Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

NYC’s Native Groups Weigh in on the Columbus Controversy

2 Comments

  • Paul R. Jones
    Posted October 9, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    This article is an astonishing piece of a deplorable lack of journalist curiosity regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” since The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924! That single Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, made null all previous common law-state and federal-including Presidential Executive Orders, Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause alleged Indian Treaties (if any U.S. Senate confirmed Indian treaties actually existed pre-1924 Citizenship) regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” so often touted by politicians and Indian advocates as being legitimate law.
    And yet, politicians and MSM continue to perpetuate willful blindness to the Constitutional absurdity that Congress, Presidents/Governors, Initiatives and Referendums can make distinguishable the capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” post citizenship. There is nothing in U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS that speaks to the Constitution’s mandate that common law must be for “We, The People, By The People and For The People’s” health, welfare, safety and benefits for a specific geographic area of a State or the Union.
    The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for:
    1. Indian sovereign nations. None of the asserted tribes possess any of the attributes of being a ‘sovereign nation:’ a. No U.S. Constitution recognition b. No international recognition c. No fixed borders d. No military e. No currency f. No postal system g. No passports h. et al
    2. Treaties with its own constituency
    3. Indian reservations whereby a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” reside exclusively and to the exclusion of all others, on land-with rare exception-that is owned by the People of the United States according to a federal document readily available on-line that notes rights of renters as ‘occupancy and use’ by these distinguished U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” only with the land owned by the People of the United States.
    4. Recognition of ‘Indian citizenship’ asserted by various tribes. There is no international/U.S. Constitution recognition of “Indian citizenship” as there is no ‘nation-state’ from which citizenship is derived.
    A simple question for politicians and MSM to answer…a question so simple, it is hard:
    “Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”

    • Sharline and Diane
      Posted October 11, 2017 at 7:06 pm

      Paul – thank you for taking the time to comment on this story. The main argument in this article is that Native people want to receive equal treatment and NOT preferential. Native people in the United States have also faced discriminatory and exclusionary treatment as every other non-white and even some white groups, including Italian-Americans. The U.S. Constitution was written by landed, white men who framed the document when women couldn’t vote, Africans were viewed as 3/5th’s of a person and Native people were termed ‘merciless savages.’ It is also largely documented that the City has always given preferential treatment distributing resources to arts groups led and directed by white people over groups of color.

Leave a comment

0/5

To better help City Limits know and serve our community, please select all that apply: