"In an article a week or so ago, Mark Trahant described the need to define who is an Indian in order to address the problem the Federal government now faces in trying to decide who will be eligible for the Indian exemptions under health reform. He implies that the Internal Revenue Service will need to be involved adding another level of complexity to this age old problem. As an advocate for urban Indians, I can tell you this is going to be a major struggle based on the history of Indian affairs and the effects of national policies approved by the Congress that technically are in direct violation of the U. S. trust obligation to Indian people.

Prior to the 1950s, determining who was an Indian was a question that may have been answerable. But starting in the latter part of the 1940s, the U. S. government began to relocate Indians to non-reservation areas for employment, especially in the southwest. With the image of socialistic ideals influencing the American politic after World War II, members of the Congress took it upon themselves to try and transform Indians into every day American citizens. Thus, in 1953, Congress passed House Concurrent Resolution 108 that set out a formal policy of Indian relocation and the termination of certain Indian tribes from federal supervision. Proclaiming this as a policy of liberation and freedom for Indians, the actions were taken without Indian consultation or support. Thus, between 1953 and 1961, one hundred and nine Indian tribes saw their status as a tribe legally terminated by acts of the Congress. Only a few have been reinstated. This action stripped tens of thousands of Indian people of their legal identity as an “Indian” in direct violation of the federal trust obligation to Indian people.

Many people are mistaken that the federal trust obligation is restricted to members of federally recognized Indian tribes. The law that serves as the foundation of contemporary Indian policy, the 1921 Snyder Act (25 USC 13) stipulates that Congress can appropriate federal treasury funds for certain purposes including health for “Indians throughout the United States.” The law does not stipulate whether eligible Indians need to be members of federally recognized Indian tribes nor does it restrict the obligation by geographic limitations as long as the Indian person lives in the United States."

Get the Story:
Ralph Forquera: Major struggle ahead if IRS is to determine ‘Who is an Indian’ (MarkTrahant.Com 8/20)