On Reservations,Sovereignty Claims by Indigenous Ppl Ought to be Prioritized Above USFG Power

Because my opposition set his value to be "liberty", and I agree with that value, the overall value for today's round will be liberty. The way he sets up his criterion is somewhat confusing, but will ultimately mean nothing in this debate. Let's skip down to his 2nd observation, which states, "The ideas of republicanism and therefore liberty are included and accepted by the United States government". This observation will prove damning to my opponent. Included in my opponents case is the assumption that liberty is included and accepted by the US government. Therefore, because of my opponents own observation, it can be assumed that the United States federal government upholds liberty on its homeland. Although this point may be arguable by some, my opponent has made this concession as of his first argument and must stand as truth in todays round. This fact will prove detrimental to my opponent. Contention 1: Native American liberty does not outweigh our liberty As of Jul 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division said the population of the United States was 304,059,724 -(http://www.google.com...) and the US Department of Commerce said (although in 1990, im sure the population hasn't risen too much) the population of Native Americans (on reservations and in America) was 1,878,285 in 1990. When comparing the numbers, the amount of Native people is minuscule compared to Americans. The pro provides no unique reason as to why we must hold the value of a native American's life at a higher level than an ordinary American citizen. Although he may try and say that "we stole the land from them" this argument will not prove adequate for many reasons. First of which being, the damage dealt to Native Americans was not done in our generation, or even the generation prior. I, you, my mom, your grandpa, my great grandpa had nothing to do with the Native American's hardships and should not be punished for an act committed by our ancestors long before us. Even if the pro can prove that Americans of the status quo have committed some sort of moral trespass against the Native American people, he must prove that this moral trespass is going to outweigh any risk of an impact brought on by the implementation of the resolution. Contention 2: Detaching ourselves from Native American politics will cause a risk of an impact that outweighs any moral trespass that may or may not be proven in todays round. When we allow Native Americans to decide what is to be done on their land without any US intervention we risk disaster. Whether these policies are implemented domestically only on their land or in such a way that it draws in an outside power, we risk a negative impact to America; which, by my opponents 2nd observation, protects liberty to it's citizens. Say, for example, a Native American tribe were to allow another country to position troops on Native American land where they can deal devastating damage to our homeland. Or worse, what if this country were to position nuclear missles or something of the sort on Native American land? Perhaps the Native American government will decide all drugs are legal to grow/produce on native land and Americans are free to produce there for a small price. Although most of these things sound absurd, we cannot risk a native american government that is completely free of American influence. Risking the possibility of another power influencing the United States negatively, so close to our homeland that it is literally on it is not what needs to be done to reverse some type of moral trespass our ancestors so long ago committed. My argument will not just contain these points, but this is the beginning.