The Supreme Court May Ensure Native Kids’ Ancestry Is Erased—

[Disir]

It’s racist against white people and racist against Native Americans. It keeps neglected Native children out of the loving arms of white parents. It’s the federal government overstepping and trampling states’ rights. These are the outlandish charges being made against the 44-year-old federal law known as the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case manufactured to take down ICWA. Gibson Dunn, a law firm best known as a good friend of powerful corporations, is leading the charge against Native families—and handling the case for free.

Contrary to the right-wing conspiracy theory underlying the challenge, ICWA was not designed to keep Indian children in dangerous Indian households at all costs. In fact, the placement priorities of ICWA only come into play once a determination of child safety has already been made. What ICWA does do is model best practices such as requiring legal cause to be shown for termination of parental rights, prioritizing children’s placement with extended family, and valuing preservation of a child’s heritage by keeping them within their culture when possible. This is especially urgent to stanch the loss of indigenous identity through generations of previous disastrous child welfare policy.

The Supreme Court May Ensure Native Kids’ Ancestry Is Erased—Just Like Mine Was

The Indian Child Welfare Act helped keep indigenous families together. Now SCOTUS could tear the law apart.

slate.com

They heard it on Wednesday. Here are some documents.
Docket for 21-376

Fox had an updated article.

Supreme Court debates federal law dealing with adoptions for Native American children

A divided Supreme Court offered measured support for a federal law that gives placement preferences to Native families in adoption matters involving Native children.

www.foxnews.com

I support ICWA for the most part. There are times when I think it can take too long and becomes detrimental to everyone involved.

 

[MisterBeale]

At the second University I attended, which is right next to a reservation, I had a Native American professor teach a class on the history of NA, and the laws and relations with the US.
Things in there that are engineered to save traditions, language, tribal integrity, etc.



It was interesting, I learned a little about this.

I also had a friend in the area, a blue collar worker, who had been married to a native American women, and in the divorce, she got their kids, and disappeared, while he was stuck paying child support. According to this law, she did not have to let him have visitation, or even let him know where they were at. I had thought he didn't know what he was talking about. He was tore up about not seeing his kids grow up, while he was helping pay for it all. I thought it was tremendously unjust.

Then I had taken this class, and learned, yup, that is in this law. He was stuck. I made up my mind, right then and there, never to date a Native American. The risk under this law, was far too high.

This law, really does have some weird stuff in it, that does conflict with the Equal Protect Claus, because of the status of NA being semi-sovereign nations.

 

[Disir]

At the second University I attended, which is right next to a reservation, I had a Native American professor teach a class on the history of NA, and the laws and relations with the US.
Things in there that are engineered to save traditions, language, tribal integrity, etc.



It was interesting, I learned a little about this.

I also had a friend in the area, a blue collar worker, who had been married to a native American women, and in the divorce, she got their kids, and disappeared, while he was stuck paying child support. According to this law, she did not have to let him have visitation, or even let him know where they were at. I had thought he didn't know what he was talking about. He was tore up about not seeing his kids grow up, while he was helping pay for it all. I thought it was tremendously unjust.

Then I had taken this class, and learned, yup, that is in this law. He was stuck. I made up my mind, right then and there, never to date a Native American. The risk under this law, was far too high.

This law, really does have some weird stuff in it, that does conflict with the Equal Protect Claus, because of the status of NA being semi-sovereign nations.

That's horrible. I have never seen that in ICWA. I am surrounded by Tribes. I can see some divorce information state wide online unless it occurs in a tribal court. I'm not certain what is worked out or arranged in tribal courts for divorce/custody anything because it's not online.

 

[MisterBeale]

That's horrible. I have never seen that in ICWA. I am surrounded by Tribes. I can see some divorce information state wide online unless it occurs in a tribal court. I'm not certain what is worked out or arranged in tribal courts for divorce/custody anything because it's not online.

FAQ 2: Jurisdiction - A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act; Native American Rights Fund

They can make any determination they please.

If they want to tell him to pay, and not give him visitation, that is their prerogative. They have exclusive jurisdiction if the child is more than a certain blood quantum, (though I don't recall the legal amount,) if that child thus has membership in the tribe.

 

[Disir]

View attachment 724914

FAQ 2: Jurisdiction - A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act; Native American Rights Fund

They can make any determination they please.

If they want to tell him to pay, and not give him visitation, that is their prerogative. They have exclusive jurisdiction if the child is more than a certain blood quantum, (though I don't recall the legal amount,) if that child thus has membership in the tribe.

They are sovereign nations. If a divorce is through their court then I can see it. ICWA does not pertain to divorce custody cases.

5. Are there any proceedings involving the placement of an Indian child where ICWA does NOT apply?​

Yes. ICWA does not apply to custody disputes between parents or family members (such as in divorce proceedings), juvenile delinquency proceedings based on crimes that would be criminal even if the child was an adult (e.g., theft), or to cases under tribal court jurisdiction.

For Families & Service Providers » NICWA

www.nicwa.org

 

[Seymour Flops]

Contrary to popular opinion, the Evil White Man was not in the wrong in their conflicts with the Tribal people of North America.

The tribes were little better than roaming gaings, with stone age technology. They fought for sport, hunted for sport and food and left all other work to the women.

In the overwhelming majority of conflicts, it was the tribal people initiating bloody violence against peaceful settlers, who were then put down by the lawful protecters of those settlers. The tribes did not own any land for the Evil White Man to "take away," because they had no more idea of owning land on Earth, than of owning oxygen in the air, if they had known such a thing existed.

In those days, there was plenty of room for them to roam, hunt and fight, while leaving the farmers, and townsfolk alone. Instead, they chose to attack settlers in raids in which they did not distinguish between men, women and children, other than to capture the females to turn them into slaves/wives.

The mistake the U.S. made was to treat them as a separate people from the other people of the United States and codify a different status for them in the Constitution. The same mistake the Framers made with American black slaves. Instead of leaving out "Indians not taxes," for purposes of determining the number of representatives a state would send to congress, they should have included them in the count. That would have been incentive for the states not to kill Indians since that would reduce their states population.

Signing "treaties" with people who had no concept of laws or even reading and writing was a farce, so of course the treaties were ignored. But then, we had to admit that we were in the wrong for ignoring the treaties we insisted on, so we offered them new treaties, giving them land that we would never need. Until we did. Then on and on it went.

What's done is done. This question about the legality of not allowing Indian children the chance to be adopted by parents of any race, can easily be solved by reading these few lines:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Disir]

Tribes are sovereign nations. The exact same thing as dealing with a foreign nation; however, they exist within the US.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Tribes are sovereign nations. The exact same thing as dealing with a foreign nation; however, they exist within the US.

Negative. I wish you were right.

If they were sovereign nations, we could build a border wall around their territory and offer them visas on a case-by-case basis. Then any adoption of a tribal child would be governed by laws about foreign adoption that tribe/nation passes.

They would have the misfortune of being citizens of a very tiny and impoverished nation, but they would have the benefit of being surround by and under the de facto protection of the worlds greatest military (for the present). They could have all the casinos, marijuana farms, and adventure theme parks they could build.

 

[Disir]

Negative. I wish you were right.

If they were sovereign nations, we could build a border wall around their territory and offer them visas on a case-by-case basis. Then any adoption of a tribal child would be governed by laws about foreign adoption that tribe/nation passes.

They would have the misfortune of being citizens of a very tiny and impoverished nation, but they would have the benefit of being surround by and under the de facto protection of the worlds greatest military (for the present). They could have all the casinos, marijuana farms, and adventure theme parks they could build.

No. They are sovereign. ICWA is that law. It's federal; however, there are about five states that have a state version of it. They have dual citizenship. They are enrolled through their Tribes and are considered citizens of the US. These are just the federally recognized tribes. Dawes rolls.

 

[MisterBeale]

Negative. I wish you were right.

If they were sovereign nations, we could build a border wall around their territory and offer them visas on a case-by-case basis. Then any adoption of a tribal child would be governed by laws about foreign adoption that tribe/nation passes.

They would have the misfortune of being citizens of a very tiny and impoverished nation, but they would have the benefit of being surround by and under the de facto protection of the worlds greatest military (for the present). They could have all the casinos, marijuana farms, and adventure theme parks they could build.

They are considered, semi-sovereign.

They have "protectorate status" under US law, and, until relatively modern times, NA weren't even citizens. It was not until the 20th century that we extended them citizenship.

In 1924 the US decided they should be citizens. Most folks don't know this, but NAs enlist in the Armed forces and at higher percentage, than any other ethnic group, and always have in the 20th Century. Thus, they were extended the franchise to our nation, if they were going to fight for the US, why not?

But, the fact of the matter is, yes, legally? NA tribes are sovereign, and in charge of their own affairs.

Every native nation could build a wall, issue visas and a case by case basis, they could all technically have casinos and legalize anything they want, and even have their own currency. . . but they have these special things in treaties with the US and the states they are in, called, "reciprocal agreements," which have laws that are. . "harmonized," so even if they have tribal jurisdictions and tribal police, in nearly every case, the tribal laws, reflect the laws of the states in which the tribes resides, and they have cooperative agreements with state authorities.

Trust me, we asked these questions in class. Like, why don't the reservations make a mint, by selling joints and legal heroine at the gas stations. Things like that.

There is a lot of things that the state in which they reside could do to retaliate economically, if they did not have legal harmony.

American Indians granted U.S. citizenship

www.nlm.nih.gov