What are the limits on the autonomy of US Indian tribes?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by BennyF, Jun 25, 2010.

  1. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    This is political science.

    Do they have the legal right to grow marijuana?

    Could they allow vehicle traffic at 100 mph on their own roads?

    Can they print their own money?

    Do any of them have trade or other relationships with other nations?

    Could a tribe train and equip their own police force? If so, what are the limits on the arms they can hold and use on their own land?



    For those tribes that have hotels and/or casinos:

    Could these tribes legalize prositution in their hotels?

    I know that some tribes make payments to the IRS based on casino income, but do any of them have an obligation to do so?

    When a tribe builds a hotel, do they have to conform to US-based building codes?

    Could a tribal casino accept foreign currency from foreign gamblers, perhaps at gambling tables that have been reserved only for that currency?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    If it's political science, then why is it in human science? I mean, they go together, but there is a politics forum.

    Interesting question though. I wish I knew more about it. I heard of a declaration of sovereignty by some of the tribes, ain't got no clue nohow as to how dat turndout!

    Also, I thought some of them were minting their own currency. Or at least were thinking about.

    Interesting topic.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I do know that if you try to grow industrial hemp, armed thugs will come and bust up the lot of you!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    In one sense, any tribe that operates a casino already has its' own "currency". They're called chips.

    I've been to a casino. When you go to, say, a blackjack table, you exchange your US Dollars for colored chips, and you gamble with them by placing some in a marked box in front of you whenever you want a new hand to play blackjack with. If you win, you receive more chips that you can exchange for US Dollars at a cashier's window.

    Now here's an exercise for you. Imagine what might happen if one US tribe bought land in another country and accepted chips from the American casino in the other country's casino. This would effectively be a transfer of money into or out of the US without any oversight by the US Treasury Department. Would the tribe have any legal obligation to tell the US Government about it, or to limit the size of any transfer? Casino chips will not be detected by airport metal detectors, and they can be purchased in very large amounts. They can also be won at the tables if you're lucky.

    I'd also like answers to my other questions, because they all refer to the larger question of autonomy.
     
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    They're basically their own mini-states, like the "big" 50 states. So basically all Federal laws apply, but not the state laws from the state in which the reservation is located. So:
    Federal anti-drug laws say no.
    Yes, but I suspect this would cause them to lose the federal highway dollars that they probably need to maintain the roads.
    I think they could print it, but I don't think anyone would be under any obligation to accept payment in it, and everyone would still be obligated to accept US dollars.
    The Fed. Gov. has absolute authority regarding foreign treaties etc.
    Yes, and many of the bigger ones do. I suppose they could buy/use whatever weapons ordinary state police might use. Many of the big reservations prefer to let the FBI do all their policing. The FBI handles most police work on reservations without their own police forces, and letting the FBI do it is a lot easier and cheaper for the tribal government than establishing and paying for their own police force. Many of the smaller tribes that are located in/near larger cities prefer to pay the local police to also police the tribal area. Usually the tribal government pays some sort of flat fee to the city for the service.
    I suspect they could, not 100% sure about this though.
    They have to pay federal income tax, but usually not any state/local income taxes (although the tribe might have their own income tax).
    Again I'm not sure about this one, but I'm not aware of any federal building codes and I'm not sure state codes would apply, so they probably wouldn't have to if they didn't want to.
    So far as I know, any casino could accept foreign currency if they wanted to. However, I think you're also obligated to accept payment in US dollars if offered.
     
  9. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    Thank you, Nasor, for your information, and thank you for being honest enough to say that you don't know all the answers. I have a lot of respect for anyone who can "admit" to not being perfect.

    I asked a question in the form of a mental exercise. If a tribe owned two casinos, one in the US and one inside another country, someone could walk into casino #1, buy a few high-value chips with a pile of cash (in either currency), walk out the door, get in his car, drive to an airport, and fly to another casino that was (theoretically) owned by the same tribe.

    Upon his arrival at casino #2, the man could (theoretically) go straight to a cashier's window (as if he had won the chips by gambling at casino #2), and exchange his high-value chips for a pile of cash in the new country's currency.

    If both casinos, owned by the same tribe, and located in two different countries, used the same chips, then this would be a transfer of money from country #1 to country #2.

    My question is simple. Current US laws require any large transfer of money to be documented and reported to the US Treasury Department, but would these laws apply if the transfer was made in casino chips held in the pockets of an airline passenger?
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2010
  10. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    This sounds more like writing an IOU and carrying it across the boarder to me. No money is actually crossing the boarder. The US dollars are still sitting in a casino vault in the US, and the foreign currency that the chips were cashed in for were presumably already in that foreign country, so...
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Interesting question, I would say no. Becuase money laundering laws apply to legal currency. A chip may have value, but it is not a currency as it is not recognized legal tender. Only the Federal Reserve and Treasury can create currency. I would think a chip would be similar to an iou therefore not subject to money transfer laws.

    But I am not a lawyer and am not rendering a legal opinion...just my personal opinion.

    This link might be helpful in understanding the relationship between the federal government and tribes.

    http://www.justice.gov/otj/nafaqs.htm#otj26
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2010
  12. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    I just came up with another question, and I'm asking because I don't have any idea what the answer is.

    Could a US-based tribe sell its' land and any buildings that are on it to a foreign country?
     
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I assume you're referring to Indian reservations, not Indian tribes. A tribe is an ethnicity, like being Afro-American or Chinese-American, although some of the details are different. For example, if you're at least 1/16 Cherokee you get your share of their petroleum revenue in what are called "head rights."

    An Indian reservation is sovereign land. When an Indian (or a Euro-American for that matter) is on the rez, it's like being in a foreign country. Now they all have treaties with the U.S., just like most foreign countries have, and those treaties spell out agreements that the tribal government has made with the U.S. government. They may allow U.S. police to follow a lawbreaker in "hot pursuit." They almost certainly extradite felons; after all the last thing they want is for their rez to become a haven for thugs and gangsters. Members of many tribes have dual citizenship so they can serve in the U.S. military, pay taxes, collect social security, etc. Remember that many reservations are small and not self-supporting, so the residents commute across the border and make a living in U.S. territory.
    U.S. laws do not apply in sovereign Indian territory, so they can do whatever their own laws allow. I'm sure most of them mimic the American legal system to avoid pissing off Uncle Sam and also to avoid the confusion of conflicting jurisdictions. They really, really don't want to become famous as places where you can go and break the law, so I very much doubt that pot is a big business. I'm sure they grow it in their back yards for their own use just like everybody else and I'm sure the Reservation Police don't give them a hard time about it any more than the police in remote areas of the USA, as long as it's not a commercial operation.
    They can do anything they want, so long as it doesn't violate that particular tribe's treaty with the USA. Most Indians who live on reservations are not especially wealthy (the petro-mogul Cherokees live among us in top-end cul-de-sacs) and mostly drive utilitarian trucks that aren't suited for high-speed driving.
    The answers to all the rest of your questions are the same: Each tribe can do whatever it wants, so long as it doesn't violate the terms of its treaties with the USA. But with my degree in business I assure you that it's not really feasible for a small community, especially one with a very limited economy, to have its own currency. The largest rez is the Navajo, and their very modest level of wealth is notorious.
    Ya got me there. Don't they have Google where you live?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Take a trip to Arizona and drive through the Navajo reservation, and you'll get answers to many of your questions. The Navajo have their own tribal police. The Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo. I didn't see any police there, so perhaps the contract it out to the Navajo. The Hopi are one of the most impoverished tribes in America.
    Prostitution is not illegal in the USA, it's a matter of state law. It's not illegal in Nevada so only the three counties with the large population centers (Reno, Las Vegas and Carson City) outlaw it; there are clean, civilized brothels all over rural Nevada where the girls work 40-hour weeks and get vacation, sick leave, 401(k)'s and monthly medical exams. The Indian reservations do not have to "legalize" prostitution. If they don't want it they would have to pass a law against it like 49 of the 50 states have done. Otherwise it's automatically legal. As for the off-rez casinos, I'll answer that in a minute.
    Now you're talking about casinos that aren't built on reservations, so they're not exactly on sovereign land. That's a whole different question. Try using Google.
    On the reservation, no. On a casino site, I'm sure they do, but I'm even more sure that for the sake of public relations they abide by every code there is.
    Every casino accepts foreign currency. So do all banks, many stores and restaurants. It's not illegal to use foreign currency in the USA.
    Every casino in America is very stringent about money transfers because they don't want to get in trouble with the IRS and several other federal agencies. They report all large currency exchanges. I didn't watch anybody buy $10K worth of chips the last time I was in an Indian casino, but I will guarantee that they do the same thing.
    On the reservation, they can do whatever they want. After all, you and I are free to sell our property to foreign nationals or foreign governments, why should the Indians be any different? If you're talking about selling a casino complex that is not on a rez, then you're getting into a whole different bunch of laws that regulate gambling. I don't think they could sell that casino to Jesus without going through five years of red tape, paying a zillion dollars in fees, and having Jesus bring a note from God saying it's okay.
     
  14. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    No no no. Where the hell are you getting this stuff? They aren't little foreign countries - they're more like little US states (with no federal representation). US federal laws etc. still apply. Fraggle, you usually seem check your facts better than this!
     
  15. sovereignminded Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Do Indian tribes need Federal approval to build certain types of businesses/

    I suspect from the answers to previous posts that Indian "sovereign" nations' land is not really Sovereign, but here's the question: With all the increasing limitations on peoples' right to choose their healthcare, especially to seek health alternatives; would it be within Indian jurisdiction to allow the establishment of alternative health clinics which are currently under fire in the US, i.e. Burzynski's clinic in TX, for instance--could he safely go to work in a "different nation", and conduct his cancer treatment there without being hassled by Federal authorities?

    This question pertains to health freedom choices.
     
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Not that I can see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Health_Service

    Transfer of civil/criminal matters to states:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_termination_policy
     
  17. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    As I recall, the tyrannosaurus fossil "Sue" was dug from a property that was "owned" by a single Lakota Sioux who lived there on the reservation. He sold the fossil to the Black Hills Institute who had discovered it for $65,000 US. They dug it out of the quarry and took it to the museum for preparation.

    At that point the property "owner" changed his mind (after he had cashed the check) and wanted the fossil back so as to sell it for more money (now that it was all out of the rock). The Lakota Sioux tribe then stepped in and claimed the fossil, stating that it belonged to the whole tribe as the land that the individual thought he owned was actually owned by the whole tribe and not the individual. He protested and the US Dept of the Interior stepped in. The D.O.I. rep for the state brought in the national guard (complete with automatic weapons and tv cameras) in an early morning raid on the museum, arrested the museum staff, confiscated the fossil (at that point the value had escalated to $1.3 million US) and stashed it in a warehouse with a leaking roof for its "safekeeping".

    When the whole thing went through federal court most all of the charges against the museum staff were dropped and the fossil was sold to McDonald's for $11.5 million US. McDonald's had the fossil cleaned and mounted, then donated it to the Chicago Museum of Natural History where it resides today. She is still named "Sue" after the Black Hills Institute staffer who discovered her in that abandoned quarry.

    The $11.5 million US did NOT go to the property "owner" (who did not actually own the property) and it did NOT go to the Lakota Sioux tribe (who also did not own the property) but instead went into the coffers of the US Dept of the Interior "to be held in trust for the Lakota Sioux tribe".

    My conclusion from all of this at the time was that the reservation land was actually "owned" by the US federal government as represented by the US Dept of the Interior.

    On the flip side of this, however, I take my family mountain climbing in upstate New York every summer. We take route 90 to get there. At a certain point there is an official New York State Highway Department sign that states:

    "You are now leaving the state of New York and are entering the sovereign nation of Seneca" :shrug:

    There is also a huge billboard that reads:

    "The wind still blows, the grass still grows - when will you honor your treaties?"

    This issue is vastly more complex than it appears at first glance.
     
  18. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Sometimes there's a difference between what's technically the law and what's actually the case.

    Indian reservations often have their own tribal police forces. And in a few cases these do pretty much whatever they please inside their reservations, regardless of what the law might say outside them. State and local police can be very reluctant to set foot inside the reservations for fear of armed confrontations with the tribal cops.

    That's not a good situation, since the powers that control a few of these reservations are totally corrupt and seriously evil. The tribal police serve as their enforcers, intimidating tribal opponents of the bosses and occasionally even making them dissappear.
     
  19. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    Last year when the Canadian government wanted to arm the Canadian security guards at the border crossing between the US and Canada in upstate New York, they ran into difficulty. The bridge in question extends from Canada on the one end to an island owned by the Mohawk First Nation on the other. Considering the previous armed confrontation between the Mohawk and the Canadian govt over (dropped) plans to run a new highway through a Mohawk cemetery, the Mohawk shut down the border crossing and disallowed Canadian border guards on their land. The guards left, the border crossing was closed and remains so today to the best of my knowledge.

    I agree with the statement that their is some pretty bad corruption in some of the First Nations as well though. There have been a couple of serious land grabs by Ojibwe First Nations in this area that have been...less than desirable for all parties concerned.
     
  20. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    I keep trying to convince a Huron treaty member, friend of mine to kill (with a bow) the next errant deer spotted in Toronto. Then cut skin and butcher the beast right in front of who knows how many PETA/vegan/dreamheads.

    Why? Cause he's allowed, and it would cause much consternation and hand wringing.
     
  21. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049


    putting aside the others for 1 min, I would be very surprised if traffic laws were applicable at all on private property unless the owner asked for them to be enforced. At least that's the way it is here, other laws are obviously applicable and you could be charged with certain crimes if someone got hurt but obviously no one is setting up speed traps in your driveway
     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    In general, Indian reservations have limited sovereignty. They all (I believe) allow (and often request) that serious crimes be investigated by federal authorities, usually the FBI. This is a practical matter since most reservations are smaller than Rhode Island and significantly less wealthy. A police force with modern training, tools and other resources is beyond their budget. Murders, kidnappings, etc. are routinely passed off to our guys, as set forth in a treaty signed about 125 years ago.

    Nonetheless, crimes on Indian land, even serious crimes, are not always given a high priority by the U.S. authorities. Lately there has been an emphasis on domestic violence and sexual assault, which mirrors the priorities of the entire nation.

    Misdemeanors may not be vigorously prosecuted. Most Indian courts cannot hand out a sentence longer than one year, although this is changing.

    I'm not sure about traffic violations. Outside the reservations those laws are not enforced by federal police, only by state and municipal officers, who have no authority on the rez. If you drive across the gigantic Navajo reservation at 120mph you might actually get nabbed by one of their cops, but most other Indian communities don't have nearly enough officers to give unsafe driving a priority, and the few they have will surely concentrate on drunk driving rather than street racing.
     

Share This Page