jr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. !
:evilgrin: junior really is an idiot! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Looks like a job for Abramoff
oh, never mind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. The U.S. Government has no right to build ANYTHING on their land. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I agree
Same old song and dance, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. actually Swamp Rat
In the case of a "national emergency" the Federal government can seize all reservation lands, that is right, all of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Not necessarily
I imagine the people on that reservation would hotly contest any unwanted structure, and would be well within their rights to dismantle said structure at anytime, even after they were forcefully subjected to it... I would gladly help them take it down.
______________

"What does Tribal Sovereignty mean to Indian Tribes?

When Indian Tribes first encountered Europeans, the Europeans dealt with the Tribes as sovereign governments with whom treaties were made. When Tribal lands were conveyed to the United States, the Tribes retained some inherent sovereignty over their lands. While such sovereignty is limited today, it is protected by Tribes against encroachments by other sovereign entities such as states and the Federal government."

(snip)

http://web.em.doe.gov/public/tribal/faq.html
______________

SOVEREIGNTY
A Brief History in the Context of U.S. "Indian law"
by Peter d'Errico
Legal Studies Department
University of Massachusetts, Amherst USA

(snip)

"The concept of sovereignty, however convoluted and contradictory, remains an important part of federal Indian law. Tribal councils established under the Indian Reorganization Act are regarded as vehicles of "tribal sovereignty"; they act as governments and not just as corporations, though they are often limited by federal funding and authority. Indian hunting and fishing rights have been protected against state and local regulation, though an ultimate authority has been reserved outside the realm of tribal sovereignty. Indian nations are regarded as immune from suit without their consent, under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," yet their power over non-members of the particular nation is sometimes severely limited.

In short, the idea that indigenous nations have at their roots some aspect of their original, pre-colonial status as independent nations operates -- sometimes directly and sometimes by implication -- throughout federal Indian law today. This idea is accompanied by the colonial legacy of superior authority claimed over indigenous nations by the federal government. Both these ideas have been part of federal Indian law from its inception, and are the reason why Chief Justice Marshall could say, in formulating the foundations of this law in the Cherokee Nation case, "The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence."

In assessing the results of "tribal sovereignty" at the close of the 20th century, Vine Deloria, Jr., and Clifford Lytle wrote, "Local institutions that served Indians were in a much stronger position even though they now resembled the local units of government that served other Americans and possessed little that was distinctly Indian. Indians themselves had assimilated to a significant degree...." This may be the ultimate irony, that "tribal sovereignty" could prove to be the vehicle for incorporating indigenous nations within the colonizers' civilization. It may also be true that the persistence of "tribal sovereignty" has kept alive the idea of local sovereignty, of "the people" as the ultimate source of legal authority.

The idea of indigenous sovereignty surfaced internationally and with intensity in the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1994/56, issued in 1994 as a report to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. This document, which may eventually become the basis for an international protocol or convention, stirred up the ancient debates. The United States took an official position that the word "peoples" was inappropriate in a statement of "rights," because it implied group rights, which would threaten the sovereignty of states. The United States and others argued that "rights" adhere only to individuals, and that no group may be recognized as having any legal existence independent of a state. Indigenous nations, on the other hand, asserted that the Draft Declaration was meant to embody just such group rights, that these were essential for the survival of indigenous peoples worldwide. Struggles about indigenous sovereignty continue into the 21st century, on as grand a scale as in any other era."

http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. Disagree.
It's got an obligation to build roads, schools, hospitals, and whatever else the reservation needs.

The fence, of course, is bullshit.

I hope they tear it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. See post #18
Btw, I am only referring to an unwanted structure that is not a part of their infrastructure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Well, yeah
I was being facetious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. OK
Maybe I should get in line with Ameropithecus Estupidus? :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hooray! Instead of going after the employers - they go after
Native Americans of the U.S. in addition to Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurians, etc.

Bigots and oother fence lovers are so conflicted. I feel sorry for their poor little heads - it's so hard to get it straight when you try to go around the reason that Mexicans and other Central Americans have come here in the first place for all these decades.

The PNAC administration steals our money and benefits so the bigots and other forces (excluding business employers) blame it on Mexicans and Central Americans.

This is one pathetic country - some of the founders and their descendents have always picked on minority groups who don't have collective wealth and who want and need to do better.

Some in this country have made it pathetic by the contempt they hold for many groups of people. They have also made if pathetic because they refuse to look at their own ancestry to find charity towards needy minorities.

I refute anyone who claims this country is superior to others. We've had technology superiority and we're loosing that under the PNAC administration. We've had charitable supeiority because of our capability to share. It's been reversedw with the outright hate shown these people, the constant lies about them, the permission given militiamen, spennding our Natl Guard force, spending money on building worthless fences. And now the arrogance of building a fence through or around the land of our own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. I think we should put the fence between Texas and Oklahoma. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I'd rather fence in Bush and Co.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countryjake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. Tohono O'odham, the "Desert People" is the tribe...
Second largest res in the country.

For years, they have cooperated and been ripped-off; they tried to deal judiciously with strangers crossing their land, leaving food and water to prevent deaths and then were castigated by the Border Patrol.

They formed their own units, the Shadow Wolves, to work with US Customs to end the flow of drugs across the reservation, which drastically increased when borders were tightened in California and Texas more than a decade ago...now with Homeland Security focusing on common people rather than drug runners, the Shadow Wolves have become more reserved in assisting with their tracking expertise, resenting this new direction and quitting their new "bosses".

For this tribe which straddles an invisible line, now marked only by a straggly cow fence, many hold that they are O'odham first, citizenship in America or Mexico comes last.

The traditions are to treat every living thing with respect as they do people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. That's the Tohono O'odham.
Reservation is SSW of Tuscon. Those folks have been migrating between the Sea of Cortez and the Tuscon area since before us honkies fucked everything up. It is a practice which they have revived and which this fence would pretty much wreck.

It's a pretty hairy zone down there, all kind of shit going on, I've had locals warn me not to be on the dirt roads to the border after sunset. None the less, this fence is nothing but reactionary showboating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
15. The real solution:
build a fence around Tancredo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
16. Bush doesn't understand "sovereign nation"
He'll start a war with the American Indians next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
20. And that makes treaty #4956....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
24. They're enemy combatants letting terrorists in!
Quick, build the interment camps, dig out the torture tools. They must be converted!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. Thanks for this story.
Wow, what idiots these folks are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. This $7 Billion Fence will not be built.
The Enviro Groups will seek an injuction against it and the Native American Tribes will file, also. This will go to the SC. It will be a few years before a ruling. By then the price will be so high that Congress won't allocate funds for it.

It'a another stupid idea. Fine and jail employers that hire Illegal Immigrant workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
27. O'odham.
The first time you hear it, unless your used to very non-English sounding names, your brain tries to register it as inaudible.

And it's a problem. Some tribe members smuggle, both people and drugs, contra tribal and federal law; others hate the idea that their sovereignty is being used to do things that are both illegal, dishonorable, and make a mess on their own lands. What I've heard the tribe say, in general, is that they don't like having the illegal immigrants and smugglers trespassing; they make a mess, they do damage, and they sometimes wind up threatening the "sovereign people".
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 Wed Apr 16th 2014, 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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