From: Peshewegunzh <mthvax.cs.miami.edu!mamia!peshe>
Subject: Re: What if Sovereignty?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 07:25:23 GMT

Original Sender: Peshewegunzh <mthvax.cs.miami.edu!mamia!peshe>

>
> Original Sender: Dana Numkena <asuvm.inre.asu.edu!ASDMN>
>
>      What if the reservations were given sovereign status compared to
> that of any other country in the world.
>      For me being a member of a tribe, I can imagine that I would need a
> working visa if I wanted to work outside the reservation, a student visa
> if I wanted to attend a university outside the reservation, and a
> tourist visa if I wanted to travel in the States.  I would need a
> passport for identification purposes off the reservation.  If I was a
> bad apple, my visa could be yanked indefinitely.

It wasn't so very long ago that American Indians were *not* citizens,
and in fact could not vote.

However, the Jay Treaty signed in the early days of the United States
is a treaty recognizing the right of North American Indians to travel,
work, hunt and trade without necessity of visa - to be accorded all the
basic rights accorded Americans, except voting, in tacit recognition
of their nations' and tribes' presence long before the existence of the
U.S.

In fact, as Chippewa from Canada, we are in the U.S. under the terms of
this treaty. Although it has not been fully observed, it still allows
most North American Indians entry and work in the U.S.

Observation of this treaty means that the above scenario is unrealistic.
As well as the prior status of American Indians before citizenship was
so "kindly" granted proves, Indians do not have to fall into the category
of "aliens" - what nonsense that would be. (But possibly such bizarre legal
gyrations are achievable by untrustworthy European politicians.)

>      Then most likely Native Americans would be immigrating to the
> States, no less seeking political asylum.  How many reservations would
> immediately be regarded as Third World?  Then again, who many who allow
> U.S. businesses to establish plants in reservations since the
> possibility for a lesser tax liability than that of the U.S. is great?
> How many tribes would definitely go for the gambling route?
>

I want to not hurt anyone's feelings in this matter, but I think such poorly
researched arguments serve to weaken Native land claims and treaty rights.

I see nothing wrong with creating tax havens on reservations; it's worked
wonders for former backwaters like the Cayman Islands. In the long run,
gambling is of limited value because of its inevitability of bringing in
crime, and also because the European society is moving in the direction
of ubiquitous government sponsored gambling, which will dilute the market
very much.

Yes, by virtue of treaties, Indians must have a special status not open to
anyone else. Much as it angers those protestors in Wisconsin every year who
oppose, sometime violently, the treaty right to spearfish.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peshewegunzh

peshe%mamia.UUCP@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
mthvax.cs.miami.edu!mamia.UUCP!peshe
peshe@mamia.UUCP
mthvax!mamia!peshe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Organization: Office of Planning & Budget, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA