Native American Federal Recognition

Section 1

The indigenous American populations are not a homogenous group, but members of several nations with different social, cultural, linguistic and economic characteristics. While some natives assimilated and converted to Christianity, some have maintained traditional religious practices and spirituality. The territory that comprises the state of Virginia was the home to Native Americans before foreign settlers came in and occupied the country ( McCulloch & Wilkins, 1995) . Native Americans inhabited the expansive territory that is now known as the Americans years before Christopher Columbus stepped foot in the lands. They were the first inhabitants of the land and needed to be respected in their properties. The population of Native Americans has since diminished in size and territory today as they continue to face discrimination following the arrival of foreign settlers. Their woes have been mostly attributed to the different policies enacted by the federal government of the United States.

Several policies exist governing Native American communities and tribes since independence in 1776. These policies have been enacted and changed over the years regarding the sovereignty of Indian tribes and their federal recognition ( Wilkins & Lomawaima, 2001). An examination of the different policies guiding Native Americans over the years reveals how they have fluctuated between supporting and discriminating against the rights and sovereignty of Indigenous tribes. These laws were continually changing to dictate how natives related to the federal government.

The policy for Native Americans is to recognize their existence and give them rights like any other American citizen. This policy provided a framework for determining how tribal governments related to the federal government and its recognition status ( Myers, 2001) . It presented a structure for examining nation-to-nation interactions between the federal and tribal governments while recognizing the need for the sovereignty of the tribal governments. In this policy, the federal government recognized the independence of tribal groups and their right for self-determination due to their unique position in the land ( Wilkins & Lomawaima, 2001) . This applies in several constitutional rights such as self-governance, control of resources, among others.

Under the Native American Policy, the federal government is required to recognize and respect the right of tribal governments to manage resources on their territory. It also touches on the areas of culture and religion, where they are allowed to exercise their cultural and traditional activities without any hindrances ( Seielstad, 2001) . Most Native Americans do not have the same rights as other Americans. Native Americans have continued to live in poverty in contrast to other communities with a relatively low-wealth population. They are economically depressed with high unemployment and lower rates of homeownership. There is a possibility that natives ate disadvantaged in getting employment due to their lower level of facility with English

The US constitution and form of government was largely influenced by the Native American tribes. The US founding fathers borrowed from the Iroquois form of government when forming the 13 colonies after independence ( Fletcher, 2006) . As such, the federal system of government was influenced by the Native Americans who were governed by a highly sophisticated method of government. At the same time, the American foreign policy started when the early US government saw various Native American nations as sovereign states with economic and political systems ( McCulloch & Wilkins, 1995) . However, as the population grew, the government changed its position, causing large scale removal of indigenous people from their ancestral homelands.

While the first president believed firmly in the rights of Native Americans, the subsequent governments have continued to suppress them in their ancestral lands. The removal of Native people from the land for farming and other natural resources was a violation of their rights to owning ancestral lands. George Washington promised to protect indigenous groups while still looking to assimilate them into the mainstream society. However, the influx of settlers from the western frontier was the beginning of violating Native American rights as they controlled the national agenda regarding the indigenous lands ( Lightfoot et al., 2013) .

The Native American Policy is an irregularity in the US legal system that was enacted by government officials who failed to recognize some native tribes federally. This means native tribes such as Lumbee had a constant burden of justifying their identity as natives ( McCulloch & Wilkins, 1995) . Native Americans are being forced to prove their identity to the US government, with the federal government forcing them into reservations and redistributing their land. The members of native tribes now have to use historical census documents and base rolls to prove their identity as Indians before they can be recognized by the federal government. Natives of the mixed-race due to intermarriages between the natives and other groups have to constantly explain their identity and background, or they risk being kicked out of the tribe and lose out on the benefits accorded to the natives ( Horse, 2005) .

Another policy for Native Americans was the assimilation policy that focused on eradicating the cultural traditions and bring them into western culture. The policy was passed that mandated law enforcement officers to dissolve all indigenous groups registered legal entities and distribute their lands to other non-Indian owners. An era of forced assimilation happened between 1870 and 1930 when the government enforced the assimilation among all tribal communities by taking their children to boarding school ( Seielstad, 2001) . This assimilation process was enacted by authorizing the BIA to divide up all Indian lands into allotments and give them to individuals, who then become US citizens. They later sold Indian tribal lands to non-Indians when natives failed to pay taxes on their property. This decision led to economic disaster for the Native Americans as they lost control of their lands as well as a sovereignty (Quinn, 1990).

Termination policies were later implemented as part of the assimilation process when the house vote to terminate the recognition of tribal groups in the country. This termination policy was a violation of Native American rights to sovereignty and destroyed the economic base of native tribes. It diminished tribal sovereignty by allowing state governments to expand their jurisdictions into the tribal communities ( Wilkins & Lomawaima, 2001) . The government also tried to terminate its relationship with native people by selling their land and disbanding the tribes.

The Native American civil rights are the rights of Native Americans that allowed Native Americans to enjoy constitutional rights and restore self-determination. This was a turnaround by the federal government to back a tribal government. The natives have faced decades of discrimination that includes taking their land and forcing them to become sharecroppers and have continued to struggle from a long history of discrimination ( Seielstad, 2001) . Despite the discrimination, Native Americans have proven resilient in the country, and have consistently contributed to the American culture. Therefore, the civil rights policy for Native Americans was enacted to ensure Indian tribes enjoy the same rights as other Americans.

The Indian Reorganization Act is another law governing indigenous people in America, granting rights and benefits if they can prove to have one-half or more of the blood (Quinn, 1990). However, despite this law, natives have been struggling to win recognition with perceptions that they are not members of the indigenous tribes. For example, individuals who intermarried with other racial groups could not be recognized when dividing up reservations and providing land allotments to Indians. The tribes have continued to fight for recognition from the federal government, which refuses to acknowledge them as indigenous people of America ( Lightfoot et al., 2013) . This lack of attention means they have to struggle for fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to vote. In other instances, the government recognized the native tribes, yet prohibited them from receiving any benefits offered to other tribes, including health, housing, and educational benefits. They could also not form their police, build resources on their land or protect their areas and children.

Therefore, there have been steps made towards political reconciliation for Indian tribes, but they are not enough to recognize their human rights. There are areas of the federal-native relationship that is still of concern for the United States ( Fletcher, 2006) . The government has been engaging in assimilating the natives into the US culture by removing native children from their families intending to eradicate the culture. This has been a considerable problem in recognizing the existence and identity of Natives in the country as the government looks towards assimilating them into the larger American society ( Horse, 2005) . This plan for assimilation is nonsensical considering the contribution that the Native Americans have done to the culture and the entire identity of the United States. The Natives have contributed to every form of culture, democracy, linguistics, as well as the form of governance used in the United States. In this regard, there is a need for policy formulation that recognizes the identity of native tribes and respect their existence as opposed to trying to eradicate their culture ( Horse, 2005) .

The country has failed its native citizens in the areas of moral, legal and political duties and obligations ( Seielstad, 2001) . The natives lack the rights accorded to other communities that include freedom of voting. Therefore, it makes little sense for the government to plan in assimilating the native cultures into mainstream American society. The idea is to implement a recognition policy that benefits both the federal government and the tribes. Effective communication with Native tribe governments that are based on mutual respect and understanding is the first step in recognizing the tribes in America.

Section 2

Policies are government actions developed and implemented as an approach in solving a public problem in the society. The purpose of public policy is to help the federal and state government in solving public problems and protect citizen's rights ( Birkland, 2015).  This course has introduced many ideas and concepts that form important elements of the policymaking process. Understanding the elements of the policymaking process is crucial in coming up with a viable and feasible policy that helps the community. There are several aspects involved in the policymaking process for government action hat describe the process from inception to conclusion.

The process of policymaking starts with defining the problem and how it affects the current system through agenda building. This entails calling a current issue to the attention of the government that requires serious government. Many problems are existing in the United States, but few make it into the public policy agenda to be considered for addressing ( Gerston, 2014) . The problem here is the federal recognition of Native American human rights, which can be solved through policy implementation. The discrimination and lack of equal rights for Native Americans is a problem that gets into the public spotlight and is forced into the policy agenda. This problem requires government action as it touches on the issues of human rights and respecting the influence of natives to the United States ( Myers, 2001).

The second element is analyzing how this problem can be fixed, having identified its effect on some community and culture. This is the policy formulation phase that entails proposing solutions to the problem. The formulation is when the policies are created by looking for a viable solution to the identified social issue ( Gerston, 2014) . It is mostly conducted by congress, the executive branch or interest groups. The formulation stage entails analyzing the available choices for resolving the agenda items, which can include contradictory proposals to the problem. It is mostly carried out by policymakers such as activists, lobbyists or politicians who identify the most effective policies and governmental authorizations. In this case, the available solutions for the identified problem are a recognition policy that respects the human rights of the natives. After analyzing and discussing the approaches and how they can solve the problem in the most efficient way possible, the policy moves to the adoption stage of policymaking ( Gerston, 2014) . The policies must be socially, economically and politically feasible and ensure it has tangible outcomes.

After analyzing the problem, the next step is to adopt the solutions by bringing the policy into action through legislation. In this phase, the government bodies take the policy for future implementation using a legislative decision ( Birkland, 2015) . The president of the United States is mostly involved in initiating the policy adoption process before they are put into effect. Governors and mayors of specific states can also adopt policies to bring about change at a state or local level. At the same time, adoption involves presenting the bill before the congress to discuss and enact it into law.

Another element of policy-making step is the implementation phase, which entails putting the right people in place for the policy to function. Implementation includes the actions and mechanisms that bring the strategy into practise or reality. It can involve setting up a department and making sure it is adequately funded and staffed to take of the problem. The implementation stage is when institutions, as opposed to those who formulated the policy, carries out its utilization ( Gerston, 2014) . There is usually a statute that provides an outline of the policy, such as mandating recognition of Native America human rights to voting, education, and security. Successful policy implement is dependent on the coordination between different players in the implementation

Evaluation is another element of the policymaking process where questions are asked regarding the effectiveness of the policy in solving the earlier identified problem. These questions can entail the performance of a department, how it fulfils its purpose as well as whether it meets the needs of the people. Evaluation deals mostly with determining how well a policy is working based on the cost-benefit analysis ( Birkland, 2015) . For example, some policies may require the government to create a budget for its adoption, which means the evaluation measures how this decision is working out in the long run. Policy evaluation entails monitoring, analyzing and assessing the policies to help the government in implementing it effectively.

A review is then conducted to determine what needs to change for the policy to work better, including recommendations from congress. This can end into a policy amendment that looks into changing some aspects of the policy. The concepts of policy-making comprise of social and political environments that describes the issues affecting people and society. For example, the social environment of policymaking focuses on the social structure and configuration of society and how it will be affected by the policy ( Gerston, 2014) . The element applies to Native American tribes since this is both a political and social issue affecting the entire society.

The policy-making process determines the quality of a public policy and how it will bring solutions to the problem. Policymakers select the best course of action from several options based on which one serves the best interests Birkland, 2015) . A policy can be terminated when it becomes obsolete, which means it fails to fulfil its intended purpose and lose support from all facets of society. When talking about policymaking, the focus is directed on whether the problem exists in an open system or a closed system. The job of an advocate during policymaking is to ensure the problem is widely and clearly understood by all decision-makers and considered when making a plan of action ( Birkland, 2015) . In essence, policies are products of the political context, and the process of policy formation is social and political

Section 3

A modern, prosperous nation is defined by its recognition of human rights, which includes the rights of Native Americans within a country. The United States is considered a superpower nation in the world and should be at the forefront of respecting human rights and uphold democracy. As a result, the US government has no right to take a barbaric stand regarding the recognition of human rights for Native Americans. The United States has signed numerous treaties with indigenous people but rarely honours them, leading to violation of their rights ( Lightfoot et al., 2013) . The only thing left to do is for the government to honour the treaties that guarantee peace, define land boundaries, and grant them the same rights as other communities in the country. Numerous reasons explain why the US government needs to recognize the human rights of Native Americans and implement a policy that recognizes their identities.

First of all, the United States territory is established on the foundation of the natives who were the first inhabitants of the land. Native Americans inhabited the expansive territory that is now known as the Americans years before Christopher Columbus stepped foot in the lands ( Fletcher, 2006) . They were the first inhabitants of the land and needed to be respected in their lands by allowing them sovereignty. However, the government has continually violated the rights of natives despite their significant influence on the country that they cannot enjoy similar benefits like other communities. The native tribes have been placed in a position where they cannot enjoy many of the rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution. A major issue revolves around and ownership and how they can use their pieces of land.

Secondly, Native Americans serve an injustice in the modern legal realities where they are not allowed to take part in elections. While their right to vote is recognized by the constitution and state law for all Native Americans to vote, some states prevent them from practising this right ( Fletcher, 2006) . For example, some native tribes are determined to be a domestic dependent nation, which means the people do not have the right to vote. As a result, the relationship of Native Americans with the federal government is described as resembling individuals living in a land controlled by a foreign power treating natives as subjects of the United States. This has contributed to limiting a majority of their rights under the constitution, including the right to engage in voting or standing for elective posts. Today, there are legal realities that restrict Natives from taking an active part in the voting process to elect their local officials ( Fletcher, 2006) .

For example, a Native American in North Dakota can only be allowed to vote if their data is entered into a database. However, data can only be entered in a database when someone has a traditional format of address such as house number and streets. Native Americans do not have these traditional address formats and therefore, cannot have their information entered into the database to facilitate voting. As a result, most Native Americans, who are part of the United States cannot enjoy the same benefits and rights as provided by the constitution due to several restrictions in their identity as Americans ( Horse, 2005) . This is an unjust and humiliating situation that disparages the importance of natives as part of the nation. It cements the need to integrate the native tribes as part of the society and include them in the democratic processes happening within the country. For decades the US government has continued to discriminate against these important people in the history of the United States by limiting their rights as rightful citizens. As a result, the natives have continued to live in a world where there is a shortage of information available to them that would help in making informed choices. This is an obstacle in achieving the recognition right of all Native people in the country

At the same time, the United States government should consider the reason for security and seek to protect the natives as an important part of the culture. The government has continuously failed to protect the Native tribes, in the process giving rise to far-reaching consequences. The government has consistently oppressed the people of native tribes while creating grounds for civil arrests. The government needs to recognize Native Americans and include them in the general political discourse to control any cases of civil arrest and involve them in peaceful conversations regarding their future in their motherland. By focusing the effort on recognizing and reconciling with the native tribes, the government will foster a good society where all citizens can live, work and prosper ( Fletcher, 2006) . This will be an investment into the security and prosperity of the nation and for the future of all people working towards the American dream. Prosperity will be achieved when Natives are in cohesion with the rest of the country to prevent any cases of unrest.

In conclusion, three reasons are explaining the need to federally recognize the Native tribes as a part of the constitution through policymaking. The first point is to ensure the sovereignty of their lands since they are the first inhabitants. Secondly, the Native tribes need a right to vote without many hindrances due to technical hitches. Some of them cannot participate in the election process despite the constitutional right. At the same time, the recognition for Native American human rights is needed for the security and prosperity of the country. It enhances stability going forward where every tribe feels entitled to be in the country. These reasons indicate the need to implement a policy that recognizes natives and respect their rights as stipulated in the constitution.

Section 4

The recommendation is to implement a recognition policy for natives in the United States as one way of dealing with discrimination against them. The focus of this policy is to ensure equal rights for Native Americans, which includes the right to vote, own land and right to security and prosperity. This will be a policy that recognizes the human rights of Native Americans while advocating for tribally driven policy solutions at the federal level that looks to enhance and protect the sovereignty of Native Americans ( Wilkins & Lomawaima, 2001) . Native Americans, like all Americans, are entitled to fundamental human rights, including rights to equal protection and be free from discrimination. The Natives need a policy that protects them from discrimination in voting, education, religion, and incarceration. This policy is implemented in protecting the Native American rights, traditions, culture and property, including their sacred places and objects.

Historically, the US government has denied Native Americans the right and ability to govern the education of their tribe members. There is a problem with the recognition of human rights for the Native Americans, which requires policy implementation to put the whole issue to rest ( Fletcher, 2006) . The agenda-setting is to determine how the government can enact a policy that looks towards recognizing and reconciling with all native tribes in the country. The policy should allow Native tribes a right to develop education governance abilities, which will allow the natives to be more involved in school operation and curricular. Secondly, the policy should allow Native Americans a right to vote and stand for elections without discrimination.

The US government has failed to fulfil the promises made when signing treaties with Native tribes, which has seen native tribes continuing to rank lower in times of sustainability. The natives suffer from a high rate of poverty which cannot be solved unless they resolve their political status. The story of Native American discrimination and mistreatment has stretched for longer periods while rooted in years of violence and neglect ( Fletcher, 2006) . The natives were robbed of their acres of land; their languages and religions were suppressed while resources and sacred sites were desecrated. The US government was at the centre of these injustices and has failed to repay the natives and accommodate them in society.

The focus of the policy is to ensure America’s sacred treaty obligations reinforce the nation-to-nation relationship with the natives. This can only be achieved through a structural change in the policies guiding the stay of Native Americans. The most important thing is to ensure the US government upholds its commitment and promises to the native people, which includes protecting their sovereignty and self-determination ( Wilkins & Lomawaima, 2001) . The policy will ensure that future generations of the native tribes do not have to argue with the government over their identities and federal recognition. The United States has been held back by its unresolved relationship with the indigenous population that is based on failing to recognize their identity as indigenous people ( Horse, 2005) . The reconciliation between the federal government and the native tribes rests on recognition policy and programs.

The current treaty involving Native American tribes describes the recognition off a form of enduring sovereignty, and this has provided many benefits to the native people. However, there are different levels of capacity to leverage these benefits among the over 500 recognized tribes. Not all tribes were able to renegotiate or become recognized as part of the indigenous communities after the US government rejected the treaties ( Lightfoot et al., 2013) . Some tribes are unrecognized today, which means they cannot enjoy the same benefits as other recognized native tribes in the country. The federal government does not recognize some tribes as living Indians despite signing the treaty that would give back stolen land.

The native tribes can be federally recognized through an act of congress through policy formulation and implementation. This would lead to a recognition bill that is enacted by the congress and the senate before it is implemented by the president. The congress should be at the forefront in implementing the recognition policy for the natives in the United States. This should start with introducing a bill to the congress that grant full federal recognition for all Native Americans ( Myers, 2001) . The bill should comprise of all rights enjoyed by American citizens, including the right to vote, access housing, get employment or healthcare needs. The congress will represent an urgent need towards ensuring equal rights for the indigenous population while meeting the promises made to them ( Lightfoot et al., 2013) .

Secondly, the natives can become federally recognized by petitioning through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and if the recognition is granted, they can enjoy the federal benefits like any other community or tribe. This can be an alternative. A recognition bill is required to ensure every member of the native tribes is recognized as a rightful citizen of the United States who has access to all benefits and freedoms. This includes extending federal benefits to the native tribes while having implications on the economy of the community ( Fletcher, 2006) . For example, this recognition policy will impact the housing and roads money among another federal fund for the Native Americans due to being included in the budgets.

Federal recognition of the native tribes would allow them to protect their land and alleviate the costs of housing and healthcare ( Myers, 2001) . It will also be the genesis of an economic boom for the indigenous people who have been languishing in poverty. Federal assistance is significantly necessary for Native Americans who struggle with economic burdens, including poverty. The recognition of Native Americans would greatly help in the economic development of rural areas in regions such as North Carolina that holds a majority of the native tribes. The police reform will address several other social issues such as crime and drug problems riddling the community. It would also ensure that children from the native tribes access schools to learn about cultures and the history of their people.

The federal government negotiated treaties with natives that allow then tribal sovereignty over their lands and self-determination. However, the government has failed to honour the promises made to native tribes regarding the nation-to-nation relationship ( Wilkins & Lomawaima, 2001) . There is a continued legal argument on whether native nations should be recognized as domestic dependent nations or part of a constitutional system on trifederalism of recognizing tribes as sovereigns along with state and federal government. The Indian tribes have a degree of little recognition as sovereigns in the United States Constitution (Quinn, 1990).

The United States has a strong history of making deals with the natives and failing to keep the promises regarding protecting their lands from being taken, right to sovereignty and access to the bill of rights ( Wilkins & Lomawaima, 2001) . Many Natives helped the United States in the world war, serving in the military and fighting for their country. However, veterans who returned from the war found out that the US government and Americans did not recognize their contributions or presence. Therefore, it is time the United States does something to protect the human rights of the native tribes. The problem with Native American recognition and respect for their rights exists within the fundamental law of the constitution and should be inherited by consequent legislative initiatives. The recognition policy will help establish respect for human rights for all natives and accommodate them as bona fide citizens of the country. 

References

Birkland, T. A. (2015).  An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policymaking . Routledge.

Fletcher, M. L. (2006). Politics, History, and Semantics: The Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes.  NDL, Rev. ,  82 , 487.

Gerston, L. N. (2014).  Public policymaking: Process and principles . Routledge.

Horse, P. G. (2005). Native American identity.  New directions for student services ,  2005 (109), 61-68.

Lightfoot, K. G., Panich, L. M., Schneider, T. D., Gonzalez, S. L., Russell, M. A., Modzelewski, D., ... & Blair, E. H. (2013). The study of indigenous political economies and colonialism in Native California: Implications for contemporary tribal groups and federal recognition.  American Antiquity ,  78 (1), 89-104.

McCulloch, A. M., & Wilkins, D. E. (1995). “Constructing" nations within states: the quest for federal recognition by the Catawba and Lumbee tribes.  American Indian Quarterly ,  19 (3), 361-388.

Myers, M. D. (2001). Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes in the United States.  Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. ,  12 , 271.

Quinn Jr, W. W. (1990). Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes: The Historical Development of a Legal Concept.  Am. J. Legal Hist. ,  34 , 331.

Seielstad, A. M. (2001). The Recognition and Evolution of Tribal Sovereign Immunity Under Federal Law: Legal, Historical, and Normative Reflections on a Fundamental Aspect of American Indian Sovereignty.  Tulsa L. Rev. ,  37 , 661.

Wilkins, D. E., & Lomawaima, K. T. (2001).  Uneven ground: American Indian sovereignty and federal law . University of Oklahoma Press.