Immigration into Indian country “usA” is strictly a Native American imperative no matter what the US government asserts and claims. They use the rule of law like it is the written Gospel. We use the cause of justice which is the essence of the Gospel of the true believer.

The whole idea of the rule of law is to subtly replace and displace the Law of God. It is from the Scriptures that all civil and criminal codes emanate. The roots are the Scriptures. The shoots are the laws of man (rule of law) which needs constant trimming and pruning to remove and discard the diseased and dead amongst it.

THE RIGHTS OF TRIBES IN DEFINING TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP FOR IMMIGRATION MATTERS PREMISED UPON INHERENT TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4, U.S. CONSTITUTION (
(To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States)

By Judge Navin-Chandra Naidu©®℗™

1. Powers of self-government" shall include all governmental powers possessed by an Indian tribe, executive, legislative and judicial, and all offices, bodies, and tribunals by and through which they are executed . . . ." 25 United States Code, § 1301 (2).

2. “But had it been otherwise, and were the right and the propriety ofexercising this power now open to question, yet it is a question for the law-making and political department of the government, and not for the judicial.” U.S. v. William Rogers, 45 U.S. 567, 4 How. 567, 11 L.Ed. 1005 (1846) .

Note: if it is a political question, WHY did the Supreme Court agree to hear the merits of the case involving a white man, adopted by the Cherokee, killing another white man, and claimed tribal jurisdiction to determine his innocence or guilt.

3. a) A tribe’s right to define it’s own membership for tribal purpose has long been recognized as central to it’s existence as an independent political community. A tribe is free to maintain or establish its own form of government. This power is the first element of sovereignty. Tribal government need not mirror the U.S. government but, rather, may reflect the tribe’s determination as to what form best fits its needs based on practical, cultural, historical or religious considerations.

Smith v. Babbitt, 875 F.Supp. 1353,1360 (D. Minn. 1995);

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez 436 U.S. 49, 72, n.32 (1978);

United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 322 n. 18 (1978);

Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S. 218 (1897)

Cherokee Intermarriage Cases, 203 U.S. 76 (1906);

Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F. 2nd 131 (10th Cir. 1959)

Chapoose v. Clark, 607 F. Supp 1027 d. Utah 1985 aff’d 831, Fed 931 (10th Cir. 1987)\

b) A tribe may determine who are to be considered members by written law, custom, intertribal agreement, or treaty with the United States:

Delaware Indians v. Cherokee Nation, 193 U.S. 127 (1904). In fact, the concept of formal enrollment has no counterpart in traditional tribal views of membership. See Carole Goldberg-Ambrose, Of Native Americans and Tribal Members: The Influence of Law on Indian GroupLife, 28 Law & Society Rev. 1123 (1994);

In Waldron v. United States, 143 F. 413 (C.C.D.S.D. 1905), the Court held that the decision of the Dept of Interior refusing to acknowledge a woman’s tribal membership was contrary to law, which required deference to the customs and usages of the tribe.

4. The power to take away tribal membership

Roff v. Burney, 168 US 218 (1897);

Estate of Antoine (Ke Nape) Hill, IBIA 78-15 (7 Indian L. Rep. 5075) (1980)

5. The right to adopt and confirm membership and use of tribal property.

Cherokee Intermarriages cases, 203 U.S. 76 (1906)

6. Dual citizenship – U.S. citizenship and Indian citizenship requirement accepted under our constitutional framework: US v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916) – however In re Heff, 197 U.S. 488 (1905) the Supreme Court held otherwise. Nice overruled Heff.

7. Power of Congress over Federal Indian affairs is supreme. Federal Indian treaties and statutes do not need state approval before becoming the supreme law of the land.

Dick v. U.S., 208 U.S. 340 (1908);

Winters v. U.S., 207 U.S. 564 (1908)

8. If a state did not exist when a treaty or law went into effect, that state must obey the treaty or law. That state is mandated to honor hunting, fishing and water rights given by the Federal government to Indians before a territory became a state.

Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 US 392 (1968)

If a tribe existed at the time the Constitution was adopted or was recognized later, Congress can continue to legislate with regard to descendants of that tribe, even if the tribe no longer continues to exist as a governmental unit for federal purposes. Many federal laws are premised on this principle. United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 649-650 (1978).

9. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 372(a) Mandates that adoption matters of a judge or decree of an Indian court is acceptable and recognized and adoption by Indian custom made prior to the effective date of this section is valid.

10. Tribal civil law is usually supreme in matters concerning the personal and domestic relations of Indians such as guardianship inheritance and testamentary disposition.

Woodin v. Seeley, 141 Misc. 207, 252 N.Y. Supp. 818, 823 (1931)

11. We have two sovereignties deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory... each government, in determining what shall be an offence against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.

U.S. v. Canza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922);

12. Indians have the right to withdraw from their tribe and live apart.

Standing Bear v. Crook (1879); Zarr v. Barlow, 800 F.2d 1484 (9th Cir. 1986) – invalidating BIA’s regulations requiring one-fourth ancestry requirement for eligibility for higher educational funds as not authorized by applicable laws); Malone v. BIA, 38 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 1994) (invalidating BIA formal rule on eligibility for lack of compliance with formal notice and proper procedures).

13. Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, (1990): Indian tribes have no authority to try non-Indians for criminal acts. 1991 Congress amended ICRA (25 USC Sec. 1301) and gave Indians the right and authority to try non-Indians for crimes. The “Duro Fix.”

14. “They were, and always have been, regarded as having a semi-independent position when they preserved their tribal relations; not as states, not as nations, not as possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty, but as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or of the state within whose limits they resided.”

Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F. 2nd 131 (10th Cir. 1959);

Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Res., 8 Cir., 231 F.2d 89;

Ex parte Crow Dog. 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030;

Barta v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Res., 8 Cir., 259 F.2d 553;

United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 300 U.S. 506. 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894;

Toledo v. Pueblo De Jemez, D.C., 119 F.Supp. 429;

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376, 377, 16 S.Ct. 986, 41 L.Ed. 196;

Adams v. Murphy, 8 Cir., 165 F. 304;

Thebo v. Choctaw Tribe of Indians, 8 Cir., 66 F. 372

15. “[F]ederal legislation with respect to Indian tribes, although relating to Indians as such, is not based upon impermissible racial classifications. Quite the contrary, classifications expressly singling out Indian tribes as subjects of legislation are expressly provided for in the Constitution and supported by the ensuing history of the Federal Government's relations with Indians.

[S]uch regulation is rooted in the unique status of Indians as a separate people with their own political institutions. Federal regulation of Indian tribes, therefore, is governance of once-sovereign political communities; it is not to be viewed as legislation of a racial group consisting of Indians. “United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 646 (1977)

16. Unlawful aliens have long been recognized as persons guaranteed 5th & 14th Amendments due process of law:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)

Wong Wing v. U.S., 16 S.Ct.977 (1896)

Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 73 S.Ct. 625 (1953)

Mathews v. Diaz, 96 S.Ct./ 1883 (1976)

Plyler v. Doe, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (1982)

17. These “unlawful aliens” can be adopted or admitted as Enrolled Tribal Members under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968; and the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1994. When federal courts pretend to tax their minds over this issue they usually shove it aside and say this is a “political question” which only the legislature or the president can solve. But, in hundreds of cases, these federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, have interfered in political matters. As Associate Justice Stephen Breyer says in his book Making Our Democracy Work, “ a court that acts “politically” plays with fire.” (at page 45)

18. If an individual is recognized as an Indian by the individual’s tribe or community, he satisfies the criterion of being an Indian.

United States v. A.W.L. 117 F. 3d 1423 (8th Cir. 1997); Ex parte Pero, 99 F.2d 28 (7th Cir. 1938); United Stets v. Rogers, 45 U.S. 567, 572-573 (1846).

19. Act of 2 June 1924, 43 Stat. 253 (Indian Naturalization Act) – Citizenship is not inconsistent with continued tribal self-government – Tribal rights are not diminished or extinguished with American citizenship. U.S. v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591, 598 (1916); Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373, 391-92 (1921); Board of Commissioners of Creek County v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705 (1943); Hallowell v. U.S., 221 U.S. 317, 324 (1911).

20. STOP PRESS: After Sergio Garcia, an “illegal undocumented alien” was allowed to practice law in the State of California after having passed the California bar examinations, I think we have great hope and promise for issuing qualified persons with Enrolled Tribal Membership status. See the judgment from the California Supreme Court ISSUED IN JANUARY 2014.

Prepared by Judge Silver Cloud Musafir (Navin-Chandra Naidu) of the Yamassee Muscogee Tribe, January 7, 2014.

1