Policy Land Claims

The problem that I am going to speak of today is the disagreement of land claims. This arises from non-fulfillment of treaties and the unwillingness of New York State and the Oneida Nation to come to a compromise. A means in which this problem can be resolved is through un-biased mediation.

A disagreement of sovereignty is the core of the matter of land claims. The Native Americans are fighting for their right to have greater control over their own affairs, in areas such as health care, child welfare, education, housing and economic development. This system of self government will allow them to have laws that reflect their own cultural and spiritual belief systems, which existed before European contact.

Native Americans have never surrendered title to their land. Therefore the disagreement of sovereignty should not exist, however it does. The Native Americans claim that New York State entered into several illegal agreements with the Indians. They support their argument with the Non-Intercourse Act of 1790. It states that States cannot enter into agreements with Indian Nations without the consent of the Federal government (“Destination Oneida Nation”).

Another treaty that supports their sovereignty is the Treaty of Canandaigua. In this treaty the Oneidas were given special protection for their land (“Destination Oneida Nation”). This treaty stated, “In the late war between Great Britain and the United States of America, a body of the Oneida…Indians, adhered faithfully to the United States, and assisted them with their warriors…And as the United States in the time of their distress, acknowledged their obligations to these faithful friends and promised to reward them” (“Destination Oneida Nation”). The Oneidas consider this treaty to still be intact. However, New York State has since entered into unlawful treaties, ignoring the promises made by the federal government. This is basically to preserve and protect the Oneidas land (“Destination Oneida Nation”). And that the U.S. would never claim the land, nor disturb the Indian nations (“Land Claims Information”).

New York State claims that the passage of time should bar Native Americans from claiming the land as Indian Country, free from local and state taxation. They are arguing that since 200 years have passed since the loss of the land their right to sovereignty has expired. However, the Oneida nation contends that they still maintain their sovereignty because the U.S. never approved that sale of the land. Only the federal government can terminate a tribe's rights, something that all sides agree did not happen. Furthermore, the Oneidas began pursuing their land when they realized what was happening to them in the late 18 th century. In 1794, they were told their issues would be looked at later, but no such investigation happened. Because Native Americans did not become citizens of the United States until the 1930's, they did not have access to the courts, stalling them from pressing the issue. Causing so many years to pass before this issue was taken seriously .Once they had access to the courts a land claim commission came about. This was supposed to settle all land claims, this was a failure. The next land claim was not filed until 1977(Hoxie).

Why does the issue of Oneida land claims matter? Especially if you live in the Oneida or surrounding community a settlement agreement in allowing Native Americans ultimate sovereignty not quasi-sovereignty will positively affect you and your community. First of all it will create jobs. Not just minimum wage jobs, but it will affect jobs in business, agriculture, construction, transportation, wholesale, retail, hotels, entertainment and restaurants. Many argue that these businesses are unfair to the other local American businesses because the Native American businesses do not have to pay taxes. However, this so called unfairness benefits the consumer because it allows competitive prices. This will keep consumer goods at a reasonable price.

An argument that many use for defending their opinion against sovereignty is their concern about eroding the local tax base. But, they fail to realize that their strong objection to the Native Americans is causing this drawn out struggle which is using local municipalities to fight this objection, thus, using tax money to pay the lawyers, legislatures, and judges in this case. Not only wasting citizens tax dollars but lawyers and judges time in which they could be focusing on other issues that will benefit the community not segregate it. While they are using up tax money for this, the Oneida Nation is bringing in revenue that is being shared with the local community.

I've constructed a plan to resolve this issue. But, first a clear emphasis on trust through transparency of open and honest communication must be established on the issue. There must be respect to honor with dignity one another's cultural and traditional beliefs. Governments, local, city, state, federal and Native must have an undivided commitment to the quality of this land claim settlement agreement that will be fair and equitable to all parties. This can be achieved by mandating a mediator to force discussion and compromise. An elected independent body needs to be developed to workout a solution. This body should be comprised of an equal number of aboriginal people and New York State legislatures. They will examine cases of land claims for New York State on a case by case claim and make a ruling. Each ruling must be definitive and detailed. This body will need to establish a framework for the effective implementation of the inherent right of sovereignty.

Political negotiation is the most constructive and practical means to address this issue. Negotiations must consist of four steps: The first step must address what they intend to negotiate. They must specify the distinct area of land that is of interest. The area of land at hand will only be discussed if it is Indian Territory . Land is referred to as Indian Territory if it was an Indian occupied region of the United States that was not part of any state or organized territory (Hoxie). They also must come up with an agreed upon definition when referring to Native people.

The second step is to establish a framework and agree on the subjects to be negotiated and an estimated time frame for it to be resolved. The second step will bring both parties together for an initial meeting. In this meeting they will review the statement of intent and supporting documents. They will also sign a commitment to negotiate a resolution. They will establish frequency and location of meetings, an estimated time frame for each meeting, who is responsible for agendas and record keeping, who is the chair, and who is entitled to attend the meetings. This will prepare them to proceed.

The third step is to examine in detail the elements outlined in their framework agreement. Since, tax paying is a major topic in the land claims dispute they must address this issue specifically and come up with a resolution that will provide fair reimbursement to local governments. Once, the details of the subjects have been specifically studied and discussed a resolution can be put in place.

A mutual agreement will be one that benefits the entire community. The outcome not only affects the local community but will set precedent all over New York State as well as many other states. This will protect the interests of future generations, so that they will have a secure and prosperous future.