Blood Quantum laws

[dextersmith]

In Canada, they get perks if they're sufficiently Native.

[dwightyo39]

Sounds like a bunch of white people getting offended on behalf of NA's. I live next to a reservation and have never heard a tribal member complain about the card.

There are more benefits in addition to the government checks. They can also hunt/fish outside of hunting season, using methods that would land a non NA in jail. Thus, the need to prove you are a tribal member.

[SpcGuts]

In which case the United States would be declaring war on Kyrgyzstan by having organized forces stationed in their territory without their permission and against their will. I don't know how you think that every single agreement among nations is the same as the pledges that are the mainstay of modern international politics, but it is wrong. There are thousands of treaties that are enforced by more than word of mouth. In terms of the agreements with the Native American tribes, it was a land contract; the same that was one of the most common contracts of the time for farmers and such to use the land without owning it.

Also, although the US commonly deals with the tribes as if they were a sovereign nation, for almost a century now all Native Americans are construed as citizens of the United States. So yes, reneging on agreements made with the tribes is more akin to breaching the Constitution than it is to breaking a treaty in international politics.

If you want to better understand the nature of the US-Indian tribe relationships, this is a pretty good summarizing source - http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/

Yes, treaties are enforced by more than word of mouth. Which means if the US decided that it was more beneficial to stop paying Kyrgyzstan, they would break that treaty. There would be a lot more variables at play than just saving money. No one ever said treaties are only enforced by word of mouth. But, from the realist perspective (the perspective practiced by most states, especially the US) a treaty will only last as long as it is beneficial. Russia recently annexed Crimea and reportedly has troops in Eastern Ukraine. This goes against the Budapest Memorandum which is signed with the US, UK and Ukraine in 1994. The treaties in question where signed when Native Americans were not considered citizens. Just because they eventually gained citizenship, does not mean the treaties take some new form. They are still just treaties, and if either party decides it no longer wants to honor them, they don't have too. There is nothing inherently binding about treaties.

[Kasierith]

Yes, treaties are enforced by more than word of mouth. Which means if the US decided that it was more beneficial to stop paying Kyrgyzstan, they would break that treaty. There would be a lot more variables at play than just saving money. No one ever said treaties are only enforced by word of mouth. But, from the realist perspective (the perspective practiced by most states, especially the US) a treaty will only last as long as it is beneficial. Russia recently annexed Crimea and reportedly has troops in Eastern Ukraine. This goes against the Budapest Memorandum which is signed with the US, UK and Ukraine in 1994. The treaties in question where signed when Native Americans were not considered citizens. Just because they eventually gained citizenship, does not mean the treaties take some new form. They are still just treaties, and if either party decides it no longer wants to honor them, they don't have too. There is nothing inherently binding about treaties.

And Russia is facing massive international feedback for it. Just because there wouldn't be some sort of military intervention to punish the US doesn't mean that the US wouldn't face repercussions in their international and local image, as well as deterring numerous investors whose faith in the US is based purely on the country's good name. Ultimately, the US would lose more than it would gain by breaching the treaties based on this alone.

[SpcGuts]

And Russia is facing massive international feedback for it. Just because there wouldn't be some sort of military intervention to punish the US doesn't mean that the US wouldn't face repercussions in their international and local image, as well as deterring numerous investors whose faith in the US is based purely on the country's good name. Ultimately, the US would lose more than it would gain by breaching the treaties based on this alone.

I think we may actually be talking around each other. I simply stated that treaties are not actually binding. Russia saw more benefit in breaking the treaty and annexing Crimea, regardless of the cost of international backlash. The point is, no one could actually force Russia to honor the treaty. Native Americans have an avenue of legally challenging breaches in treaties but this hasn't always worked out well for them because the treaties are not actually binding. The Sioux want the Black Hills back. The Supreme Court ruled they must be paid because the Constitution states that the US Government must pay it's debts. The problem is the Sioux don't want the money (It is over $1 billion now due to intrest), they want the land which was taken from them illegally according to the Fort Laramie Treaty of April 29, 1868.

The US took broke the treaty because it was no longer beneficial. No one could actually force them to honor it.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Is American considered a race? That sounds like a really stupid question, but it should be just to end all that nonsense. You're born in the U.S. so you're as 'Murrican as the rest of us and entitled to the same benefits -- no, no I don't give a damn if your parents are from the north pole and you're an Elf in appearance. You were born here in the U.S and speak English so you're an American.

Hell, I don't even dwelve into my family tree all that much because it's so pointless. My grandfather's black, my father's half-black as a result but I'm white, blond, and blue eyed so for all intents and purposes I'll still be a cultural appropriating shitlord or a white male depending on who you ask.