ClarkGoble wrote:I think that they are citizens with the associated rights that come with citizenship. To the degree the United States has made treaties with them I think the government ought respect those treaties. Not sure what else you want me to say. The government often doesn't respect the rights of its citizens the way it should. I could list a litany of examples from the past few years but what would be the point? I condemn such abuses and wish the government followed the constitution and passed laws/treaties. Unfortunately in a democracy I can't make them do so beyond voting.
The United States made and makes treaties with foreign nations. The Indian treaties still in force are treaties with non-US nations. Give that one some thought. My point is that you make good talk about the US needing to take care of its citizens, while I pointed out that citizenship of Indians was forced on them. Meanwhile, they are still the nations that they were when the treaties were made. What is your take on that? The idea of non-US nations, i.e. foreign nations in the boundaries of the US is often difficult for people to grasp. They are not treated like any other nations, the US limits them, forcing a dependency on the US. So the rights of US citizens that you are speaking about isn't getting to the entire situation. International rights come closer to the circumstances as they now stand today. This fact is often made more difficult for LDS members because of the Book of Mormon, where the teachings of "nursing fathers" seems to endorse the idea of dependent sovereignty.
ClarkGoble wrote:I'm sure there are some. By and large I think making mobility easy for all people is something the government should aid. There's reasonable economic evidence that moving out of areas of poverty can have a huge effect on a person's opportunities. But again I'd never want to force people to move. I think choice always has to be respected.
When an American Indian "moves out" they forfeit their treaty rights to medical care because it is not mobile. They can only get care at the IHC facility on their own reservations. And they often lose their ties to their own lands. Who will care for their elderly family members that are left behind without loved ones to care for them when the youth leave? A much better solution is for the Indians themselves to have less economic restrictions placed on them by the US government. As sovereign nations, they still cannot engage in trade with other nations without dealing with US interference. And efforts for their own businesses and economic development often have to go through more layers of requirements and restrictions than most US citizens ever have to face.
It is a quite complex situation concerning American Indians. The US Constitution is clear that Congress regulates commerce with Indians but states have tried to override that, imposing state taxation that not only violates the constitution, it violates treaties.
At the heart of all Indian affairs is the basis that the US owns all of the lands and Indians only have a right to occupy those lands as long as the US allows them to. And this comes from the Doctrine of Discovery, the Papal Bulls of the 15th Century that declared that any lands found not inhabited by Christians were free for the taking. That doctrine was incorporated into US law and still impacts Indians today because their independent sovereignty is not acknowledged.
There were efforts to terminate the tribal status of Indians, spearheaded and led by Mormons in government and LDS attorneys. It was a disaster. There were also efforts in the past to relocate Indians from their reservations into cities, the result was not what the US expected or anticipated.
The teachings in the Book of Mormon about American Indians just don't work.