[mcthrowaway123z]

Perhaps we should just grant statehood to the various Indian nations so they may be formally admitted into this republic. I am not a fan of giving representation to alien nations. I'm not sure our courts have legal jurisdiction over such agreements so long as they are extra-national, so there may be no way to enforce it.

[jcranmer]

The modern state of Oklahoma was effectively the dumping ground for all of the Indian nations that were forcibly relocated, predominantly the "Five Civilized Tribes" of the Southeast who were forced out by Andrew Jackson. From 1889 to 1895, the unassigned territories, and later "unused" lands previously allotted to the relocated Indians, were given out to settlers in a series of land runs, and the involved lands were collected into an Oklahoma Territory.

In response to these pressures, the Indian Territory then attempted to turn their territory into a full state (Sequoyah), but this was turned down by Congress, which wanted the Oklahoma and Indian Territories merged into a single state instead. I believe this was motivated by political concerns, but this isn't an area of history I know very well.

It should also be noted that many of the actions the US government took during this time with respect to the Native Americans were flagrantly in violation of laws and treaties that existed, too. Any treaty the US government made with the natives were not worth the paper they were written on.

[gatherhunterer]

Are you referring to the Cherokee Nation as alien, meaning that the US is the native nation? How warped a world view one must have to say something like that with no sense of irony.

[tathougies]

Are you claiming that the Cherokee nation is subject to the US government? That's arguing in favor of a form of colonialism. It is your worldview that is warped. The Cherokee (and any other native nation wanting their land back) are best served by granting them status as fully sovereign individual nations, as alien to the United States as the United Kingdom and Canada. Can you imagine if we tried to impose our law on Canada? Why then should we allow other nations which ought to enjoy sovereignty to remain subject to the United States?

If, after being recognized as a separate nation by the United States, they would like to seek entrance to the Union as a separate state, then they can petition Congress for that right, as any other sovereign nation is allowed to do.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

We do impose our laws on the tribes, right? I mean, they have their own criminal courts and everything, but they are limited in their ability to mete out punishment. As far as I understand, they cannot form treaties with other nations. They can't raise armies. States can compel establishments within native american tribal territories to collect sales taxes on non-native people.

I don't think it's technically correct to say that they are subjects of the US government. The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens, and Native Americans are citizens of the United States. But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.

Please help me correct any misunderstandings.

[tathougies]

> I mean, they have their own criminal courts and everything, but they are limited in their ability to mete out punishment. As far as I understand, they cannot form treaties with other nations. They can't raise armies. States can compel establishments within native american tribal territories to collect sales taxes on non-native people.

Yes, that is why I made the point that I think they would be best served by granting them fully sovereign status. You can't be granted sovereign status if you're already sovereign. The USA maintains its authority over the cherokee in the same way it maintains authority over certain aspects of the states.

> The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens

Citizens of the US are subject to the laws of the United States. To be subject to a law means that you must follow it under penalty of legal proceedings.

> But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.

This is an overly simplistic view of sovereignty. Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign. They have given up some sovereignty to the federal government, in certain matters, such as international relations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that, according to US federal law, they are to be treated as sovereign entities. This shared sovereignty is the basis of American federalism. The tribes operate under a similar arrangement. The Constitution allows the federal government to enter into treaties with the Indians as if they are foreign governments. The current US policy is to grant them 'tribal sovereignty' which is a half sovereignty enjoyed by the states. However, unlike the states, where they chose deliberately to give up their sovereignty to become part of the United States, the tribes were forced to sign treaties, forcibly uprooted, forcibly slaughtered, etc.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign.

As far as I can find, the constitution does not use the word "sovereign." Can you point me to which clause you're referring to? It's also worth noting that whatever the constitution says, the states are de facto less independent than many envisioned at the turn of the 19th century.

[tasogare]

> Can you imagine if we tried to impose our law on Canada?

That's exactly what the US is already doing with some of its extraterritorial laws. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorialit%C3%A9_du_dr...

[tathougies]

The existence of these does not detract from my argument the Indian nations should be granted national sovereignty

[ALittleLight]

I think alien and native are orthogonal terms. If we landed on an inhabited planet we would call those inhabitants aliens, not to imply that their planet is our native land, but to state that they are different than us. In the same way, the parent comment refers to a nation different from the US as an alien nation.

I don't think "alien" is the most common way to refer to foreign nations, but it's not wrong or rude to my knowledge. Your comment seems uncharitable and insulting though.

[nothal]

I believe OP is referring to how Indian nations are governed and the laws that apply to them. They're outside the scope of US law (so they're alien). The word choice is ironic historically but it's not incorrect and it further isn't as though OP was implying natives are not legitimately native.

[celticmusic]

they're not outside the scope of US law.

Governments set laws based upon land areas. This is why we have things like county lines, state lines, city lines, etc.

But these local governments have no jurisdiction over federal land. This is why you can have a federal building in the middle of a city, and that city's laws do not apply to the building, or the land around the building (that's held by the US government).

Native land is technically federal land that's held on behalf of the tribes. And THIS is why local laws don't apply to native land.

It's a common misconception that native american tribes are sovereign. They're considered 'domestic dependent nations', but not sovereign. This is why, for example, the US can limit their ability to issue drivers licenses and travel VISA's.

[snagglegaggle]

But they are outside the scope in very important ways this glosses over and which does make them much more sovereign than a state, such as sin taxes (cigarettes) and gun law enforcement (a PMC was incorporated in and trading fully automatic weapons through Indian territory). The basis for those is what is important.

[celticmusic]

It's very simple. It's federal land and therefore cannot be taxed by the local governments.

[snagglegaggle]

I'm not totally sold on this interpretation, I've interacted with enough territorial land that I got the impression it is completely left to the tribes. It may technically be "under federal jurisdiction" but if a treaty ceded any or most right to law enforcement then it's independent.

[jki275]

federal gun laws still apply on native land -- most federal law applies in fact.

[Excel_Wizard]

It's ironic but it's not untrue.

The connotation of alien used here is something that is foreign, unfamiliar, or culturally distinct to a person or nation. Nativeness isn't relevant.

[hirundo]

alien, noun: a person of another family, race or nation.

You seem to be criticizing it in the sense of "exotic", which is a fairly hostile reading.

[solidsnack9000]

They have said it better as "giving representation to other nations". It is less usual to grant other nations representation in the house and senate, but the Native American tribes are not exactly independent nations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275381

[pnw_hazor]

Not sure how that would work. Nevertheless, I would be really surprised if recognized Tribes would voluntarily give up their sovereignty to become a state.

[beerandt]

Because in a sense of practical power, state sovereignty comprises most of the benefits of tribal sovereignty.

At that point you ask if the differences in sovereignty are worth 2 votes in the Senate and (at least) 1 in the House. I'd argue yes.

[pnw_hazor]

Good point. Given that there are 500+ officially recognized tribes in the US I imagine statehood is out.

[beerandt]

Oh yeah- and it's an entirely different matter of if the existing states would want to even offer statehood...