I meant to ask this as its own question, but screwed up and put it under the cigerette taxation thread. Anyway, is it because of moral opposition within the Native American cultures (I would think if nothing else that they would allow Caucausion/African American women to ply their trade within the confines of their reservations for a cut). Also, I would think that some Reservations might consider getting into the same sex union/ marriage business. Are there legal issues why these things are avoided while gambling is embraced? Also, how about Cannibus sales?
The Indian tribes still have to negotiate deals with the Federal government on numerous matters.
So even if a tribe/nation were inclined to legalize prostitution, I would think that the Bureau of Indian Affairs would not look kindly on such an arrangement.
I thought these were “sovreign” nations. What could the Bureau of Indian Affairs do if a reservation announced they were going to have legalized prostitution anyway? I can’t imagine that it would “hack off” politicians anymore than their current policies of not charging taxes on their cigerettes. Also, gambling is very politically unpopular in many areas, but this hasn’t seemed to stop the reservations. How is prostitution different?
Reservations are only allowed to have gambling in states in which gambling has already been legalized (which the last time I heard was all but two states). If the same principle applied to prostitution, I suppose a Nevada reservation might be able to open a brothel but not in other states.
Ahh, so to put it another way they are “sovreign nations” so long as they don’t do anything that goes against OUR laws. So the whole seperate and independent nation thing is really something of a sham.
To be more precise, any state can negotiate with a recognized Indian tribe to allow gambling on its tribal lands. But there is a lot of give and take over what types of gambling are allowed. That was provided by a Federal act back in 1988.
So far, the Federal government has not passed any law that would allow prostitution to be legal on tribal lands.
Indian nations are considered sovereign by Federal courts, but for a sovereign nation there are a lot of strings attached.
An example of the unusual legal status of Indians is here in California:
As long as an Indian is living on a reservation, s/he doesn’t have to pay state income tax on what he makes or pay to register his vehicle as long as it primarily stays on the reservation.
However, if an Indian moves off the reservation, he is subject to all the laws of the states.
Disputes over Indian sovereignity in the U.S. have been going on since, oh, well, the 1600s.
I think pretty much everyone realizes Indian reservations are not sovereign nations in the usual sense of the term.
The status of Federal reservations and their occupants is nearly impossible to describe because the situation is impossible to fully understand.
Some of the “nations” are considered as “defeated nations” and the individuals are wards of the federal government. You might think this clears things up a bit, but it seems to make things even more murky. The reservations themselves are held in trust by the BIA and it’s not entirely clear what this means, until a court rules on a particular issue.
There are apparently 500+ tribes recognized by the federal government. Some were whipped up by the members themselves and some were created as official designations by the government out of thin air–the members didn’t agree to it and in some cases are unaware such a designation even exists.
A couple of years ago, a guy in one of the Apache tribes wanted to open a brothel. (I think it was the Mescalero tribe, but I could be wrong about that.)
The New Mexico state government was unhappy about the prospect, and threatened prosecution/litigation.
The tribal government voted down the proposal, so we never got to see whether the state could have asserted jurisdiction over the tribe.