The Independant
July 27, 2014
by Tim Walker
On Wednesday morning, Mike Wilson crossed into Mexico to refill the water
container at the station he maintains a few yards south of the border, and which
has likely saved the lives of migrants who can drink before reaching the US.
Some 20 gallons had gone since he last visited a month ago. Sometimes, he says,
he finds the 50-gallon barrel bone dry. Wilson, who is 65, belongs to a small
but passionate community of activists trying to reduce the number of migrant
deaths in a state not known for its sympathy to their plight.
"Arizona has a reputation as an anti-immigrant state," says Todd Miller,
author of the book Border Patrol Nation. "But there are many people throughout
southern Arizona who organise not only to oppose anti-immigrant laws, but also
to go into the desert and provide humanitarian aid... Mike is doing important
and wonderful work."
Mr Wilson and his partner Susan have also offered food and temporary shelter
to some of the more than 52,000 migrant children who have crossed into the US
since October 2013, most of them fleeing violence in Central America. On Friday,
Mr Obama met with the leaders of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador and urged
them to work with the US to help stem the flow of migrants, stating that many of
those who have crossed the border will not be able to stay – with only the
potential for some "narrow" circumstances for humanitarian or refugee
status.
Mr Wilson, though he lives on the outskirts of Tucson, is a member of the
Tohono O'odham Nation, a Native American community of 25,000 on a reservation
the size of Connecticut, sliced in half by a 75-mile stretch of the US-Mexico
border. The Tohono O'odham (meaning "Desert People") have been on this land for
thousands of years and, even after the border was drawn in 1854, could pass back
and forth unimpeded, often via the San Miguel gate.
After 9/11, however, crossing anywhere but at official checkpoints became
illegal. Those Tohono O'odham who lacked the correct paperwork were trapped on
the Mexican side. Meanwhile, the Nation found itself at the frontline of a
broader border crisis. As the US increased security in the urban areas where
they had traditionally crossed, economic migrants from Central America moved to
more isolated routes, such as the Sonoran Desert.
By the mid-2000s, tribal officials estimated that as many as 1,500
undocumented migrants per day crossed the border through the reservation. Having
survived the treacherous journey through Mexico, many were killed instead by the
desert. Since 2001, the Pima County medical examiner in Tucson has received an
average of 164 bodies of border-crossers per year. Around half those deaths
occurred in the Tohono O'odham Nation, making it the deadliest migrant trail in
the US.
Humanitarian groups sprang up to combat the problem, including the NGO Humane
Borders, which maps migrant fatalities to identify the most deadly areas of the
desert, and then deposits water, food and medical supplies in those spots. The
group's executive director, Juanita Molina, says Humane Borders drops up to
1,200 gallons of water per week during July, the most lethal month of the year.
"Many Border Patrol officers and people in the community see us not as
preventing deaths, but as aiding and abetting," she says.
To Mr Wilson's dismay, the Tohono O'odham Nation sided against the migrants.
"They borrowed whole cloth the Department of Homeland Security's narrative,
which describes undocumented migrants as potential terrorists," he says. The
Nation's leaders even passed a resolution banning outside humanitarian groups
from putting out water on the reservation – so Mr Wilson decided to do it
himself. "I'm a one-man organisation, by design," he explains. "I have working
relationships with other groups from the social justice community. But when I
put out water, I do it as a member of the Tohono O'odham Nation."
Mr Wilson's first career was in the US Special Forces, and in 1988 he was
posted to El Salvador during its civil war. "We were supposedly advisers, but
our mission soon changed," he recalls. "We were to prevent as much as possible
the human rights abuses by the military against the civilian population … after
my experience in El Salvador, I really asked myself what side of the table of
justice I wanted to sit on."
During the US-sponsored Central American civil wars of the 1980s, Tucson was
the centre of the Sanctuary movement, a campaign offering safe haven to
refugees. That dormant humanitarian infrastructure provided a foundation for
more recent human rights efforts.
2002, Mr Wilson, by then a Presbyterian lay pastor, set up five water stations –
one on the far side at the San Miguel gate, and four spread across the US side
of the reservation, which he named St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke and St John. He
was forced to replenish the water every couple of weeks. "I could barely keep up
with the demand."
That was until Tohono O'odham Police confiscated four of the stations,
leaving him with just the one on the Mexican side of the border fence. No one
from the Nation's executive was available to talk to The Independent on Sunday,
but Mr Wilson suspects the reservation's leadership stymied his efforts because
it relies on federal funding for infrastructure, education and housing. "The
federal appropriations are buying silence from tribal members," he says.
Since June, Mr Wilson has offered shelter to more than 50 women and children.
Their latest undocumented visitors were a Salvadoran woman, her 13-year-old
daughter and two toddler sons, who crossed the border last Sunday on their way
to the woman's mother, who has lived in Maryland for 25 years. Wilson doesn't
like to pry into his guests' pasts, but he can make educated guesses. “The
mother probably fled to the US as a political refugee during the Sanctuary
movement,” he says. “I didn’t tell the woman that I’d been in El Salvador. It
might open old wounds.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dying-to-flee-mexico-for-america-arizonas-crackdown-on-illegal-immigrants-9630863.html
Showing posts with label Native American. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Native American. Show all posts
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Friday, May 23, 2014
Indigenous Texans Want UN Support Against Border Fence
Texas Tribune
May 23, 2014
by Julian Aguilar
EL CALABOZ, Texas — Eloisa Tamez remembers the exact day five years ago when she said it took the federal government just 24 hours to seize and plow through a parcel of land that had been in her Lipan Apache family for generations.
Following two years of courtroom battles with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the agency got the go-ahead in 2009 to extend its controversial border fence across her land. Since then, roughly 75 percent of her formerly three-acre lot has been behind a steel barrier, land that's now the property of the federal government.
Tamez isn’t alone in her opposition to the fence, which was erected to stop undocumented immigrants, human smugglers and drug traffickers from breaching the U.S. border. But her family's allegations that the fence discriminates against Native American tribes with land along the border has added a complicated new layer to the debate.
In partnership with the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, Tamez and other Lipan Apaches are seeking relief from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. They allege that the fence has “blocked access to sacred sites and deprives the Lipan Apache of their First Amendment right to express their religious freedoms at certain traditional ceremonies," according to a news release issued when the clinic submitted its report to the U.N. in February. (That report is a supplement to earlier reports the Lipan Apaches and the UT law clinic have submitted to federal and U.N. officials.)
A spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Rio Grande Valley sector, whose jurisdiction includes El Calaboz in Cameron County, did not respond to a request for comment on the report. The agency would only say that it usually does not comment on pending legal issues.
The federal government has argued that the fence, combined with technology and manpower, is essential to border security. And some border residents have lauded its arrival, saying their land was overrun with trespassers before its construction.
But other border residents, immigrants, environmentalists and human rights groups have not seen the fence in such a positive light. They argue that it sends the wrong message to the U.S.'s southern neighbor and is a waste of resources that hasn’t stopped the flow of illegal migration.
Tamez, who was compensated about $58,000 for her land, said she took the federal money in protest, and used it to fund scholarships for nursing students at the University of Texas at Brownsville.
“I am not going to personally use the money that the government has given me due to this injustice; I want it to live forever in my parents' name,” she said. “They are the ones who worked hard on this land to give us a life.”
Margo Tamez, Eloisa’s daughter and a professor of indigenous studies at the University of British Columbia, said the Lipan Apaches never surrendered their land to the federal government and, under current treaty obligations, still have a right to craft their own cultural, educational and governmental practices. Without access to all of their land, she said, those rights are curtailed, hindering the tribe's ability to maintain its culture.
“The indigenous people such as the Lipan Apaches are vulnerable and threatened,” she said. “They have already been subject to assimilation.”
The latest report filed with U.N. officials argues that seizure of Native American land requires consent, and that there is legal precedent for it.
“Indigenous communities have a right to be previously consulted in deciding any measures that affect their territory,” the report states.
The Tamez family wants the border wall to come down, an unlikely scenario.
But Ariel Dulitzky, the director of UT Law's Human Rights Clinic, said other positive outcomes are possible, including financial compensation for the Lipan Apaches or at least a recommendation for more consultation with affected populations in the future.
“The [U.N.] could recommend that the U.S. adopt a measure to take into consideration the rights of the Lipan Apaches — for instance, how the Border Patrol carries out activities in the Lipan Apache areas,” he said.
Dulitzky said he expects a response this summer. The timing could be crucial as the government considers further expanding the border fence. If the U.S. Congress passes immigration reform, it is likely that border security triggers will be included in the legislation. Several Republican lawmakers have said additional fencing is a key element to heightening security.
“New legislation is expected to double and triple the border wall fencing and presence of border patrol agents,” the report states. “If the [U.S. government] is not held to account for the legacy of colonization and the border wall’s discriminatory effects, critical traditional knowledge will be lost.”
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/22/indigenous-texans-seek-un-support-over-border-fenc/
May 23, 2014
by Julian Aguilar
EL CALABOZ, Texas — Eloisa Tamez remembers the exact day five years ago when she said it took the federal government just 24 hours to seize and plow through a parcel of land that had been in her Lipan Apache family for generations.
Following two years of courtroom battles with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the agency got the go-ahead in 2009 to extend its controversial border fence across her land. Since then, roughly 75 percent of her formerly three-acre lot has been behind a steel barrier, land that's now the property of the federal government.
Tamez isn’t alone in her opposition to the fence, which was erected to stop undocumented immigrants, human smugglers and drug traffickers from breaching the U.S. border. But her family's allegations that the fence discriminates against Native American tribes with land along the border has added a complicated new layer to the debate.
In partnership with the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, Tamez and other Lipan Apaches are seeking relief from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. They allege that the fence has “blocked access to sacred sites and deprives the Lipan Apache of their First Amendment right to express their religious freedoms at certain traditional ceremonies," according to a news release issued when the clinic submitted its report to the U.N. in February. (That report is a supplement to earlier reports the Lipan Apaches and the UT law clinic have submitted to federal and U.N. officials.)
A spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Rio Grande Valley sector, whose jurisdiction includes El Calaboz in Cameron County, did not respond to a request for comment on the report. The agency would only say that it usually does not comment on pending legal issues.
The federal government has argued that the fence, combined with technology and manpower, is essential to border security. And some border residents have lauded its arrival, saying their land was overrun with trespassers before its construction.
But other border residents, immigrants, environmentalists and human rights groups have not seen the fence in such a positive light. They argue that it sends the wrong message to the U.S.'s southern neighbor and is a waste of resources that hasn’t stopped the flow of illegal migration.
Tamez, who was compensated about $58,000 for her land, said she took the federal money in protest, and used it to fund scholarships for nursing students at the University of Texas at Brownsville.
“I am not going to personally use the money that the government has given me due to this injustice; I want it to live forever in my parents' name,” she said. “They are the ones who worked hard on this land to give us a life.”
Margo Tamez, Eloisa’s daughter and a professor of indigenous studies at the University of British Columbia, said the Lipan Apaches never surrendered their land to the federal government and, under current treaty obligations, still have a right to craft their own cultural, educational and governmental practices. Without access to all of their land, she said, those rights are curtailed, hindering the tribe's ability to maintain its culture.
“The indigenous people such as the Lipan Apaches are vulnerable and threatened,” she said. “They have already been subject to assimilation.”
The latest report filed with U.N. officials argues that seizure of Native American land requires consent, and that there is legal precedent for it.
“Indigenous communities have a right to be previously consulted in deciding any measures that affect their territory,” the report states.
The Tamez family wants the border wall to come down, an unlikely scenario.
But Ariel Dulitzky, the director of UT Law's Human Rights Clinic, said other positive outcomes are possible, including financial compensation for the Lipan Apaches or at least a recommendation for more consultation with affected populations in the future.
“The [U.N.] could recommend that the U.S. adopt a measure to take into consideration the rights of the Lipan Apaches — for instance, how the Border Patrol carries out activities in the Lipan Apache areas,” he said.
Dulitzky said he expects a response this summer. The timing could be crucial as the government considers further expanding the border fence. If the U.S. Congress passes immigration reform, it is likely that border security triggers will be included in the legislation. Several Republican lawmakers have said additional fencing is a key element to heightening security.
“New legislation is expected to double and triple the border wall fencing and presence of border patrol agents,” the report states. “If the [U.S. government] is not held to account for the legacy of colonization and the border wall’s discriminatory effects, critical traditional knowledge will be lost.”
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/22/indigenous-texans-seek-un-support-over-border-fenc/
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
HR 1505: The Latest Tribal Border War
Indian Country Today
June 19, 2012
by Heather Steinberger
Today, a broad parks and recreation bill called H.R. 2578 — “To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes,” also known as the Conservation and Economic Growth Act — is scheduled for a floor vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. And it will affect Indian country, as included in the bill is H.R. 1505, or the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.
Authored by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and featuring 59 cosponsors from across the country, H.R. 1505 would give the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the authority to take control of “all land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture within 100 miles of the international land borders of the United States.”
“Securing our nation’s borders must be among our highest priorities,” said Rep. Bishop, who also serves as House National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee chairman. “Right now, public lands inaccessible to the United States Border Patrol offer nearly unfettered safe harbor for criminal drug and human smugglers entering our country illegally. The Border Patrol must have improved access in order to deter and apprehend those using our federal lands as trafficking routes.”
The bill was amended in committee last fall to remove language that included maritime borders, add language to protect existing legal uses for recreational and economic activities, add a five-year sunset date to evaluate if the legislation should be renewed, and strictly limit the activities (six) for which the bill could be used. In fact, the committee changed all references to “The Secretary of Homeland Security” to “U.S. Customs and Border Protection” to emphasize that authority would be limited to border security operations and personnel. It would not be a broad new authority across the federal government.
However, according to Oliver “OJ” Semans, executive director of Four Directions, a nonpartisan get-out-the-native-vote organization based on South Dakota’s Rosebud Indian Reservation, the problem for Indian country is that the tribes whose lands lie within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders were never part of the legislative process — and would have no say in how their lands could be used within the scope of those six authorized activities.
“The (author and) sponsors of H.R. 1505 want to give the U.S. Department of Homeland Security unprecedented power to build roads, fences, buildings or even watchtowers on public land administered by the departments of Interior and Agriculture,” Semans said. “This bill directly affects tribes, and they were never even consulted and/or asked to attend hearings on the bills.”
The text of the amended legislation reads, “The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit or restrict activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve operational control over the international land borders of the United States.” The authorized activities include construction and maintenance of roads and fences; vehicle patrols; installation, maintenance and operation of surveillance equipment and sensors; use of aircraft; and deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, including forward operating bases.
While the legislation states that it will not restrict legal land uses such as grazing, hunting or mining, it does list more than 30 acts that H.R. 1505 would waive. These include the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Act of June 8, 1906 (also known as “the Antiquities Act of 1906”), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act. The National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act protect sites considered sacred to Native people.
Affected tribes include the Bay Mills Indian Community (Michigan), Blackfeet Tribe (Montana), Grand Portage Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Red Lake Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe (Michigan), St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (New York), Aroostook Band of Micmac (Maine), Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), Boise Forte Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington), Fort Belknap Indian Community (Montana), Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes (Montana), Houlton Band of Maliseet (Maine), Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (Washington), Kalispel Tribe (Washington), Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan), Kootenai Tribe (Idaho), Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (Washington), Lummi Nation (Washington), Makah Tribe (Washington), Nooksack Tribe (Washington), Passamaquoddy Tribe (Maine), Penobscot Nation (Maine), Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), Seneca Nation (New York), Swinomish Tribe (Washington), Tonawanda Seneca Tribe (New York), Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa (North Dakota), Tuscarora Nation (New York) and the Upper Skagit Tribe (Washington).
One of H.R. 1505’s most vocal opponents is Senator Jon Tester (D-MT). His state is home to several affected tribes, and he has expressed deep concern for the lack of consultation with tribes — and lack of public input altogether.
“H.R. 1505 contains specific language that allows one federal department ‘immediate’ and total control over public lands in Montana,” said Aaron Murphy, communications director of Montanans for Tester. “Jon is concerned by this irresponsible proposal because it undermines… tribal sovereignty with a one-size-fits-all big government strategy, allowing a handful of federal agents to do whatever they want with no public input and no public accountability. Those who support this bill failed to consult with tribes — or any Montanans for that matter. Any decisions that deal with public land should be made with public input.
“Jon also is concerned that the legislation waives at least 36 laws,” he added.
Murphy noted that, as written, the Department of Homeland Security — again, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection — would not have to seek permission to do whatever is necessary to achieve “operational control” on any land administered by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior.
“There is no language that exempts lands administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” he observed. “The House (committee) even rejected an amendment to specifically exempt tribal land from H.R. 1505.”
Sen. Tester, he said, “believes we can protect our nation without trampling tribal rights.”
Sen. Tester isn’t the only one to express concern. According to testimony from the House hearing on H.R. 1505, the lead lawyer for the Department of the Interior under President Clinton also expressed serious concerns about the bill’s effects on tribal sovereignty.
A fellow Montana legislator, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), is a co-sponsor of the bill and co-chair of the Congressional Northern Border Caucus. He proposed many of the changes that were incorporated into the current, amended version of H.R. 1505, and he said the bill is a good one for Montana and the United States.
“Border security is national security, and in Montana that means safety for our families and communities,” Rep. Rehberg commented. “It’s time to put an end to the dangerous turf war where federal land managers hide behind environmental laws in order to prevent border patrol agents from doing their jobs on federal land.”
He also noted that the legislation is much more targeted than what he called “the sweeping measure” that unanimously passed the U.S. Senate in 2009.
“We built in protections for grazing rights and more narrowly focused the intent of the law on efforts to secure the border,” he explained. “We also added a sunset provision so the law can be reviewed by Congress to make sure it’s working as intended. This was a good bill, and now it’s even better.”
Is there a dangerous “turf war” between federal agencies? The Department of Homeland Security already has a memorandum of understanding with the departments of Interior and Agriculture that allows the departments to work together in a situation that might require DHS to pursue suspects or investigations on public land. And, according to a prominent Washington D.C. lobbyist who represents tribes across the country, there has been “no hue and cry” from the Border Patrol to take additional measures to guarantee access.
Tom Rodgers is president of Alexandria-based Carlyle Consulting, and he is perhaps best known as the whistle-blower in the Jack Abramoff scandal. He also is a member of Montana’s Blackfeet Nation, and he said he questions the need for H.R. 1505 in the first place.
“I’ve seen the GAO report, and I’ve yet to see substantive arguments,” he commented. “I’m not convinced. There’s been silence from the Border Patrol, and I’ve never heard of any tribe denying access to its land. I call this a weapon of mass distraction.”
Rodgers said he also finds it ironic that so many advocates of smaller government are behind this particular bill.
“There are so few resources, and there are so many other needs,” he said. “Without a demonstrable need, why give the Department of Homeland Security more authority? Why are we spending time and resources on this? It doesn’t make sense.”
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) is leading opposition to H.R. 1505 on the House Floor today. Members of affected tribes are encouraged to contact their representatives to share their views.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/19/hr-1505-the-latest-tribal-border-war-119255
June 19, 2012
by Heather Steinberger
Today, a broad parks and recreation bill called H.R. 2578 — “To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes,” also known as the Conservation and Economic Growth Act — is scheduled for a floor vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. And it will affect Indian country, as included in the bill is H.R. 1505, or the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.
Authored by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and featuring 59 cosponsors from across the country, H.R. 1505 would give the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the authority to take control of “all land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture within 100 miles of the international land borders of the United States.”
“Securing our nation’s borders must be among our highest priorities,” said Rep. Bishop, who also serves as House National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee chairman. “Right now, public lands inaccessible to the United States Border Patrol offer nearly unfettered safe harbor for criminal drug and human smugglers entering our country illegally. The Border Patrol must have improved access in order to deter and apprehend those using our federal lands as trafficking routes.”
The bill was amended in committee last fall to remove language that included maritime borders, add language to protect existing legal uses for recreational and economic activities, add a five-year sunset date to evaluate if the legislation should be renewed, and strictly limit the activities (six) for which the bill could be used. In fact, the committee changed all references to “The Secretary of Homeland Security” to “U.S. Customs and Border Protection” to emphasize that authority would be limited to border security operations and personnel. It would not be a broad new authority across the federal government.
However, according to Oliver “OJ” Semans, executive director of Four Directions, a nonpartisan get-out-the-native-vote organization based on South Dakota’s Rosebud Indian Reservation, the problem for Indian country is that the tribes whose lands lie within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders were never part of the legislative process — and would have no say in how their lands could be used within the scope of those six authorized activities.
“The (author and) sponsors of H.R. 1505 want to give the U.S. Department of Homeland Security unprecedented power to build roads, fences, buildings or even watchtowers on public land administered by the departments of Interior and Agriculture,” Semans said. “This bill directly affects tribes, and they were never even consulted and/or asked to attend hearings on the bills.”
The text of the amended legislation reads, “The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit or restrict activities of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve operational control over the international land borders of the United States.” The authorized activities include construction and maintenance of roads and fences; vehicle patrols; installation, maintenance and operation of surveillance equipment and sensors; use of aircraft; and deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, including forward operating bases.
While the legislation states that it will not restrict legal land uses such as grazing, hunting or mining, it does list more than 30 acts that H.R. 1505 would waive. These include the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Act of June 8, 1906 (also known as “the Antiquities Act of 1906”), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act. The National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act protect sites considered sacred to Native people.
Affected tribes include the Bay Mills Indian Community (Michigan), Blackfeet Tribe (Montana), Grand Portage Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Red Lake Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe (Michigan), St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (New York), Aroostook Band of Micmac (Maine), Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), Boise Forte Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington), Fort Belknap Indian Community (Montana), Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes (Montana), Houlton Band of Maliseet (Maine), Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (Washington), Kalispel Tribe (Washington), Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan), Kootenai Tribe (Idaho), Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (Washington), Lummi Nation (Washington), Makah Tribe (Washington), Nooksack Tribe (Washington), Passamaquoddy Tribe (Maine), Penobscot Nation (Maine), Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), Seneca Nation (New York), Swinomish Tribe (Washington), Tonawanda Seneca Tribe (New York), Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa (North Dakota), Tuscarora Nation (New York) and the Upper Skagit Tribe (Washington).
One of H.R. 1505’s most vocal opponents is Senator Jon Tester (D-MT). His state is home to several affected tribes, and he has expressed deep concern for the lack of consultation with tribes — and lack of public input altogether.
“H.R. 1505 contains specific language that allows one federal department ‘immediate’ and total control over public lands in Montana,” said Aaron Murphy, communications director of Montanans for Tester. “Jon is concerned by this irresponsible proposal because it undermines… tribal sovereignty with a one-size-fits-all big government strategy, allowing a handful of federal agents to do whatever they want with no public input and no public accountability. Those who support this bill failed to consult with tribes — or any Montanans for that matter. Any decisions that deal with public land should be made with public input.
“Jon also is concerned that the legislation waives at least 36 laws,” he added.
Murphy noted that, as written, the Department of Homeland Security — again, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection — would not have to seek permission to do whatever is necessary to achieve “operational control” on any land administered by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior.
“There is no language that exempts lands administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” he observed. “The House (committee) even rejected an amendment to specifically exempt tribal land from H.R. 1505.”
Sen. Tester, he said, “believes we can protect our nation without trampling tribal rights.”
Sen. Tester isn’t the only one to express concern. According to testimony from the House hearing on H.R. 1505, the lead lawyer for the Department of the Interior under President Clinton also expressed serious concerns about the bill’s effects on tribal sovereignty.
A fellow Montana legislator, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), is a co-sponsor of the bill and co-chair of the Congressional Northern Border Caucus. He proposed many of the changes that were incorporated into the current, amended version of H.R. 1505, and he said the bill is a good one for Montana and the United States.
“Border security is national security, and in Montana that means safety for our families and communities,” Rep. Rehberg commented. “It’s time to put an end to the dangerous turf war where federal land managers hide behind environmental laws in order to prevent border patrol agents from doing their jobs on federal land.”
He also noted that the legislation is much more targeted than what he called “the sweeping measure” that unanimously passed the U.S. Senate in 2009.
“We built in protections for grazing rights and more narrowly focused the intent of the law on efforts to secure the border,” he explained. “We also added a sunset provision so the law can be reviewed by Congress to make sure it’s working as intended. This was a good bill, and now it’s even better.”
Is there a dangerous “turf war” between federal agencies? The Department of Homeland Security already has a memorandum of understanding with the departments of Interior and Agriculture that allows the departments to work together in a situation that might require DHS to pursue suspects or investigations on public land. And, according to a prominent Washington D.C. lobbyist who represents tribes across the country, there has been “no hue and cry” from the Border Patrol to take additional measures to guarantee access.
Tom Rodgers is president of Alexandria-based Carlyle Consulting, and he is perhaps best known as the whistle-blower in the Jack Abramoff scandal. He also is a member of Montana’s Blackfeet Nation, and he said he questions the need for H.R. 1505 in the first place.
“I’ve seen the GAO report, and I’ve yet to see substantive arguments,” he commented. “I’m not convinced. There’s been silence from the Border Patrol, and I’ve never heard of any tribe denying access to its land. I call this a weapon of mass distraction.”
Rodgers said he also finds it ironic that so many advocates of smaller government are behind this particular bill.
“There are so few resources, and there are so many other needs,” he said. “Without a demonstrable need, why give the Department of Homeland Security more authority? Why are we spending time and resources on this? It doesn’t make sense.”
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) is leading opposition to H.R. 1505 on the House Floor today. Members of affected tribes are encouraged to contact their representatives to share their views.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/19/hr-1505-the-latest-tribal-border-war-119255
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)