Indigenous peoples can live as separate peoples in liberation, peace, and security. Tribes also possess fundamental collective human rights. NARF focuses on upholding legal requirements for equal protection and freedom from job discrimination, voting, schooling, and religion. Following are some strategies for addressing Indian citizens’ unique status, ways in which the fundamental right of Indians adheres, the practice of civil rights, the right to ownership of water, the right to be allowed to participate in gaming, and the need to protect children’s welfare.
The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental freedoms that safeguard human life. Indians have enmeshed ownership rights and assets for which the US is obligated. The liberty to engage in any vocation, the right to free speech, the right to an unrestricted right to peaceful assembly, the right to association, the right to freedom of movement within their own country, and the right to live and work anywhere in India are all examples of civil rights. The Indian Casino Regulatory Act, a federal law of the United States, established a governmental structure governing Indian gaming. At last, looking The National Indian Child Protection Association assists tribal communities in developing the capacity to prevent abuse and neglect through their families, communities, and cultures.
Indian Hunting Right
Although the federal government did not end a tribe’s hunting for the original reservation area, they may still have hunting rights when their reserve has been significantly reduced. Native Americans’ off-reservation rights have been criticized by state environmental agencies on the basis that excessive hunting can jeopardize the protection of wildlife species. Even though these places are on private property, the Supreme Court has recognized the off-reservation hunting privileges given by a treaty. The Court has also ruled against the registration of Native Americans to obtain hunting licenses in treaty-designated regions. Three cases involving the Indian group’s hunting privileges were examined by the Supreme Court (Neier, 2020).
The first ruling stated that as long as there was no discrimination, the state’s interest in protecting wildlife permitted it to control members’ hunting activities. The idea of a fair distribution of hunting between Native Americans and non-Native Americans was at issue in the second case. According to the ruling of the court, a fair apportionment entails that tribes having treaty hunting rights are entitled to a specific amount of hunting.
The Supreme Court determined that treaty rights only ensure a quantity of hunt that is necessary to sustain a tribe’s moderate standard of living, not more than that amount, and set the upper limit for a fair allocation at 50 percent. According to the Court, tribal hunting on reservations could be included in the calculation of each party’s hunt share. Following the cases and subsequent rulings, states are not permitted to limit tribe rights to hunt unless they can demonstrate that the restriction is fair and necessary for conservation purposes and that it also applies to Native Americans. There must be any discrimination against Native Americans in any laws. States may, however, establish neutral, purely regulatory limitations that are essential for conservation, such as those that affect the manner and timing of hunting off reservations.
Indian Water Right
For Indian communities and the members of those tribes to grow economically, culturally, and spiritually, water is a necessity. Negotiations necessary for economic settle Indian water rights as opposed to litigation regarding a Ministry of the Interior policy. In addition to gaining access to water through facilities and other associated costs, these agreements allow tribes to measure their water rights on paper. States, water localities, and individual water users participated in the settlement negotiations. The Gila River Indian Community successfully negotiated and won congressional approval for one of the largest settlements for Indian water rights claims in American history. The settlement also met the tribe’s future and current water needs by securing the necessary water supply.
The Rancho California Water District, the Eastern Municipal Water District, and the Metropolitan Water District were all parties to the comprehensive settlement agreement negotiated on behalf of Pechanga. Pechanga received water rights under settlements equivalent to those outlined in the federal court’s initial ruling on the tribe. The accord and federal policy protecting Lake Meade’s water levels resulted from extensive negotiations involving parties from Arizona, New Mexico, and California (Yardas, 2019). The settlement supplied 5.5 million acres of agriculture with irrigation, 40 million Americans with drinking water, and communities throughout the American West with more than 4,000 megawatts of carbon-free hydropower.
Water shortages and a lack of federal funding for water settlements affect all Indian communities. The financing opportunities, the measures considered in Congress, and the significance as they ensure that the interests of the tribes are represented by the offices of the appropriate members of the U.S. In additionally, with a thorough awareness of the intricacies of water law, as well as a wealth of experience in issues has involved in the Restoration of Water Settlements Fund and in the critical business concerns that have an impact on Indian water rights.
Civil Rights and Unique Status of Certain Indian Groups
Due to their dual citizenship, American Indians have a special connection with the American government. This interaction about legislation about the protection of civil rights. Indians born in the nation were granted citizenship under the Indian Citizenship Act. Many Native Americans’ citizenship status was unclear before the Citizenship Act. Before the Civil War, persons with half or less of Indian heritage were not eligible for citizenship.
Native Americans were only given citizenship in certain situations, such as marriage to a citizen of the United States, military service, or through treaties. The Voting Rights Act forbade segregation based on race and color, and its 1975 extension gave language minorities more protection and support. This measure was necessary because, despite Indians being eligible to vote under the Indian Citizenship Act, several states still imposed poll taxes and literacy tests as voting restrictions.
After Congress heard testimony about the power of Indian tribes and found instances of abuse by the tribal governments, the Indian Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1968. The statute is frequently referred to as the “Indian Bill of Rights” because parts of the law match the Bill of Rights; it provides some but not all rights. Congress’s attempt to strike a balance between upholding American Indians’ civil rights and respecting the authority of tribal governments may be seen in the Indian Civil Rights Act. As a Native American advocacy organization, the American Indian Movement was established in 1968. It raised awareness of racism, living circumstances, and treaty rights.
The 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act permits government organizations to work with Indian tribes on contracts and delegate management of the monies to the tribes. The Religious Freedom Act of 1978 was passed to safeguard the traditional religious freedoms of American Indians and the use and possession of holy objects. Therefore, it is an agreement that American Indians have special rights as dual citizens.
Indian Gaming
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act established the National Indian Gambling Association as the legal foundation for Indian gambling in the United States. As a way to raise money for their tribal governments, many Indian tribes have started to engage in gaming activities on their grounds. According to federal courts that have determined that section 81 of this title mandates a Secretarial review of management contracts, including Indian gambling, one of the fundamental goals of national Indian policy is to promote tribal economic development, ethnic self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.
For instance, gambling is practiced in a State that does not prevent it as a matter of criminal law and public opinion. In that circumstance, the exclusive authority to regulate gaming on Indian lands belongs to the Indian tribes. The formation of independent Federal compliance jurisdiction for gambling on Indian territory and the development of Federal gambling standards are policies that Indians have adopted. (Jorgenson, 2020). Several Indian gaming strategies are listed below, including how to give strong tribal governments, self-sufficiency, and cultural and economic progress a legal foundation. Establish a legal framework that enables an Indian tribe to regulate gambling while safeguarding it from organized crime and other compromising factors.
Indian Child Welfare
The removal and relocation of American Indian children outside of their homes are governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, a federal statute. After observing the removal of American Indian children from their homes and communities at a considerably higher rate than non-Native children, the federal government passed the ordinance. To safeguard the best concerns of Native American children and maintain their ties to their families, the law set Federal standards for the abduction and disposition of Native children and the dissolution of parental rights (Barker et al., 2019).
Following the practice of habitually removing Native American children and placing them with non-Native families —often without any indication of abuse or neglect, which would constitute grounds for removal—the child welfare act was passed. For instance, it makes clear that Tribes have exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over their members who live on Tribal land and sets a procedure for shifting cases to Tribal court in other circumstances. The law is one of the most critical components in protecting the traditions and rights of American Indian and Alaska Native children and families.
Conclusion
Therefore, having looked at how fundamental right is practiced and abused, people understand that every country and commission should ensure that their fellow citizens are free from an abusive life. The right to ownership of water is an essential basic requirement in homes. The civil right that every citizen should be allowed to practice irrespective of their color, where everyone should have the privilege of full participation in where they live. Right to enjoy gaming either in the traditional way or as part of making money. Finally, the children’s welfare act should be adhered to protect every child’s rights since they must stay with their parents or even enjoy their place of schooling.
References
Barker, B., Sedgemore, K., Tourangeau, M., Lagimodiere, L., Milloy, J., Dong, H., Hayashi, K., Shoveller, J., Kerr, T., & DeBeck, K. (2019). Intergenerational trauma: The relationship between residential schools and the child welfare system among young people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 248–254. Web.
Jorgenson, J. G. (2020). Gaming and recent American Indian economic development. American Nations, 468-479. Web.
Neier, A. (2020). The international human rights movement: A history. Princeton University Press.
Yardas, D. (2019). Water transfers, paper rights, and the Truckee-Carson settlement. Indian Water in the New West, pp. 195-206. Web.