'Upstate Citizens' labeled 'hate group' (for opposing Indian land grabs)

© 2001 The Syracuse Post-Standard. ^ | Wednesday, December 5, 2001 | By Glenn Coin and David L. Shaw

[Behind Liberal Lines]

The problem here is NOT really the monetary compensation. Most members of UCE could easily live with a large cash settlement. The problem is soverignity, the idea that one group of citizens can (or needs to, in order to practice their beliefs) taken US land "soverign," remove it from the tax rolls and thumb their noses at State criminal and civil law.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, that would depend on what you mean by "U.S." land... considering most of this issue is, IIRC, about "N.Y. land"... that being said, if the land was aquirred ILLEGALLY by the state, then the land should be returned to it's rightful owners...

That being said, I'm of two minds about the sovereignty issue - if the treaties between the tribes and the government says they are sovereign, then that's the law. If it doesn't, then that's the law, too... I mean, we ARE still a nation of laws, right? Or did the last 8 years of Clintonism change all that???

[Behind Liberal Lines]

This is happening all over the US, not just NY.

And as for the common cry of "it was taken illegally," while perhaps technically true, the term does not mean what the Indians and their proponents would have the general public believe.

The "illegal" taking of the land occurred when NYS purchased the land from the Indians, compensated them, and entered into a treaty. Almost two hundred years later, the tribe declared that the treaty was not binding because it had never been ratified by Congress ( in addition, there is some likelihood that, at the time of the purchase, there was no clear authority showing that congressional ratification was required). So the tribe sued.

Rather than apply the standard doctrines of "statute of limitations" or "laches" (doctrines that limit the amount of time under which an allegedly aggreived party can bring suit,due to the recognition of the injustice that can arise from reviving long dormant issues) that a court would apply to a non-binding contract if one of parties weren't an Indian tribe, the court held that the suit could go forward against the state, the local municipalities and the thousands of property owners who live in the land claim area.

This case is as ridiculous as if somebody sued you today because 200 years ago one of his ancestors sold the land your house sits on and forgot to have the deed notarized.

[Dutch Boy]

So if the land is given back can we expect to get back items due the US? If Indian terriories are soviergn then why do we not have import taxes on goods crossing the boundry lines? If I cross the US/Canadian border I may have to pay taxes on items purchaced there and vice versa. Why is this not the same? You can't have it both ways.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Do you know what 'Trust' Land is? The State was not authrized to purchase the land, and the indians wo sold it were not authorized to sell it... the land was actually owned and adminstered by the feds, who told the state 'No!' (which, oddly enough, was one of the few times the feds have actually tried to honor treaty commitments), but for some reason they (the State of New York) didn't listen, and so now this is happening...

And now, once again, the indians are bad guys... go figure..

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Whether the Federal Government told the state "no" at the time of or after the purchase is more disputed that the tribe would have us believe.

In any event, that argument again fails to explain why the doctrines of laches, collateral estoppel or statute of limitations should not apply 200 years later in the case of the tribes, just as it would for any OTHER legal matter. The only reason it wasn't applied from the beginning was "PC," and the hopes that we (the United States) could buy off the Indians with a state park in a rural community and some cash.

[Chad Fairbanks]

We can agree on some of that... 200 years IS a long time (of course, not all of the land theft occurred that lng ago) Yet, when the state will not even admit any wrong-doing, and will not negotiate, this is what happens...

The theft of the land, and it WAS theft, should be admitted to. Period. Maybe the state should give up some of it's own land, but instead the state makes the taxpayers the ones who will lose out. I think that the indians AND the taxpayers should band together, and let the state know that it screwed up, and should work together to fix this issue.

It doesn't appear that either side is 100%'right', but either way the situation MUST be resolved. The longer the state ignores the problem, the worse it gets...