Where can I find concice definitions of the legal status of "Native American"/"First Nation" "reservations" in the Americas.

July 22, 2006 7:25 PM

Where can I find concise definitions of the legal status of "Native American"/"First Nation" "reservations" in the Americas.

In the Americas, Indian tribes (a.k.a. "First Nation", "Native American") have sometimes been granted an "semi-independant nation status" and a bit of land to sit in - a "reservation". E.g. US tribal reservations are mostly self-governing and self-policing, however the US can send in FBI agents if there is crime connecting the inside to the outside.

Which countries in the Americas (both North and South) have physical (or social) "reservations" that have legal rights?

I would like to know how close the Cannada system is to the US, but more importantly I would like to know the status in Mexico and every place south.

posted by MonkeySaltedNuts to law & government (6 comments total)

Check out The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) website.
posted by ericb at 8:13 PM on July 22, 2006

This might be a good starting point.

Your question seems relatively complex, so I would suggest calling a lawyer who specializes in Native American or tribal matters and ask them directly. See here and here. Tell them you're doing a research project (assuming you are), and it's not about a specific case and you might get some free help. Good Luck.
posted by ifranzen at 8:17 PM on July 22, 2006

Um, #ericb and #ifranzen both seem to give some info on US tribes but both miss the point that I was asking about non-US tribes.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 9:55 PM on July 22, 2006

You want a comparative survey of the sovereign rights granted to native affiliations in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Americas.

To start, you'd have to figure out the status of many of the navtive american tribes in the U.S. As ifranzen notes, this is an incredibly complex area, and it is unwise to generalize the situation of the several tribes. Recognition of a "tribe" by the BIA is itself the subject of ongoing litigation.

Even if you were to pick one tribe, say, the Seminoles of Florida, you'd find that the determination of the rights and legal status of a particular tribe under U.S. law will require in-depth analysis of a fast-changing and disgustingly complex area of tribal sovereignty/sovereign immunity jurisprudence, even if you're focused only on U.S. Supreme Court caselaw.

Suffice it to say that a "concise" answer is not going to be accurate or possible. Rather, many, many papers have been written on the general theory of tribal sovereignty and its tattered doctrinal underpinnings, as well as specific nuances of the limits (e.g., criminal law, judicial procedure) of that sovereignty (such as the Federal Government's "trustee" position).

Good luck.
posted by soda pop at 10:45 PM on July 22, 2006

For an intuitive perspective:

Canadian reservations are similar, however we grant more power for natives to affect national Western politics. Our territories in the north have significant numbers of natives, so it is difficult to ignore the issues involved. Most of Canada was signed over to the crown by native tribes — exchanged for reservations, equipment, livestock, and supplies. This is in contrast to the canonical view of the U.S.'s burning native villages and killing all the women and children.

From our french influence, Canadians inherited a much more tolerant and multicultural view regarding natives. Historically, men of British tradition were looked down on for having "Country marriages" with the savages of North America. French settlers did not have this taboo. Those of mixed native/french ancestry were called "Métis," and were a significant force in settling the west. I myself could qualify to have that designation if I so wished.
posted by clord at 11:55 PM on July 22, 2006

Remember the guy who asked the president about this? He had a inuitive perspective.
posted by hortense at 2:44 AM on July 23, 2006