[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)