Watson's Legislation
An issue that has been riffing for a few years, but simmering for over 100 is the issue of Cherokee tribal citizenship and the freedmen. The freedmen were the former slaves of the Cherokee people. As they lived in that society for years, their descendants claim that they are entitled to Cherokee citizenship. Congresswoman Diane Watson has taken up their cause by attempting to force tribal citizenship for them through US legislation. She has proposed H.R. 2761 to bypass the discriminatory laws of citizenship, but infringes upon national sovereignty. In provoking the debate, she raises the issues of culture and citizenship, but focuses exclusively on one of the marginized groups.
The Cherokee Nation has vehemently opposed Watson’s bill. They claim that Congresswoman Diane Watson has reneged on previous arrangements including deference to the courts on the issue. She has superseded the courts and tried to enter this new legislation by enlisting the help of U.S. Attorney General Holder. She challenges the very issue of the Cherokee Nation’s exclusivity and their blood rules, but is dancing around the national sovereignty issue. She is trying to dictate another nation’s governance by using the leverage of funding; a typical diplomacy faux pas stereotypical of ugly Americans. If her constituents are accepted as citizens, they will have access to the federal funding designated for tribes, but if they are not, Wastson threatens to withhold all funding. Her threat is unlikely to pass and is nothing more than bullying motivated by money. If she disagreed with funding, then she would need not tie the issue of freedmen with it and if she truly found the citizenship rules discriminatory, she would use her voice for all natives denied citizenship.
While the Congresswoman claims citizenship for the freedmen because of culture, she ignores the many other candidates that have also been excluded. She claims that the issue is not a sovereignty issue, but one of civil rights, but then why is she only demanding civil rights for some people? Like the freedmen, many Cherokees without tribal affiliation are excluded citizenship because the Cherokee Nation and the US Bureau of Indian Affairs promote restrictive laws. If her legislation is based on civil rights as she claims, then she should not focus solely on the freedmen.
If Congresswoman Watson succeeds in her quest for citizenship for the freedmen, then the Cherokee nation and other tribes will appear even more capricious in their denial of citizenship to the current no tribal affiliates. Like the freedmen, many no tribal affiliates have shared the Cherokee experience, but unlike the freedmen, many have valid blood lines to varying degrees. It may be in Watson’s interest to only promote her constituents and in the Cherokee nation's interest to exclude as many as possible, but it is in all Native people’s interest to increase this group to have a voice to be reckoned with. While HR 2761 is misguided for its bullying tactics and limited focus, it is not likely to be the last piece of legislation to challenge the illegitimate tribal citizenship requirements.
The Cherokee Nation has vehemently opposed Watson’s bill. They claim that Congresswoman Diane Watson has reneged on previous arrangements including deference to the courts on the issue. She has superseded the courts and tried to enter this new legislation by enlisting the help of U.S. Attorney General Holder. She challenges the very issue of the Cherokee Nation’s exclusivity and their blood rules, but is dancing around the national sovereignty issue. She is trying to dictate another nation’s governance by using the leverage of funding; a typical diplomacy faux pas stereotypical of ugly Americans. If her constituents are accepted as citizens, they will have access to the federal funding designated for tribes, but if they are not, Wastson threatens to withhold all funding. Her threat is unlikely to pass and is nothing more than bullying motivated by money. If she disagreed with funding, then she would need not tie the issue of freedmen with it and if she truly found the citizenship rules discriminatory, she would use her voice for all natives denied citizenship.
While the Congresswoman claims citizenship for the freedmen because of culture, she ignores the many other candidates that have also been excluded. She claims that the issue is not a sovereignty issue, but one of civil rights, but then why is she only demanding civil rights for some people? Like the freedmen, many Cherokees without tribal affiliation are excluded citizenship because the Cherokee Nation and the US Bureau of Indian Affairs promote restrictive laws. If her legislation is based on civil rights as she claims, then she should not focus solely on the freedmen.
If Congresswoman Watson succeeds in her quest for citizenship for the freedmen, then the Cherokee nation and other tribes will appear even more capricious in their denial of citizenship to the current no tribal affiliates. Like the freedmen, many no tribal affiliates have shared the Cherokee experience, but unlike the freedmen, many have valid blood lines to varying degrees. It may be in Watson’s interest to only promote her constituents and in the Cherokee nation's interest to exclude as many as possible, but it is in all Native people’s interest to increase this group to have a voice to be reckoned with. While HR 2761 is misguided for its bullying tactics and limited focus, it is not likely to be the last piece of legislation to challenge the illegitimate tribal citizenship requirements.
Comments
Post a Comment