Posted on 11/01/2002 7:05:35 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
The Union Springs area has been in the heart of the 64,027-acre Cayuga Indian land claim in Cayuga and Seneca counties for nearly 22 years.
A drive along Route 90 or Route 326 will find a host of roadside signs stating "no sovereignty" and "no reservation."
Native American tribes with land claims against the state or localities get little sympathy here.
Lunchtime patrons of Legends Tavern in downtown Union Springs reflect that sentiment when asked about Native American and land claim issues Thursday, five days before the election.
Margaret Reister, of Union Springs, a server at the tavern, was quick to say Native American business owners should collect state and local sales tax from non-Indian customers and send it to the appropriate municipality.
"That's the law. In fact, Indians should also have to pay sales tax on their purchases. One group should not be exempt from paying," Reister said. "We're all Americans."
She's just as adamant about the concept of Native American sovereignty on reservation land. "It's not right that some people have to follow the laws, and others don't. Everyone should be treated equally under the law," she said.
Currently, only Native American tribes can operate gambling casinos in the state. Reister continued her theme of equality and fairness.
"Anyone should be able to open any business they want, Indian or non-Indian. That includes owning and operating a casino. It's just like taxes and following the law. Everyone should be equal," Reister said.
Asked how a tribe should be compensated for losing its land to an illegal transaction with the state, Reister said tribes have already been compensated.
"All those years of not paying taxes that everyone else has had to pay is enough compensation. They want millions in compensation, but they should use that to repay taxes," she said.
Reister says she has a problem with a claim being filed some 200 years after the fact. "Why are we paying for the sins of our fathers?" she asked.
She doesn't like the idea of Indians using money from a big settlement to buy land, which then becomes part of a tax-free reservation.
Dan Frost and Bill Mahaney of Auburn stopped in for lunch and a beer.
"Absolutely," Frost said when asked whether Native American businesses should collect taxes from non-Indian customers.
"They now have an unfair advantage over other business owners who collect and administer sales taxes for the state. It affects the cost of goods sold in the marketplace," Frost said.
Regarding sovereignty, Frost also gave a thumbs down. "We are the only country in the world where a conquered nation is given this sort of opportunity to step outside the law," he said. "They enjoy all the benefits of the state and country without any of the downside."
Frost said he doesn't like casino gambling operations under any circumstances. "It's an opiate for the masses, another form of welfare," he said. "Those who gamble are often those who can least afford to gamble."
Mahaney concurred with his friend on many points.
Compensation should be money. "The land has been bought and sold many times. The money can be used to buy land from willing sellers, but then you get into the issues of sovereignty once the Indians own land," Mahaney said.
Sovereignty should be a "long gone" issue today, Mahaney said. "If a tribe gets land, it should be subject to local and state laws and taxes, just like everyone else," he said.
Mahaney said he'd rather not see any more casinos. "The law allowing only Indians to run a casino is wrong," he said. "People gamble too much, especially poor people."
Mahaney said that if there is a valid claim, the matter should be settled. "I'm just not sure a valid claim has been established," he said.
Tom Shutter, of Union Springs, stopped in for a quick beer. His answers were to the point: yes, tribes should collect sales tax from non-Indian customers; yes, they should follow state and local laws on land they own; and no, their land should not be sovereign.
Casinos should not be limited to Indian tribes, Shutter said. "It's a matter of fairness, and it's not fair now," he said.
Regarding compensation for land that was illegally acquired by the state, Shutter isn't convinced that's the case. "No one has proven to me the state cheated the Indians over their land, so I disagree with the basic premise and say there should be no compensation," he said.
"I think the Cayugas are trying to get a foothold here. If people want to sell their land, that's their right. But if they do, it should remain private and treated as private," Shutter said.
Nancy Schon, of Auburn, was tending bar Thursday.
She said she's bought cigarettes at an Indian reservation and not been charged sales tax.
"As a non-Indian, I haven't been hurt by what may have happened in the past. I and other non-Indians really should pay sales tax on the cigarettes," Schon said.
The current state gaming compact with Native American tribes should "stay just as it is."
"We don't need another casino, but I have no problem with the Indians operating the one they have. In Verona, they employ a lot of non-Indians and help the community in many ways," she said.
Signed treaties.
I agree there are a lot of such political problems on reservations - the question, however, is what do the signed treaties provide for?
The problem with continuing to operation under the treaties is, IMHO, they should be considered void as against public policy.
They are a relic of a time where Indians were considered noble savages. Today, we aspire to treat our citizens equally and not put them in guilded "concentration camps."
They are still legal treaties. Do you advocate breaking a legally-binding treaty to promote your viewpoint here?
Yes.
Don't look so shocked.
Many once binding contracts are broken when determined to be illegal or otherwise violative of public policy.
One example would be deed restrictions that prohibited selling land to blacks. They were declared void as against public policy.
Another example would be the fact that President Bush (and most FR members) have no problem breaking the ABM treaty if it interferes with space based defense.
The Indian treaties may be legally binding, but they are, like racist deed covenants and the ABM treaty, relics of a bygone time and cause more harm than good.
Therefore, as I said, they should, be thrown as "void as against public policy"
That's not the issue.
Many once binding contracts are broken when determined to be illegal or otherwise violative of public policy.
Yeah, Congress does that with the Constitutional all the time.
One example would be deed restrictions that prohibited selling land to blacks. They were declared void as against public policy.
Void as against the Constitution - the law of the United States (supposedly). The treaties with the Indian tribes were treaties with sovereign nations. Different animal.
Another example would be the fact that President Bush (and most FR members) have no problem breaking the ABM treaty if it interferes with space based defense.
A better point, but that's a far more compelling reason than because Native Americans can run casinos and other folks can't.
The Indian treaties may be legally binding, but they are, like racist deed covenants and the ABM treaty, relics of a bygone time and cause more harm than good. Therefore, as I said, they should, be thrown as "void as against public policy"
Just like countless other treaties with Native Americans were over the years, eh? They really didn't need that land, let's kick them off of it. What this boils down to is folks don't want the Indians to keep the remaining advantages they have under treaty - so let's break them again.
So then don't be surprised that it's also so easy to violate the Constitution - because the end justifies the means, ALL IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC GOOD.
No! What is appearing here is GREED. It's very hard for the white man to accept that if the indians use these casinos intelligently they won't be needing our "contributions" to stay alive.
We have screwed the indian tribes out of damn near everything. Tribal sovereignty is what is scaring the UN and other globalists.
Actually, I consider continuing to bow before non-existent "nations" that regularly violate the human rights of their "members" and allowing US citizens to hold dual citizenship in those selfsame "nations" much more akin to globalism than my beliefs.
If the Indians were "using these casinos intelligently" this would all have been over years ago. The fact that the "temporary" casinos are still here demonstrates the fact that the $$ isn't going to where it was promised.
FYI, I'm in AZ, where we have two of the biggest reservations in the country, so I know what I'm talking about.
Well, it isn't as if we haven't done so before. I would say that we've got plenty of practice in that regard.
And how does their special status - as a result of signed treaty - place them above the law?
That we do, just as we have lots of practice in ignoring the Constitution as well. I see both as symptoms of the same disease - the temptation to circumvent the rule of law to either promote your personal agenda, give yourself an advantage or take away someone else's rights under the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.