[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