Tohono Affirmative – ddi 2015 sws



Download 0.73 Mb.
Page15/23
Date conversion15.05.2018
Size0.73 Mb.
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   23

Consult the Natives


NOTES: Cross X, ask who is consulted, make them say the tribal government

1. Consult Counterplans are illegitimate and a voting issue:

A) Infinitely regressive: they could consult anyone—making the AFF burden impossible.

B) Moving target: the effect of the counterplan changes with the answer the tribes give—making this undebatable.

2. The tribe’s decision would be meaningless – they’re not given time to decide


Ruscavage-Barz, 7 (Samantha, Samantha M. Ruscavage-Barz is a J.D. candidate at the University of New Mexico School of Law graduating in May 2008. Dr. Ruscavage-Barz has a Ph.D. in Anthropology (Archaeology specialization) and worked as an archaeologist for federal and state government, and also in the private sector, before entering law school. http://lawschool.unm.edu/nrj/volumes/47/4/08_ruscavage_barz_efficacy.pdf. The Efficacy of State Law in Protecting Native American Sacred Places: A Case Study of the Paseo Del Norte Extension, Natural Resources Journal. Fall 2007, Acessed 26 July 2015)TB

The City made its final appearance at the December 2005 CPRC meeting to present a progress report on its consultations with the Jicarilla Apache Nation, whose representatives also attended the meeting and provided comments on the mixed results of the tribal consultation process. A tribal representative voiced her concern with the December 21 deadline for completion of consultation, which the Tribe believed rendered consultations "'meaningless'" because it left little to no time to consider alternatives to relocating the petroglyphs and the City was unwilling to compromise with respect to modifying the extension alignment. n113

3. Perm do the aff and consult the natives. Our ev indicates that the natives want the plan, so functionally the perm is the same as the CP

4. Consultation will fail – tribes like the Tohono lack resources to send a representative to advocate for them. Even if consultation succeeds, it will be conducted in a non-native way, turns the CP.


USCCR, 4 (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. September, 2004. Broken Promises: Evaluating the Native American Health Care System, http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=ind6648&DataType=Indian&WinType=Free.)TB

While the tribal consultation policy calls for effective and meaningful participation of tribes and individual Native Americans, the policy lacks a measure to assess the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the tribal consultation and participation. Tribes vary in size, resources, health needs, and expertise in health policies. While larger tribes with more resources hire representatives and experts to study the impact of IHS policy on their tribes and to best present their views, some of the small tribes lack the resources and expertise necessary to represent their issues and concerns. [236] One tribal representative stated that while IHS frequently "invites" tribes to consultative meetings and sessions, unless travel is fully funded, many small tribes and some large ones cannot afford to send representatives. [237] Another tribal representative expressed the frustration that tribal consultation is often "one-sided" and structured in a "non-Native" way, without respect to the Native culture. [238] According to one tribal representative, the sheer number of tribes nationally can create logistical difficulty in tribal consultation. [239] Another tribal representative added that while IHS is better at considering tribal views than other federal agencies, IHS tribal consultation does not equate to responsiveness. [240] He stated that because of distance and revenue, small tribes have a disadvantage when it comes to consultation. 

5. Solvency deficit – If natives say no, they solve a very small percentage of the aff – physical violence will still exist AND Tohono still won’t be able to access their cultural sites.

6. Perm do the aff then the CP – the USFG does NOT belong on native lands – that is undebateable. The most important this is that we leave the places we don’t belong. If the Tohono want us back, that’s up to them.


Umich, no date (University of Michigan. “Claiming Native American Land.” A Unit of the Arts of Citizenship Program at Umich. No date. http://www.umich.edu/~bhlumrec/programs_centers/artsofcitizenshipprogram/www.artsofcitizenship.umich.edu/sos/topics/native/claiming.html)//TB

Perhaps nothing illustrates the sentiments in Will E. Hampton's Poem, The Indian more effectively than the long history of how Native Americans lost their land. Before the arrival of Columbus to the American continent, Native Americans roamed freely across not only all of Michigan, but the rest of the United States as well. But from the moment Americans first ventured into Michigan the U. S. government endeavored to obtain native land. As early as 1807, when the first treaty was signed, the government began forcing native chiefs to sign treaties that ceded parts of their land for white settlement. This process lasted well into the twentieth century, and Native American land claims across the country, including some in Michigan, have still not been settled. One of the most significant events in the early history of land relations was the War of 1812. When the War of 1812 ended in 1815, tribal chiefs were forced to sign treaties with the U. S. government giving up significant amounts of land. These treaties promised to return those parts of Native American land that had been seized during the war. However, America broke this treaty, and no land was ever returned.


7. Tradeoff DA – consultation gets bogged down in legal semantics, killing indigenous activism.


Rodríguez-Garavito, 10 (César. "Ethnicity.gov: Global Governance, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Prior Consultation in Social Minefields." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18.1 (2011): 263-305. Web. 1 Aug. 2015. .)

Thereafter, the phrase repeated in the presentation is “prior consultation.” Its effect is magnified because it is one of the few Spanish terms—along with others, such as Corte Constitucional (Constitutional Court), sentencia (ruling), and gobierno (government)—that sprinkle the remarks of participants who only speak Embera. At this point, it is clear that the talk has turned into a legal memorandum. The speaker, a leader who has braved death sentences from the paramilitaries and the guerillas for nearly a decade to defend his people, stumbles uncertainly into the terrain of legal procedure: how to prove the dam has caused harm to Embera communities; which court to bring a new case before in order to suspend the government and the company’s plans to enlarge the dam; what is the status of the last legal action presented by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) that represents them; who is the indigenous people’s legal representative in the approaching prior consultation procedure; how to make use during these ensuing procedures of the Constitutional Court’s judgment6 and the report by the ILO committee, 7which both condemned the Colombian government for authorizing the construction of the Urrá dam without consulting the Embera. These legal artifacts—the succession of procedural deadlines, the architecture of laws and decisions, the affirmation of equality between parties to a case—are precisely what generate the illusion of order, and in turn, make us forget for a moment that we are in the heart of the chaos. Thereafter, we get stuck in a long discussion about prior consultation’s technicalities, as if death squads were not patrolling just a few kilometers away, as if the territory were not littered with landmines, as if all of the few families in attendance did not have some member who had been assassinated or forcibly displaced, as if we had not crossed paths along the river with speedboats that were driven by fully armed soldiers, who play cat and mouse with the settlers that transport coca downriver.


8. Consultation doesn’t solve the net benefit – limited leverage makes it impossible for indigenous people to preserve their culture.


Rodríguez-Garavito, 10 (César. "Ethnicity.gov: Global Governance, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Prior Consultation in Social Minefields." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18.1 (2011): 263-305. Web. 1 Aug. 2015. .)

In the absence of strict procedural standards and effective monitoring mechanisms and sanctions, the version of FPIC endorsed in multilateral bank directives and TNC codes of conduct embodies the two principal limitations of the governance paradigm mentioned earlier. On the one hand, the lack of procedural guarantees to mitigate the profound power asymmetries among indigenous communities, corporations, and states render consultation a form of participation in which indigenous peoples have limited negotiating leverage and even more limited decision-making power. On the other hand, the absence of effective and functional monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms is reminiscent of the preference for self-regulation inherent in governance’s approach, which accounts for the ineffectiveness of operational policies and voluntary standards recognizing the duty to consult indigenous peoples. Similar limitations are apparent in the version of consultation incorporated into legislation in the majority of states that have ratified Convention 169.87 As a result, this dominant version of FPIC and this interpretation of Convention 169 are central pieces of what Hale calls “neoliberal multiculturalism,” which is the legal regime that recognizes cultural rights, but denies, de facto or de jure, “the assertion of control over resources necessary for those rights to be realized.”88 It is the type of multiculturalism and consultation that is today prevalent even in those Latin American countries that have joined the wave of multicultural constitutionalism and ethno-development, without addressing the structural causes of indigenous peoples’ exclusion or establishing forms of participation with decision-making power.89


9. The aff solves any future disadvantages of state interevention on Tohono territory, o/w the net benefit.

10. No net benefit – the Tohono HAVE been consulted, just not by the USFG. Their ev gives no reason why USFG consultation is key. The 1ac cites Tohono and they overwhelmingly support the plan.

11. The CP delays the inevitable “yes” vote to remove the border patrol from the land. This is used by the state as a colonial tool. The consultation only serves to push back the ceasing of border surveillance until the issue is out of people’s minds – turns the net benefit

12. Consulting Tohono Tribal Government is a terrible idea, it has historically not represented what the tribe wants as a whole.


Redwood Curtain Copwatch no date (based in the north coast of California, is part of a larger movement of self organized CopWatch groups throughout the US. Our local efforts seek to intervene in the drastic rise of the presence, militarization, and violence of the police, and build support networks based on self-determination, caring, and concrete needs, Author is a Tohono Activist that wishes to remain anonymous, “This Is O'odham Land: No Borders! Free Movement! Indigenous/Migrant Solidarity!,” http://redwoodcurtaincopwatch.net/node/446) CH

Congress mandated that Border Patrol secure the borders and enabled their jurisdiction to override local, state and tribal jurisdiction. Agents would now patrol the sovereign nation of Tohono O'odham, with or without the permission from the Tohono O'odham Nation tribal government (TON). I like to note, TON is the BIA recognized governing body of the Tohono O'odham people , that was established by the Indian Recognition Act of 1934 (IRA). Since its conception, the legitimacy of this body has been called into question by the the traditional people of the community. Many Traditional O'odham and parts of the community feel that TON decisions do not speak for the community as a whole. Congresses border mandates would now reflect such disconnect with TON and “its” members. TON lack of effort to enforce sovereignty, or realization that they don't really have any sovereign rights under IRA would would soon come to light with the O'odham peoples struggle to maintain autonomy in its everyday affairs. The split between TON and the traditional O'odham is not new, but would sadly play out in the struggles to come. True sovereignty over Tohono O'odham lands would not allow the many negative policies to come. But regardless of sovereignty, or lack of it, Congresses approvals of evaluated enforcement greatly attacked the Tohono O'odham people's autonomy of free movement and right to culture. Indigenous people along the border were feeling the effects of Congress's Plenary Power to impose its jurisdiction over their BIA tribal nation government and their inherit autonomy of as indigenous people


1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   23


The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page