Tsalagi Nation Sends First Congressional Delegate

[Cetacea]

Except Tsalagi rights aren’t based on ethnicity they’re based on recognition of Indian Land as distinct and sovereign under the US Constitution. don’t get the two things mixed up

And you're ability to join a Native American tribe and become governed under tribal sovereignty is determined by.....??

It starts with an E.

Legislation doesn’t start with an E

[Shrillland]

And you're ability to join a Native American tribe and become governed under tribal sovereignty is determined by.....??

It starts with an E.

Legislation doesn’t start with an E

Nor does ancestry.

[Purgatio]

And you're ability to join a Native American tribe and become governed under tribal sovereignty is determined by.....??

It starts with an E.

Legislation doesn’t start with an E

Don't play dumb, you know it was Ethnicity. You have to born into it, someone who isn't Native American can't join a Native American Tribe or Nation by choice or will.

[Ifreann]

Yes. Because violating one’s Constitution makes one look trustworthy.

To your own citizens? Maybe not. To other States? It makes no difference to them, because international treaties are governed by international law, not national law. Breaking these treaties would be a violation of the internal rules of the US legal order, but it would not violate international law, which is all States care about when it comes to inter-State relations. The fact is, the US would not be breaking any international obligation if it flouted these treaties.

Hi. I live outside the United States. When the US government breaks its own laws, especially when it does so to the detriment of its own people, that looks bad. It does not matter to me, nor, I dare say, to anyone, whether that would technically constitute a violation of a treaty,

---

No. It very much does. If one does not follow their own Constitution, how can they be expected to follow through with their international treaties? (Not to mention the terrible precedent this sets up.)

National governments don't care whether other national governments abide by their own internal, national constitutional restrictions. That's a purely domestic and internal affair that is separate from international relations, which are governed by international law. As long as you're not breaking international law, other countries don't care because they know if they ever broke their own internal laws other countries wouldn't care either.

It is hopelessly naive to think that the domestic affairs of a nation do not affect its international standing. And it has nothing to do with the technicalities of international law. No law governs how one set of people view another. You can't regulate opinions. You can't wall off certain information and say "No, you cannot use that, you cannot judge us based on that, those are internal matters, you are not allowed include that when you think about us", not unless you can actually prevent the outside world from learning about it. And even if that wasn't exactly what spies are for, it's 2019, the American people are constantly telling the world about what's going on in America.

---

I see people being able to make their needs known to their government as better than then not. I guess that's a controversial position? Whatever.

Not having representation and token representation aren’t the only options. There’s also full representation.

And that would be great. But it's not realistically likely.

Yet your acting like token representation is it, that’s there’s no other options besides no representation

I'm really not acting like that at all. I'm explaining why it is good to have a representative in Congress, even if they can't vote.

[Loben The 2nd]

To other States, yes. Not to internal communities lacking competency in the eyes of international law to conclude internationalised treaties. At most, this damages trust between the US government and tribal nations.

It would also damage trust between Americans and their government given its a blatant violation of the constitution.

considering how much the constitution means little to the powers that be, does anyone really give a shit?

[Purgatio]

To your own citizens? Maybe not. To other States? It makes no difference to them, because international treaties are governed by international law, not national law. Breaking these treaties would be a violation of the internal rules of the US legal order, but it would not violate international law, which is all States care about when it comes to inter-State relations. The fact is, the US would not be breaking any international obligation if it flouted these treaties.

Hi. I live outside the United States. When the US government breaks its own laws, especially when it does so to the detriment of its own people, that looks bad. It does not matter to me, nor, I dare say, to anyone, whether that would technically constitute a violation of a treaty,

---

National governments don't care whether other national governments abide by their own internal, national constitutional restrictions. That's a purely domestic and internal affair that is separate from international relations, which are governed by international law. As long as you're not breaking international law, other countries don't care because they know if they ever broke their own internal laws other countries wouldn't care either.

It is hopelessly naive to think that the domestic affairs of a nation do not affect its international standing. And it has nothing to do with the technicalities of international law. No law governs how one set of people view another. You can't regulate opinions. You can't wall off certain information and say "No, you cannot use that, you cannot judge us based on that, those are internal matters, you are not allowed include that when you think about us", not unless you can actually prevent the outside world from learning about it. And even if that wasn't exactly what spies are for, it's 2019, the American people are constantly telling the world about what's going on in America.

First part's irrelevant as my argument was that Foreign Ministries and national governments don't care whether other national governments follow their own internal laws or not, I wasn't talking about how it comes across to individual citizens of other nations which isn't relevant for the purposes of international relations.

Secondly, you can't 'wall off' information but I'm telling you now, from personal experience, that Foreign Ministries are pragmatic and they don't care, generally, about the internal affairs of other States within their domestic jurisdiction, what they care about is whether a State abides by its international legal obligations or not because the latter directly affects a State's willingness to abide by future international legal obligations like treaties, whereas internal legal orders are none of a foreign State's concern when it comes to diplomacy.

[Ifreann]

Hi. I live outside the United States. When the US government breaks its own laws, especially when it does so to the detriment of its own people, that looks bad. It does not matter to me, nor, I dare say, to anyone, whether that would technically constitute a violation of a treaty,

---

It is hopelessly naive to think that the domestic affairs of a nation do not affect its international standing. And it has nothing to do with the technicalities of international law. No law governs how one set of people view another. You can't regulate opinions. You can't wall off certain information and say "No, you cannot use that, you cannot judge us based on that, those are internal matters, you are not allowed include that when you think about us", not unless you can actually prevent the outside world from learning about it. And even if that wasn't exactly what spies are for, it's 2019, the American people are constantly telling the world about what's going on in America.

First part's irrelevant as my argument was that Foreign Ministries and national governments don't care whether other national governments follow their own internal laws or not, I wasn't talking about how it comes across to individual citizens of other nations which isn't relevant for the purposes of international relations.

Secondly, you can't 'wall off' information but I'm telling you now, from personal experience, that Foreign Ministries are pragmatic and they don't care, generally, about the internal affairs of other States within their domestic jurisdiction, what they care about is whether a State abides by its international legal obligations or not because the latter directly affects a State's willingness to abide by future international legal obligations like treaties, whereas internal legal orders are none of a foreign State's concern when it comes to diplomacy.

What you are describing is stupidity, not pragmatism. No government trying to figure out how to deal with the Trump administration makes its assessment by ignoring domestic American affairs. How could that possibly benefit them? A pragmatic assessment might conclude "Keep trading with America. The President is a nut, but we'd lose too much money".

[Luziyca]

I wish them the best of luck in having their congressional delegate approved. As a Canadian, it might be an interesting idea to replace our Senate with a body representing indigenous peoples.

[Estanglia]

If the treaties the US signed say that they can send a delegate, they should be allowed to do so.

[Rojava Free State]

This is the least our government can allow after basically running the native Americans into the ground over the last 200 years. I don't think there is any group of people on earth that has suffered the unspeakable horrors the native Americans did. There used to be 100 million people in North America before Columbus came. That population was reduced by 90% due to disease and warfare. When 90% of a population dies, that's a huge drop. I'm glad at least we're finally remembering that some indigenous Americans do still exist