Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chiseledarrow t1_ivglv98 wrote

Reply to comment by Crom_3 in Native child welfare law faces major Supreme Court challenge by Banemorth

Says the non-native.

−2

hawklost t1_ivgtz23 wrote

Do you think it's ok to segregate children based on their parents race, sexual orientation, religion and/or ancestry?

Because effectively what you are implying is that native children are only OK to be with native parents. Which logically would fit the same with any race or religion argument for segregation of the child.

−4

344dead t1_ivgvzr5 wrote

I think there is more nuance than what you're making out. We committed genocide against natives including taken kids from homes and having them raised by white parents to "take the savage out of them". This wasn't all that long ago too. I'm not saying what is right or wrong here. Just saying there are other factors worth considering.

24

RetardedJoy t1_ivh3mew wrote

If anyone had bothered to read what this case is really about, this excerpt sums it up well enough:

At the core of the disagreement is whether the term “Indian” is a racial or political classification. Those who would repeal the ICWA view “Indian” as a racial classification, and therefore argue the ICWA is racially discriminatory and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. To the contrary, I argue in the following that “Indian” is best interpreted as a political classification for purposes of the ICWA, as evidenced by both the historical context of Indians in the U.S. and the ICWA’s provisions, which manifest congressional intent to protect tribes as political units. Any argument against the ICWA should address “Indian” as a political classification, because to do otherwise is to ignore the major political issue at stake: tribal sovereignty. (Source: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cg

Additional Sources:

Tribes are governments, NOT racial categories; Indian Law Resource Center;

ICWA is being used to undermine tribal sovereignty and self-determination ACLU

14

HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivlency wrote

ICWA is not about race, it is about Citizenship in a tribe.

Should someone from Korea be allowed to adopt a US citizen without consulting the US government?

4

hawklost t1_ivlj6yk wrote

If the child has citizenship in both Korea and the US, yes. They are a child of both nations.

Or would you say it was OK for the US to adopt a child who is of both citizenships in the US but not Korea. Or maybe you would say that that child cannot be adopted at all since it requires consent of both nations.

1

HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivljjli wrote

Saying that both nations need to consent to the adoption is reasonable.

1

hawklost t1_ivlkl88 wrote

And so if one nation says no then the child cannot be adopted at all?

The problem with needing both nations consent is the assumption that both nations will agree.

1

HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivll5cf wrote

They are both approving the selection of adoptive parents, not denying adoption period.

Contrary to popular belief, children are not denied adoptive homes due to ICWA. They simply have family and native homes prioritized. Tribes aprove adoption by non Indian or non family all the time.

And they prioritize white family members over non family members too.

The choice is not this child will not have a home or will be adopted by white couples.

2