4 ms·
>First, do we really want to have different laws for different races? It's not about having different laws for different races. This is about different nations
by fineIllregister 12y ago
>First, do we really want to have different laws for different races?
It's not about having different laws for different races. This is about different nations having different laws.
The political relationship between the United States and the indigenous peoples of the Americas is much different than the relationship between the US and its citizens. It's more akin to asking if we want different laws for people in Canada and America.
I think your second point is similarly misguided. It's not a matter of anyone being different, but whether the US has a more compelling claim to exercise sovereignty in this situation.
- ggchappell 12y agoAh, I see where you're coming from. I think there is some merit to that point of view. However, from a strictly legal standpoint, it seems to be a bit outdated. Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship in 1924 by the Indian Citizenship Act.[1] Also, since we're dealing with Alaska here: Alaska Natives are dealt with under a different legal framework than that used with natives in the continental U.S. Because of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act[2], I believe that Alaska Natives are not considered citizens of tribal nations, but rather shareholders in territory-based corporations. TL;DR: It's complicated. :-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlemen...