[HN Gopher] Native Americans say U.S. does not own land it is ab...
___________________________________________________________________
Native Americans say U.S. does not own land it is about to give to
Rio Tinto
Author : pseudolus
Score : 87 points
Date : 2021-01-14 22:02 UTC (57 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| > Tribal members have also filed a lawsuit seeking to block the
| study's publication.
|
| Hmm, that's kind of a weird step in the process to block via a
| lawsuit. The environmental study really doesn't have anything to
| do with who owns the land. If anything, I would think it would be
| of the Apache's benefit to have the study published. If the
| environment effects of a copper mine are damning which is a
| likely case, then the mine might face significant hurdles anyway.
| beauzero wrote:
| This is how pretty much all of this stuff goes for natural
| resource extraction in western US. Same thing happens for
| timber extraction/runoff/roads, etc. out west. If you want to
| stop it you throw speed bumps in its way and hope that
| administrations change. It is very likely that under Biden the
| EPA/Forest Service/BLM/BIA may have different priorities.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Also infrastructure projects. Environmental lawsuits are used
| to drive up the time and monetary costs until it no longer
| becomes viable.
| leetcrew wrote:
| apparently the land can't change hands until the study is
| published. it's just a delaying tactic while they seek a
| favorable judgement.
| sesuximo wrote:
| Couldn't the govt just use eminent domain?
| [deleted]
| wavefunction wrote:
| On what is a National Forest but apparently legally Apache
| land? That's a fair number of hoops to jump through and
| personally not something I think the US Government should be
| undertaking for a foreign extractive company like Rio Tinto
| with such a checkered record and horrendous reputation.
| 1over137 wrote:
| Does it being a "foreign" company really matter at all?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Nope, because this isn't about simple title, but control by a
| subordinate sovereign whose interest can only be reduced
| voluntarily or by Congressional action.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Native american claims on land are stronger than regular
| property rights. There are treaty provisions and sovereignty
| too. IANAL and perhaps it is possible to override these with
| eminent domain, but it's surely legally and politically harder
| to eminent domain this land than a private owner's.
| _jal wrote:
| Eminent domain doesn't work across sovereign borders. When you
| try, that's called 'invasion'.
| seniorsassycat wrote:
| Eminent domain would require payment for the land right? The
| optics would also be worse - tho not much worse than the
| articles current headlines.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| I believe the right approach is for the US to apply for
| squatter's rights. The land was not otherwise in use, and the US
| has been occupying it for years.
| anonAndOn wrote:
| Isn't that like trying to apply squatter's rights on a piece of
| Canada or Mexico? AFAIK, Apache land is sovereign and only
| managed (not owned) by the US.
| [deleted]
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| I wish I could find the court case, but the gist of it was that
| there was an enormous amount of "public land" in Oklahoma (I
| think) that a court ruled was actually owned by a Native American
| tribe and the deed/land was given to them. Access to the public
| was immediately revoked and multiple casinos were built on the
| part of the land near a lake and closest to the highway that ran
| through the land.
|
| Is this a similar case? Also if anyone has a recollection of what
| I'm referring to, that would be awesome. My search skills are
| failing me.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| Supreme Court Rules That About Half Of Oklahoma Is Native
| American Land : NPR ||
| https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889562040/supreme-court-rules...
|
| Supreme Court recognizes Native sovereignty in much of Oklahoma
| || https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-10-12/supreme-court-
| recogni...
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Thanks! Yeah this is it. I'm still trying to find the other
| details about the case
| [deleted]
| lozaning wrote:
| McGIRT v. OKLAHOMA maybe?
|
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
|
| Half of oklahoma was ruled to be on a reservation somewhat
| recently. Never heard any casino new related to this ruling
| though.
| teawrecks wrote:
| If you google "court declares oklahoma belongs to native
| americans" you'll get dozens of articles about it from 6mo ago.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Thanks yeah, that's definitely the case. I'm trying to find
| the other details regarding the issue of revoking the public
| access and developing areas around some public-access lake
| that was on the land.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| I don't think McGirt v. Oklahoma actually gave ownership of
| the land to Native Americans.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-14 23:00 UTC)