The territory is "owned" by the tribe(s) although that ownership is subjugated by federal (not state) interests.
Imagine if MA tried to claim that RI was really part of its territory. Eventually, the case reaches the Supreme Court, which rules that in fact RI is actually its own thing. MA has no jurisdiction to prosecute in RI, but the federal government still does.
Except that eastern OK is a lot larger than RI, and the origins of the reservation there are much darker and wrapped up in the appalling treatment of indigenous people.
I'm really not trying to discuss the legality of it.
However, that analogy does not match up with what I read.
>The first is that going forward, certain major crimes committed within the boundaries of reservations must be prosecuted in federal court rather than state court, if a Native American is involved. So if a Native American is accused of a major crime in downtown Tulsa, the federal government rather than the state government will prosecute it. Less serious crimes involving Native Americans on American Indian land will be handled in tribal courts. This arrangement is already common in Western states like Arizona, New Mexico and Montana, said Washburn.
So it's not the territory that determines jurisdiction, but citizenship. In other words, based on who you are not where you are.
Some of the Pueblo communities close to where I live (Santa Fe) do in fact claim jurisdiction over visitors on their land. There are large roadside signs notifying you of this as you cross into their territory.
The fact that this may not be true is almost certainly just the result of the federal government saying it isn't true, rather than anything to do with the desire of the various tribes.
In most countries, if you're an overseas visitor, you're subject to the law of the country you are in (though they may simply deport you pre or post trial). The fact that this is not (always) true for indian reservations likely reflects the fears of non-indian people rather than the desire of indians.
Imagine if MA tried to claim that RI was really part of its territory. Eventually, the case reaches the Supreme Court, which rules that in fact RI is actually its own thing. MA has no jurisdiction to prosecute in RI, but the federal government still does.
Except that eastern OK is a lot larger than RI, and the origins of the reservation there are much darker and wrapped up in the appalling treatment of indigenous people.
reply