In response to these pressures, the Indian Territory then attempted to turn their territory into a full state (Sequoyah), but this was turned down by Congress, which wanted the Oklahoma and Indian Territories merged into a single state instead. I believe this was motivated by political concerns, but this isn't an area of history I know very well.
It should also be noted that many of the actions the US government took during this time with respect to the Native Americans were flagrantly in violation of laws and treaties that existed, too. Any treaty the US government made with the natives were not worth the paper they were written on.
Governments set laws based upon land areas. This is why we have things like county lines, state lines, city lines, etc.
But these local governments have no jurisdiction over federal land. This is why you can have a federal building in the middle of a city, and that city's laws do not apply to the building, or the land around the building (that's held by the US government).
Native land is technically federal land that's held on behalf of the tribes. And THIS is why local laws don't apply to native land.
It's a common misconception that native american tribes are sovereign. They're considered 'domestic dependent nations', but not sovereign. This is why, for example, the US can limit their ability to issue drivers licenses and travel VISA's.
You seem to be criticizing it in the sense of "exotic", which is a fairly hostile reading.
I don't think "alien" is the most common way to refer to foreign nations, but it's not wrong or rude to my knowledge. Your comment seems uncharitable and insulting though.
If, after being recognized as a separate nation by the United States, they would like to seek entrance to the Union as a separate state, then they can petition Congress for that right, as any other sovereign nation is allowed to do.
I don't think it's technically correct to say that they are subjects of the US government. The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens, and Native Americans are citizens of the United States. But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.
Please help me correct any misunderstandings.
Yes, that is why I made the point that I think they would be best served by granting them fully sovereign status. You can't be granted sovereign status if you're already sovereign. The USA maintains its authority over the cherokee in the same way it maintains authority over certain aspects of the states.
> The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens
Citizens of the US are subject to the laws of the United States. To be subject to a law means that you must follow it under penalty of legal proceedings.
> But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.
This is an overly simplistic view of sovereignty. Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign. They have given up some sovereignty to the federal government, in certain matters, such as international relations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that, according to US federal law, they are to be treated as sovereign entities. This shared sovereignty is the basis of American federalism. The tribes operate under a similar arrangement. The Constitution allows the federal government to enter into treaties with the Indians as if they are foreign governments. The current US policy is to grant them 'tribal sovereignty' which is a half sovereignty enjoyed by the states. However, unlike the states, where they chose deliberately to give up their sovereignty to become part of the United States, the tribes were forced to sign treaties, forcibly uprooted, forcibly slaughtered, etc.
As far as I can find, the constitution does not use the word "sovereign." Can you point me to which clause you're referring to? It's also worth noting that whatever the constitution says, the states are de facto less independent than many envisioned at the turn of the 19th century.
That's exactly what the US is already doing with some of its extraterritorial laws. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorialit%C3%A9_du_dr...
The connotation of alien used here is something that is foreign, unfamiliar, or culturally distinct to a person or nation. Nativeness isn't relevant.
At that point you ask if the differences in sovereignty are worth 2 votes in the Senate and (at least) 1 in the House. I'd argue yes.