Onondaga Indian Nation threatensI-81 toll if state orders taxes

Copyright 2003 syracuse.com. All Rights Reserved. ^ | Sunday, September 21, 2003 | By Mike McAndrew

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Such vows raise images of 1997 - the last time the state attempted to force the collection of taxes in Indian nations. That attempt spurred demonstrations, roadblocks and other incidents at Indian territories across the state. The state abandoned the effort.

I wonder how the state would respond if whites rioted to avoid paying taxes that the SCOTUS ruled could be collected (he asks rhetorically)?

[trebb]

New York lost about $500 million in 2001 and as much as $895 million in 2002 by failing to collect taxes on tobacco products sold by Native American businesses, over the Internet, and by bootleggers

It would seem that a truer statement would be the amount that they "lost" to bootleggers, because they were never entitled to reservation/internet sales tax. Another case of saying you didn't get something, ergo you lost it. I guess I lost hundreds of millions last year because I never hit a jackpot at a casino and never hit the lottery...

[Behind Liberal Lines]

because they were never entitled to reservation/internet sales tax.

Why do you say they were never entitled to it? The court ruled they were long before 2001.

[NativeNewYorker]

What part of 81 are they threatening to block?

The rest of the piece offers too many ironies this early in the morning (8:33 am).

[genefromjersey]

If the folks who wrote this ever visited the Onondaga reservation, they might have second thoughts about what they are publishing.

The whole reservation is smaller than most suburban housing developments, and looks about like a pineywoods enclave in the Carolinas : cars up on blocks,etc. Hopefully, casino money has led to a few improvements,but to consider these folks a threat borders on the ludicrous.

Sorry folks ! This doesn't do much for Warrior Spirit,etc.,but "Indian Nations" is more feel-good concept than reality.

[muawiyah]

Obviously you are very unaware of the difference between "Indians" and "whites". First of all, the Iriquois population, in general, is very mixed. In fact, the Oneida adopted the Mohicans, and they, in turn, had virtually absorbed the Brothertons. You might check up on the origins and history of each to get a flavor of what "mixed" can really mean.

The State of New York stole all the Oneida land using the argument that the Oneida were actually "white" and had no right to their own property. The USSC has subsequently ruled the Oneida were entitled to their own land in New York. At the moment they are still busy picking out the best spots, and that's pretty hard considering what the other kind of "whites" have done with New York land. One particular horror involves the ballast under the former Conrail/Penn Central/NY Central roadbed along the Hudson. Seems it's made up of bones taken from the Mohican Ossuary (which had something like 10,000 years worth of bones.) Think about that next time you go that way.

BTW, the Onondaga and the Oneida are protected by the very first treaty between the United States and any Indian nation. The Mohawk and a couple of the other nations within the Iriquois Confederation are additionally protected by the Treaty of Paris that set the United States free from UK control.

If you would like to repudiate the Treaty of Paris, you might let Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth know. They would probably be very pleased to see that a "fifth column" has been raised up from the broad masses of the American people.

The trick for folks who do not care for Indian nations in their state is to MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. There are plenty of places without Indian nations.

[mass55th]

Thanks for your great post. I live in Rome, New York, site of Fort Stanwix. Rome is also just a few miles away from the Oriskany Battlefield. If it hadn't been for the Oneidas helping the colonists against the British and the Mohawks (Chief Joseph Brandt), we all might be speaking with British accents right about now.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

The USSC has subsequently ruled the Oneida were entitled to their own land in New York.

The Supreme Court ALSO ruled that Oneidas had to collect and remit sales tax on sales made to non-Indians. So if you're going to argue that we have to abide by the SCOTUS rulings then the tribes have to pay the tax.

But thanks for making my point: the tribal leaders, a corrupt group that rivals the Mafia for ruthlessness and audacity, have no problem hiding behind the SCOTUS and "white man's law" when it suits their purposes. But as soon as it doesn't, they claim sovereignty and ignore the law, or even riot.

And the State of New York, desperate to be "politically correct," doesn't do a thing about it.

[dennisw]

100% correct. Tribes have achieved a position where they abuse our system and defy taxation. With the help of their Democrat lawyers. Check out the casino deals and it's nearly always connected Democrat lawyers facilitating them. They are tribal members when it suits them and live, work in the outside world when it suits them.

The whole Indian nation concept has turned in to a scam for making money by exploiting loopholes in the white man's law. With the help of connected DemocRAT lawyers. Here's where the tribes tried to institute a kickback/payoff/bribe scheme for development in California. To make California one big sacred Indian site ------>

 

SACRAMENTO -- California Indians suffered a rare defeat in the closing hours of this year’s legislative session when lawmakers refused to approve a bill to protect tribal sacred sites.

Despite repeated votes and weeks of negotiation, the Assembly refused to approve the measure.

Senate Bill 18 by Senate leader John Burton, D-San Francisco, failed on a vote of 38-14, with 41 votes needed for passage.

The vote shocked tribal representatives and moved some to tears outside the chamber while leaving opponents muted in their victory. Advocates on both sides of the issue agreed this isn’t the end of the debate.

"This is something we are not going to give up on," said Brenda Soulliere, chairwoman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association and a member of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Indio. "We’ll come back stronger next year."

DeAnn Baker, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties, a member of a coalition that included most of the state’s major business interests opposed to the bill, agreed that the goal is worthwhile.

"I think we are willing to start over," Baker said.

The issue has pitted tribes, who argue that too often little attention is paid to their spiritually important sites in development projects, against business groups, which insist that the bill could block or delay a wide range of vital school, transportation and other projects.

SB 18 essentially would have required the state’s environmental review process to assess the potential impact of a development on a sacred site and to come up with ways to offset any damage.

There are an estimated 500 sacred sites in the state, according to proponents.

But the bill also would have given the existing Native American Heritage Commission an expanded role to develop criteria to identify sacred sites, list them and facilitate consultation among parties over possible developments.

[fight_truth_decay]

..just another broken treaty.

[skinkinthegrass]

...You might check up on the origins and history of each to get a flavor of what "mixed" can really mean.

thanks...for the education...1/128 Cherokee....missed by 6 generations :))

[B Knotts]

The Supreme Court ALSO ruled that Oneidas had to collect and remit sales tax on sales made to non-Indians.

Wow. Hadn't heard about that one. Another completely idiotic decision by SCOTUS.

[per loin]

As the state officially believes that smoking is bad for its citizens, the state should not be making any money off smoking.

[general_re]

What part of 81 are they threatening to block?

Just a guess, but I expect that any roadblock will be somewhere along the stretch between Syracuse and Cortland.

[geedee]

The trick for folks who do not care for Indian nations in their state is to MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. There are plenty of places without Indian nations.

Anytime this question of Native American sovereignty comes up, I always ask this . . . Do these "independent" Native Americans use ANY state-supplied services? Medical? Welfare? Educational? Etc.

If so, do you think it's fair that American taxpayers are expected to subsidize an independent and sovereign nation's people?

Some say that's the price we have to pay for the way the Native Americans have been treated in history-past. Okay, fine, so you're in favor of slave reparations then, right?

I'm sorry, I just don't like the thought of carving up our country and saying ANY group has rights that aren't shared by all. Yes, Native Americans have been treated horribly, even criminally, in our past. But when does the statute of limitations expire? Will my great-great-great-grandchildren still be paying for 1800-ish wrongs in the year 2150?

So . . . should the Irish band together and ask that Boston be given to them? Or Hispanic-Americans . . . should they expect to receive 1/3 of Texas as their own little fiefdom? Or all of California? Okay, okay, LOL, I know some say they're welcome to California . . . but my point is this -- When ANY law pits one race against another for an indeterminate amount of time . . . it's wrong.

Also, one of the basic tenements of conservative is to provide a hand up not a hand out to those less fortunate than us. Are we not, in fact, doing nothing but creating generation after generation of Native American "victims" by allowing them to play by rules far different from those imposed on society in general?

How long must society at large pay for the sins of our fathers?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

excellent post.

[Agnes Heep]

I'm sorry, I just don't like the thought of carving up our country and saying ANY group has rights that aren't shared by all. Yes, Native Americans have been treated horribly, even criminally, in our past. But when does the statute of limitations expire? Will my great-great-great-grandchildren still be paying for 1800-ish wrongs in the year 2150?

I agree wholeheartedly. It does the Indians no good at all to maintain the fantasy that somehow they're independent of the United States, or that they ever again will enjoy the kind of lives they led before being displaced. The trouble with those old treaties is that they were made between the U.S. government and tribal entities that essentially didn't exist then, and certainly don't exist now. They should be formally scrapped, and the Indians fully assimilated (not that they aren't already fully assimilated, but as we can see, they use their "dual nationality" status to get some perks apart from those they enjoy as Americans).

[k2afe]

The native indians on the Mohawk reservation at Nedrow, NY proceeded to block traffic along Interstate 81 at a sectionof the highway that ran through the reservation. The location is approximately 6 miles south of Syracuse, NY In 1997 I was topped at this location by indians that only indicated their displeasure against the NYS government. k2afe

[Gabz]

Here we go again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The state "LOST" money --- how can you lose something you never had to begin with.

If the State of NY had not attacked smokers so fiercely in the wallet, this would be a non-issue.

I would bet good money that if NY were to cut their cigarette tax back a bit from the current $1.50 (+ another $1.50 in NYC) state coffers would see a drastic increase in revenue because non-native residents wouldn't see the need to go to the reservations or the internet or the bootleggers for their smokes as often as they are now.

Better yet - since NY thinks smoking is so bad, they should make the sale, purchase, and/or use of tobacco products illegal immediately. Of course they won't do that because the state is far more addicted to tobacco taxes than any smoker is to their cigarettes.

It is time for New York (and everyone else) to get off the backs of smokers, small businesses and private property owners.

[Mears]

This whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if some of the states didn't overtax cigarettes. They are the most over taxed consumer product in Massachusetts,at $1.50 per pack,and they are actually thinking of adding another $1.00 tax per pack to cigs.

To add insult to injury we have to pay 5% sales tax ON THE CIGARETTE EXCISE TAX.

I just returned from Colorado where the cigarette tax is low,if it exists at all,and there was no sales tax.I would never go to an alternatve source to purchase cigarettes if Mass prices were as low as Colorado's were.