AZ Indian Tribe That Controls 75 Miles of Border Won’t Allow TRUMP WALL on their Land

I think we've done enough to Native American tribes in our country's history. If they don't want a wall going through their land then we should honor that.
 
philly rabbit said:
Collective racism.

Who's we?
Click to expand...

"We" in this case would be the US federal government. How many times in our country's history will our federal government defy the land treaties that we make with Native Americans? It's their land, and I think it should be honored just as your private property should be honored. I doubt it will though since Trump has made his love of things like imminent domain to be well known and since most Americans probably don't care about some land granted and owned by Native Americans in the desert.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Trump should tell them "no wall - no welfare".
Click to expand...

Of course not.....the government should demonstrate complete and total equality among all races of US citizens.

If ever there was a case that would establish a legal precedent "....to protect the public safety and guarantee the inherent attribute of SOVEREIGNTY for the U.S of America..." one thing jumps to mind "EMINENT DOMAIN". :)

Why should the native american's be any different than any other citizens of the US that's had their property stolen by the Government? Private RESERVATION? If the federal government can take Indian Land to establish a Bad Lands National Park in South Dakota....why can't they use the same tactics to seize enough land to protect the southern border?
 
sear said:
Indeed. Not by the most strict conventional definition.

HOWEVER:
The U.S. "Civil War" was about self-selected Southern States separating from the Union.

So what's the practical difference?
]
Click to expand...

well, obviously, no war is necessary to build a wall on land not owned by the Indians in question....
 
Norah said:
"We" in this case would be the US federal government. How many times in our country's history will our federal government defy the land treaties that we make with Native Americans?
Click to expand...

As long as america gives the injuns all this welfare and affirmative action and casino subsidies, they have no business complaining about anything.

BTW - the injuns lost the war.
 
domer76 said:
Since reservations are managed by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, you are wrong again. How someone can be so chronically wrong is hard to believe.
Click to expand...

actually, I believe reservations are governed by the tribe that holds the reservation......the function of the bureau is not to manage the reservation......
 
PP # 50
Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
Indeed. Not by the most strict conventional definition.

HOWEVER:
The U.S. "Civil War" was about self-selected Southern States separating from the Union.

So what's the practical difference?
]
well, obviously, no war is necessary to build a wall on land not owned by the Indians in question....
Click to expand...
Define "war".
How many muskets, how many kegs of gunpowder must be expended to satisfy YOUR definition of War?

And why, despite the fact that you stipulate it, does the word "war" not appear in the definition.

You see my cyber-friend:
you're running afoul of a logical fallacy in Sorites Paradox.

If side A uses 100 machine guns, and side B uses 100 machine guns, is that a "war"?
How about if side A uses 99 machine guns? Is that a war?
How about 98?
Or 97?
Or 96 ... ?

They could use a trillion machine guns; but if the border doesn't change, if there's absolutely no shift in sovereignty whatsoever; even if billions of troops died; was it an "insurrection" as applies to ARTICLE 1. SECTION 8 / 15 ?

Conversely:
if the equipment used to change the border, to shift the sovereignty of the acreage is instead of gun-metal blue; is Caterpillar yellow?

I'm not aware of any equipment stipulation in Art1, Sect8-15.

This enters the terrain of "original intent". Why did the Founders include this section in the Constitution?

Was it to quibble about equipment?
Or was it to render illegal surrendering territory to foreign sovereigns?

a) If SCOTUS hears such a case, &
b) if SCOTUS rules in your favor, I'll concede your point.

That hasn't happened yet.

But I suspect, if SCOTUS ruled on this precise issue, it would say it's the transfer of sovereignty; the PHYSICAL CHANGE OF A GEOPOLITICAL BORDER that matters; NOT the tools used to make it happen.
Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, a bulldozer can kill as many or more humans than an M-4.
An M-4 runs out of ammo after 30 rounds. A bulldozer can kill humans until beer-thirty; and beyond!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, I believe reservations are governed by the tribe that holds the reservation......the function of the bureau is not to manage the reservation......
Click to expand...

Let's try this again. They are MANAGED by the BIA, a US government agency. That's versus the state in which they reside. Your thought that they are not in US territory is more of your delusional horseshit.

Educate yourself for once.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
because there are places closer to the Mexican border where he can get the permission of the owners to build......perhaps, for example, property just north of the reservation.....
Click to expand...

Border between the US and Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wall
-------------------------------------------------------[area objecting to the wall]---------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------[____________________]
 
domer76 said:
Your thought that they are not in US territory is more of your delusional horseshit.
Click to expand...

ah moving the goalposts.....now they are just IN US territory instead of ARE US territory.....like goalposts, fences can be moved.....so they are AROUND the reservation instead of ON the reservation.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top