INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE & GOVERNANCE RECOVERY

Monday, December 19, 2011

O Holy Night, in Dine' ('Navajo') by Jana Mashonee and Silent Night in Apache

Indigenous Language Loss and Revitalization: While Nde' of South Texas and Lower Rio Grande River region have suffered irreparable harm related to language loss, and language revitalization efforts occur without the aid of Texas and the U.S.--historical oppressors--today, the effort to recuperate language is aided by inspiration derived from closely related indigenous peoples with historical ties to Nde of Texas.

Texas (and Northeastern Mexico) is the traditional homeland and customary territory of Southern Nde' Peoples, who are close cultural relatives of Navajo, Western and Eastern Apache, and Dene peoples of North America, inclusive to northeastern Mexico.

Indigenous Peoples have the right to practice, speak, learn in, read, and to be educated in our mother tongues. Though our mother tongues have been forcefully stolen from us, through the assimilative violence of states and colonizing laws, today, thanks to the decades of hard work at the international level, Indigenous Peoples have rights--globally and at the local level (that means in the country, state, province in which we reside)-- to revitalize and recover what has been stolen and lost through no fault of our own.

Today, States have a duty and responsibility to change assimilative laws and practices, and to provide economic, social, and political aid to ensure that Indigenous Peoples in their respective bounded areas are protected from further cultural harm and must aid in the processes to support Indigenous Peoples to speak, read, and learn in our own languages.

Texas has been historically severely resistant to breaking from its oppressive and subjugating political, economic, and social systems as they affect Lipan Apaches and many indigenous peoples in the state.

Lipan Apaches continue to work systematically for self-determination and to break the violent chains of non recognition, internal colonization, and 4th World status in our own homeland Konitsaahii gokiyaa.





O Holy Night (Written in Navajo)
Hodiyin tł’ée’go Sǫ’ bee da’dinnídíingo Áko Yisdá’iiníiłii bi’dizhchį́ Diné ti’dahooníhę́ę baazhníyáago Bijéí biyi’di haa bił dahóózhǫǫd ’Áádóó ch’ééh deeskai yę́ę bił nídahoozhǫǫd Háálá chohoo’̨́ bee ’adideezdláád Yaa ’ádaahnééh diyingo nidaal’a’í ’Éí deísółts’ą́ą́’! Christ yizhchį́ yaa dahalne’ Hodiyin tł’éego Christ ’éí bi’dizhchį́!

Enjoy this beautiful example of indigenous language empowerment and self-determination!

Gozhoo (In beauty)

Sunday, December 18, 2011

U.S. OFFICIAL 'APOLOGY' TO NATIVE AMERICANS, "A SORRY SAGA OR FIRST STEP?"

Without Procedures for Redress and Restitution, Obama's 'Apology' to Native Americans for Historical and Contemporary Harms is Severely Insufficient to Address Genocide Histories and Realities Involved in the Necessary Process Related to Supporting the Recovery, Recuperation and Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples in Texas and the Confluent Texas-Mexico Indigenous Border(ed) Region.














Commentary excerpted from:

Fourth World Eye

A Sorry Saga or a First Step?

, 2010 by
An article recently surfaced in Indian Country Today entitled “A Sorry Saga,” in which the author brings attention to the Native American Apology Resolution signed by President Obama on December 19th, as part of a defense appropriation spending bill. While the Resolution had passed as a stand-alone piece of legislation in the Senate, it was attached to and passed with a defense appropriations spending bill within the House before making its way to President Obama. The final version of the resolution shifted from being an official apology from the US government to an apology “on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native peoples by citizens of the United States.” The real crux of the Indian Country Today article revolves around the lack of publicity surrounding the apology and asks the question, “Is an apology that’s not said out loud really an apology?”

Prior to this apology, President Obama has been largely lauded for keeping his prior commitments to Indian Country (convening a tribal leaders summit in November to hear concerns; appointing tribal leaders to IHS and Native American Affairs posts; largely maintaining and even, in some cases, increasing funding to Indian Country for this year’s budget). Ironically, it is this hidden apology that has caused some to backpeddle their vocal support for the Obama Administration. I would argue that many may view this obscure and amalgamous apology as a step backward rather than forward as it provides the perfect metaphor for the US’ longstanding nebulous public policy toward American Indian people. The US, throughout the years, has managed to promote a half in half out relationship with Indian Country in which sovereignty is recognized in pieces rather than in whole (as a long-standing continuation of the Western colonial reductionist vein of thought that brought us the Dawes Act, etc). Thus this apology, passed with no public acknowledgement, coming from the “American people” rather than the US government, and with a caveat to ensure that it cannot be construed to allow legal culpability, reeks of this prior paradigm that many in Indian Country counted would change and were hoping was changing with the election of President Obama.

Revisiting Indian Country Today’s question, I would propose what I believe to be a more pertinent question: Is an apology without subsequent action really an apology? A true apology, publicized or not, must be followed by real demonstrable action that marriages sentiments to words, words to policy, and policy to action. I laud this apology as long as it is a step toward such action. A relevant and pressing issue of substance is the current US stance against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In 2007, the US, along with Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, were the only countries to vote against the adoption of the UNDRIP. Australia has since overturned their decision in early 2009 and did so only two months after their official governmental apology to the Aboriginal populations. A true test then of the intent of the Native American Apology Resolution will be if the Obama Administration utilizes this apology as a foothold for reversing the current US position opposing the UNDRIP. Such an adoption would truly demonstrate President Obama’s commitment to and respect for Indian Nations and for creating a new paradigm in which true nation to nation relations can begin.

Friday, October 14, 2011

An Open Letter to ‘Occupy Wall Street’: A Shawnee-Lenape Perspective

 


 




An Open Letter to ‘Occupy Wall Street’: A Lenape Perspective
10 October 2011

by Steven Newcomb

Greetings on Colonization Day,

I begin by prayerfully remembering our free and independent ancestors, the Lenape and all the Original Nations and Peoples of this vast TurtleIsland(Mother Earth), and of the entire Western Hemisphere from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America.

As you ‘occupy Wall Street,’ I ask you to reflect: You are on the island upon which our Indigenous ancestors lived and thrived for thousands and thousands of years. Please take a moment to recognize that we, the Original Nations, still exist here onTurtleIsland. We have the right to exist as free and distinct nations with full self-determination.

What is the true source of our many grievances? It is the mentality and behavior of greed. The word ‘America’ is the combination of two Latin words ame (a command form of ‘love!’) and rica (riches and wealth). The effects of an insatiable desire for and the pursuit of riches and wealth first afflicted our Indigenous nations and peoples, and now afflict all peoples. Clearly, we need to address and rectify the political economy of greed, and the destruction it has caused and continues to cause.

Greed is an unsustainable value, but it is also an illness that is rooted in addiction. It is maintained in keeping with the slogan, ‘The more you eat (consume), the more you want.’ The addict will stop at nothing to get a fix; he will sacrifice anyone and anything to feed his addiction. For this reason, an economy of greed has and will continue to sacrifice the health and well-being of women, children, men, and all living things on Mother Earth. As a great Anishinaabe leader has profoundly stated, “Their way of living is our way of dying.” It is rapidly becoming the ”way of dying” for everyone.

Today, after centuries of invasion and predatory consumption (‘devouring’) of our traditional lands, territories, and resources onTurtleIsland and elsewhere, the waters of the rivers and streams that were once pure enough for our ancestors to drink from are now filthy and poisoned. Water is Life. The chemical contamination of Water, and, therefore, of Life itself, is emblematic of a way of life predicated upon patterns of greed that are destined to collapse.

The suffering of human beings and the destructiveness to life on Mother Earth has been a direct consequence of colonization, domination, dehumanization, militarization and war.

Unfortunately, these conceptions and behaviors have become the metaphorical bricks and mortar of the current unsustainable world order. They are expressed in a number of documents issued in the fifteenth century by the Holy See at Vatican Hill in Rome; these documents called for the domination of all non-Christian peoples throughout the world, and for the theft of all our lands and territories. To this day, the ideas found in those papal documents are woven into US Indian law and policy.

Those Church documents unleashed claims to a right of conquest and domination in the name of a “right of Christian discovery.” The monarchies of Christendom used those documents to claim the territories of our nations in the Western hemisphere, simply because our territories were not yet in the possession of any Christian prince or dominator (‘dominorum christianorum’). This paradigm of domination has been used to give governments and corporations virtually unlimited access to our traditional lands and territories. If approved, the Keystone XL pipeline will be but the latest example.

Despite the destructive effects of more than five centuries of subjugation, as the Originally Free Nations and Peoples of Turtle Island, we still remember what it is to be truly free as exemplified by our ancestors. Our ancestors evolved life-ways and values that challenged European feudalism, medievalism, and lordship. Today, forces seem to be working toward neo-feudalism and neo-medievalism, with a long range plan for irreversible global domination in the name of ‘national security,’ under the unblinking eye of the surveillance state.

We have entered the ‘Brave New World’ written about by a prescient mind a generation ago. Not only have we survived, but we now have the capability of expressing ourselves in the language of the Colonizers, and we are maintaining the message that our great leaders tried to convey to your ancestors: Stop the patterns of destruction and greed before it is too late. The Chernobyl-scale release of radiation atFukushima, Japan is a clarion call.

We must invert the key symbol of domination. Once inverted, the patriarchal symbol of ‘the dome of domination’ becomes a bowl; when filled with water, the bowl is the symbol of the Sacred Feminine, as exemplified by theWhite Buffalo Calf Woman. She was the one who brought the Sacred Pipe to the Oglala Lakota Nation.

The Living Laws and Values of Turtle Island that the White Buffalo Calf Woman brought include: Honor and Respect; Compassion and Pity; Sharing and Caring (to carry the well-being of the People in one’s heart); Patience and Fortitude; Bravery and Courage; Humility; Seeking Wisdom and Seeking Understanding. In keeping with the White Buffalo Calf Woman’s teachings, Love and the Beautification of Life are healing values that need to replace the love of riches and wealth.

Next May, 2012, a year of great transformation, we will be inNew Yorkat the United Nations as part of our work toward decolonization at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The theme of the Permanent Forum will be the destructive legacy and deadly impact of the Doctrines of Discovery and Domination on Indigenous Nations and Peoples and on Mother Earth. We ask for your support by renouncing the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.

Steven Newcomb, Shawnee/Lenape, is co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, and a columnist for the Indian Country Today Media Network.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

A Key Destination of Tar Sands Oil?... Texas-Mexico Border. Do Tell.




After watching the full testimonies held at the U.S. State Department on the issue of whether the U.S. should permit TransCanada Corporation to construct and operate a pipeline for transporting lethal oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, situated in the Traditional Territory of the Dene, I am even more alarmed about deep knowledge gaps and breakages, and the colonial blinders which are still preventing the majority spokespersons on these issues to examine the interlocking relationship of the Tar Sands in Dene country to Militarization in Nde' country (border wall, police terror state, detention centers, mega-rail, mega-bridge, and mega-highway projects connecting Lower Rio Grande Valley to northeastern Mexico 'ports'). There still seems to be an significant vaguery among the peoples (on both sides of the issue) about what could happen to the oil, the lands, peoples, water, air, and life... after refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, and where it would travel from its 'distribution' points along the Texas-Mexico border.

I'm more worried today than yesterday, witnessing the compelling testimonies and aghast at the lack of inquisitiveness on the part of the movement to follow the documentation trail left by Koch Industries (see September 24, 2011 post, scroll down). It is stunning how well the Texas connections to the oil-chemical-transportation League of Corporate Empires benefits from the colonial and racist implications of geographical-historical ignorance in the U.S. about indigenous struggles in South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande.

Again, please refer to the September 24, 2011 post on this site (scroll down), providing important details regarding Koch Industries' statement explicitly saying that the refined fuels will be going to Mexico, and from there other sites across the hemisphere. To my knowledge, this is the only site in the hemisphere that is making this crucial connection. Unfortunately, this is beginning to feel like the same isolation room that we experienced around the border wall.

I wonder if the 'progressive' camps of either movement--the anti-Keystone XL Pipeline or the Occupy Wall Street movement--perceive that their government and related corporations constructed the border wall, and now the MEGA-COLOSSAL HEAVY RAIL FREIGHT BRIDGE in concert with a much larger transhemispheric 'Security Prosperity Partnership, which entails transporting something considered a 'priority matter of national security' OVER the border wall which stands in the traditional territory of Lipan Apaches?

How will this happen on the ground?

Through 2 important mega-projects currently underway across the Texas-Mexico border:

1. A large rail transport system, which, low and behold, will traverse above the border wall in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Cameron County.

2. The Trans-Texas Corridor (connecting Albert, Canada to South Texas, to Mexico).

For a more in-depth view from El Calaboz, read the September 24, 2011 post.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Proprietary Title, and Nde' Inherent Rights to Lands and Territories, (cont'd)

Picking up where I left off earlier,

Consider this view, excerpted from Gordon I. Bennett, 27 Buff. L. Rev. 617 (1977-1978)
Aboriginal Title in the Common Law: A Stony Path through Feudal Doctrine, Bennett, Gordon I.
[ 20 pages, 617 to 636 ]

"In Johnson v. McIntosh ° and Worcester v. Georgia," two landmark
decisions that still constitute the locus classicus on the subject,
Chief Justice Marshall referred to the principle evolved by the European
powers in their settlement of America that "discovery gave title
to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was
made, against all other European governments, which title might be
consummated by possession."'' The Chief Justice added the vital
caveat, however, that this principle could not
annul the previous rights of those who had not agreed to it. It regulated
the right given by discovery among the European discoverers;
but could not affect the rights of those already in possession,'either
as aboriginal occupants, or as occupants by virtue of a discovery
made before the memory of man. It gave the exclusive right to purchase,
but did not found that right on a denial of the possessor to
sell.' 3 [The original inhabitants] were admitted to be the rightful occupants
of the soil, with a legal as well as a just claim to retain possession
of it, and to use it according to their own discretion.14
Central to Marshall's analysis was the assertion that aboriginal rights
stem from ancient occupation per se, and are not dependent on a public
grant or official acknowledgment."
...
"Nor is it true, as respondent urges, that a tribal claim to any
particular lands must be based upon a treaty, statute, or other formal
government action."

"This view is confirmed by a whole cluster of Supreme Court decisions
and, most recently, by the Court of Claims in Lipan Apache
Tribe v. United States,'8 where Judge Davis dispelled any lingering
doubts:
Indian title based on aboriginal possession does not depend on sovereign
recognition or affirmative acceptance for its survival. Once
established in fact, it endures until extinguished or abandoned..."
"The correct enquiry is, not whether the Republic of Texas accorded
or granted the Indians any rights, but whether that sovereign extinguished
their pre-existing occupancy rights."

Ponder this.

Time to rest, until tomorrow...

(to be continued)

Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Proprietary Title, and Nde' Inherent Right to Self-Governance

A Underlying Issue Still Contested from Indigenous Perspectives: Neither the U.S. nor Texas Had Rights to Extinguish Aboriginal Title of Southern Lipan Apaches of South Texas & LRGV

While many indigenous peoples have contested the final decisions of the infamous Indian Claims Commission, few if any have ever set forth an analysis ourselves of the decisions, nor critiqued how these decisions effected the ongoing self-determination, survival and existence of Nde', or Southern Lipan Apaches in South Texas and in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

Why? How and why did other indigenous peoples ('Mescaleros', et. al) ever become recognized as the sole proprietary owners of the traditional territories of Nde' of what is today South Texas, Lower Rio Grande Valley & River, and our territories in Mexico?

This is a grave harm, still to be resolved for Nde' self-determination. It is clear that our peoples, under great threat of genocidal destruction before and during the time of the Indian Claims Commission, were a vulnerable indigenous people without means to counter-act or to defend against this level of deceit and injustice.

Today, it is time to convene, and to re-assess the outcomes of the ICC, several decades later, and the work that will be entailed in launching an Aboriginal Title landmark case to prove Nde' Aboriginal Title and traditional territorial rights to Konitsaii Gokiyaa, Lipan country.

For now, here is something to absorb...

I believe it is time for a critical gathering of leadership to deconstruct the assumptions built withing the conclusions of the Indian Claims Commission, and the United States and Texas as beneficiaries, which effectively left unrecognized and peripheral all Nde' families, communities, and organizations.

Here is an excerpt of the final decision, and the full document is here: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v36/iccv36p023.pdf


Excerpt, 36 Ind. Cl. Comm. 7, Docket #22-C

"The Commission found the detailed reports submitted by the above experts to be informative. However, the Commission has rejected as conjectural, speculative, and not supported by the preponderance of the evidence t h e conclusions of p l a i n t i f f s ' expert witnesses as to the extent of Lipan and Mescalero aboriginal ownership of the lands claimed herein for the time periods in question. The Commission also r e j e c t s the p l a i n t i f f ' s
experts' conclusions as of the date of taking.

The defendant's expert witness was D r . Kenneth F. Neighbours, a
historian who has written extensively about the history of Texas and about i(afg Robert Neighbors, the famous Indian agent of the Texas tribehwho served in that capacity under both the Republic of Texas and the United States governments. His report, an ethnohistory of the Lipan and Mescalero Indians, and his testimony related chiefly to the land and Indian policies of the respective sovereignties that ruled Texas through the 19th century. Be
36 Ind. C l . C m . 7 65 concluded t h a t , as a r e s u l t of such p o l i c i e s , the Indians of Texas, and p a r t i c u l a r l y the Lipan and Mescalero Indians, did not have aboriginal t i t l e to any lands within the State of Texas, although a t various times these and other Indian t r i b e s had h i s t o r i c a l l y been located a t d i f f e r e n t places within t h e area. The Commission has rejected Dr. ~ e i g h b o u r s ' legal conclusions r e l a t i v e t o Indian t i t l e in the State of Texas as contrary to the law of the case.

16. Conclusion.
Based upon the foregoing findings of f a c t and a l l the evidence of
record, the Commission has concluded as follows:
(a) From time immemorial, through the periods of Spanish and Mexican sovereignty, and the Republic of Texas, and, u n t i l November 1, 1856, when, as a r e s u l t of the actions of the United States army in carrying out federal policy, it was compelled to vacate its ancestral home, the aboriginal Lipan Apache Tribe held Indian t i t l e to the following described land situated within that area i n Texas claimed by principal p l a i n t i f f herein :

Beginning a t that point on the Rio Grande River which is the
northwest corner of Zapata County; thence e a s t e r l y along the
common boundary of Zapata and Webb counties to t h e southeast corner of Webb County; thence northeasterly on a l i n e , crossing the Nueces River, to the town of Pawnee i n Bee County; thence
northwesterly on a l i n e to the northwest corner of Bandwa County; thence northwesterly on a l i n e to the northwest corner of Edwards County; thence south along the western boundary of Edwards County and adjoining Kinney County to the southwest corner of Kinney County on the Rio Grande River; thence southeasterly along the east bank of the Rio Grande River to the place of beginning.
(b) From time immemorial, through the periods of Spanish and Mexican and occupied exclusively i n Indian fashion a l a r g e a r e a i n eouth c e n t r a l 36 Ind. C1. Comm. 7 New Mexico and west Texas between the Rio Grande River and the Pecos
River. By v i r t u e of the Executive Order of May 29, 1873, e s t a b l i s h i n g the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation i n New Mexico, the Mescalero Apache Tribe relinquished to the United S t a t e s without the payment of compensation, Indian t i t l e t o a l l lands outside of the reservation. See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. United S t a t e s , 17 Ind. C1. Comm. 100 (1966).
Accordingly, May 29, 1873, is the e f f e c t i v e date of the extinguishment of a l l Mescalero aboriginal land claims including Mescalero Indian t i t l e t o the following described area in Texas.

Beginning a t t h e southeast corner of the S t a t e of New
Mexico; thence south-southwest on a l i n e across the Pecos
River t o the southeast corner of Reeves County Texas; thence
southwest on a l i n e to Ft. Davis i n J e f f Davis County; thence
northwest on a l i n e to the town of Van Horn in Culberson County; thence northwest on a l i n e to the northeast corner El Paso County, Texas, said corner being on the southern boundary of the S t a t e of New Mexico; thence e a s t e r l y along the southern boundary of the S t a t e of New Mexico to t h e p o i n t of beginning.
(c) The evidence of record does not support Lipan and Mescalero
aboriginal t i t l e claims to lands outside of the areas awarded above.
(d) The Tonkawa Tribe of Indians, second intervenors, herein has
f a i l e d t o prove by the preponderance of the evidence t h a t s a i d t r i b e is the successor in i n t e r e s t t o the a b o r i g i n a l Lipan Apache Tribe.""

Here is another view:

from, Aboriginal Title: The Modern Jurisprudence of Tribal Land Rights, by Paul G. McHugh, (Oxford University Press, 2011), 178-179.

"In Calder, Justice Hall drew upon the American cases on extinguishment when he indicated that aboriginal title 'could not therefore be extinguished except by surrender to the Crown or by competent legislative authority, and then only be specific legislation.' His inspiration was the opinion of Davis J in Lipan Apache (1967) where it was said that in 'the absence of a "clear and plain intention" in the public records that the sovereign "intended to extinguishe all of the claimants' rights" to their property' the Indian title continued at law. That approach towards the interpretation of statutes affecting Indian title had been used in a sequence of cases from at least the early twentieth century. Ultimately, it went back to a canon for the interpretation of Indian treaties given by Chief Justice Marshall who said (1832) that treaties to 'be construed, not according to the technical meaning of their words, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by Indians'. As the doctrine of aboriginal title became articulated in the courts, judges routinely invoked this 'clear and plain intention' rule for the interpretation of statutes."

(to be continued)

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Margo Tamez Responds to Article, "Dozens arrested outside White House during oil sands protest," by Lee-Anne Goodman






Construction of Mega Project Bridge in Cameron County, Texas-Mexico Border, August, 2011.
Photo by Margo Tamez, Copyright Holder. May not be reproduced without permission.





Post #2: Margo Tamez, An Nde' Woman and Hada'didla-Konitsaii Nde' Clan Member of El Calaboz Rancheria Responds (Post #1 in this series)
[Note: A large portion of this piece was originally posted on August 24,, 2011 to the NAIPC/North American Indigenous Peoples' Caucus List Serve]

Introduction
Ha'shi?, Greetings to all.
I wish to address the issue of the Indigenous Peoples' efforts to resist further encroachment by exploitative extraction, specifically in regards to the 'Tar Sands'/Oil Sands extractions in Indigenous Peoples' traditional territories and Indigenous Peoples' resistances to ongoing violations of human rights, and transgressions and disrespect for the fundamental and minimal standards agreed upon by member States of the United Nations, as articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The aggression against Indigenous Peoples by settler governments of Alberta and Canada, and the involved corporations, not limited to TransCanada Corporation and Keystone XL, (as I will share below in my discussion about the pipeline, refinery and impacts in Texas and Nde' traditional territory) are a grave concern of Nde' peoples, chiefly chief traditional authorities, clan leaders, elected leaders, and our related Indigenous relations throughout the Texas and northeastern Mexico region. Furthermore, I am concerned about, and will address herein, the still generalized 'hints' to the impacts on Indigenous Peoples in traditional territories unceded by Indigenous Nations across the (current-day) U.S., and specifically will turn my attention to the 'receiving' refinery sites in South Texas, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and northeastern Mexico. These directly impact Nde' peoples, peoplehood, human rights, and self-determination.
I wish to weigh in on the still under-examined and under-analyzed impacts upon the Indigenous communities in (current day) South Texas and northeastern Mexico, where the Canadian, U.S., and Texas government officials, powerful dominating ruling elites--who are direct, lineal descendants of the settler society, with long-standing TEXAS-based policy-making in favor of a militarized and violent policing to repress the self-governance and recognition of Indigenous Peoples in Texas, as well as institutional organizations and certain 'citizen' groups--have been working vigilantly in support of TransCanada corporation, interest-holders (which, as of today also includes Hillary Clinton and some of her top aides along her career trajectory).

Local Contexts:
Throughout July and August, 2011, in El Calaboz Rancheria, and traditional territories of Hada'didla and Konitsaii Nde', along the Texas-Mexico border,"El Calaboz Rancheria Gathering on Indigenous Knowledge, Lands, Territories and Human Rights" witnessed and documented the construction of a mega-project the Indigenous Peoples and representatives who gathered during the infrastructure for the large-scale transportation of what we construe will be not only oil, but also other extracted elements, such as uranium, which is being targeted once again by U.S. government and corporations.

Once refined in coastal S. Texas refineries, the oil will be transported to Mexico (and no doubt the other U.S.-controlled military 'base', Columbia). All this colossal planning, financing, and implementation measures carried out by and through the abuses of power by elites, did, and continues to, occlude the the grave and concrete reality of ongoing violations of rule of law and human rights which the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Tar Sands projects have already carried out--by obscurring their real activities from the Indigenous Peoples and leadership, as well as U.S. taxpayers. These entities have been negating their duties and responsibilities to enter into meaningful consultation relative to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as treaties and other constructive arrangements which impact Indigenous Peoples' lands and territories unceded. The laws regarding consent of Indigenous Peoples and regarding the illegal seizure, dispossession and taking of land from Indigenous Peoples for development projects, require that States and corporations provide Indigenous Peoples' Free Prior and Informed Consent, the possibility of redress, restitution, and reparation for harms.

There is a crucial opportunity for Nde' Peoples of (current-day) South Texas and Northeastern Mexico, in bifurcated regions such as the Texas-Mexico border, to form important, and much needed dialogues and pro-active decision-making on this issue because there are severe consequences and direct impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline megaproject that will negatively impact the self-determination, nationhood, peoplehood, and self-governance autonomy of presently living and future Nde' generations.
We Nde' are essentially being handed a spiritual, sacred, ethical and moral opportunity to move forward in Nde' Justice & Governance which is based upon the principles, protocols and perspectives of Nde' millenial systems, not by Eurocentric systems of racialization, tribalization, indigenism, and false identity.
My relatives, we Nde' are being given an opportunity to stand up in collective agreement and consensus to act by our principles of Nde' Justice, which is inherently connected to our familial and inherent relationships to Konitsaii Gokiyaa, Nde' Homelands.
Current events demand that there be an emboldened leadership, representing inclusive participation to decision-making, that emerges now in a forthright manner. Emerging leadership models, based integrally upon Nde' Knowledge Systems--not based on Eurocentrically imposed and false governance, modeled after the U.S. bankrupt and corrupt 'democratic' imprisonment systems--but, rather, based upon Nde' Knowledge, Memory, Relationships, Clans, First Foods, Sacred Ritual & Ceremonial Systems, and centrality of matrilineal and matrilocal justice and governance-- is crucial in the process of decolonizing Nde' actions towards self-determination today.

The voices and realities of Indigenous Peoples in bare existence/bare life within the 'dead-zones' of purported corrupted 'nation to nation' relations with States and corporations floods the news everyday, and yet, many Indigenous peoples' needs in our community go unanswered, ignored, denied. That is not the path toward true self-determination and self-governance.
It is time for Nde' leaders to step up and be voiced and listened to in regards to the Keystone XL Pipeline megaproject, and the conspicuous covering over of the reality of Nde' contestations with the U.S. and Texas over the traditional territory which will be exploited in this scheme. The Nde' Peoples who are the traditional land owners, will be denied any voice, agency, or means for redress need to be exposed.

The current news stories covering the Keystone XL Pipeline downplay any impacts upon over 250,000 Indigenous peoples identified in Texas legislative papers as 'Native Americans', and the hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Peoples in Texas identified by the state as 'Mexicans' or 'Latin Americans.'
These omissions have been set into stone by the uncritical voices that U.S. liberal-progressive groups' have etched onto the consciousness of the (so-called) 'American Heartland'. Making Indigenous Peoples in Texas absent is a political issue and a human rights issue. Many groups gain to benefit from maintaining this tactical omission from public view.

Indigenous leaders of the Nde' nation, it is time to come together into council, and make key decisions for the Nde' way of life for our future generations. We must articulate and specify exactly where we Nde' stand on this issue of the Tar Sands, the Keystone XL Pipeline, and other mega industrial projects, such as the border wall, the militarization of our Konitsaii Gokiyaa, and life-threatening projects such as the currently unfolding uranium yellow-cake and water dispossession/taking/extraction slated within our traditional homelands of South Texas as well.

Old Fashioned Ignorance and 'Nativism' Amidst the U.S.Tar Sands Protests?
I wish to share my perspective about how the liberal voice drowns out and occludes the realities of impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline upon Indigenous Peoples & our lands in Texas
The liberal/progressive/anarchist forms of activisms, while important to elevating this important issue to the mainstream public, should not be the 'first' nor the 'last' voice that shapes this issue in the American mainstream because they do not have the education about Indigenous Issues necessary to educate the public about the underlying issues at stake. How the liberal-progressive activists shape and develop the representation of Indigenous Peoples and our struggles and intertwine their limited understanding of this arena of power relations will have a huge impact on how people perceive the harms committed by the Keystone Pipeline XL project. The issue of incorrect representation in the media is having and will continue to have a harmful impact on Indigenous Peoples throughout the U.S., and particularly in Texas and Mexico.
I am deeply skeptical about the selective historical amnesia of the liberal minded and spirited protesters arrested in front of the White House in late August. I have a concern about the genocidal violence and transgressions by the settler society, deep in the heart of Texas, and the fact that this obvious factoid is not being examined closely nor appearing in any media alerts produced by the organizations and groups leading the charge in a U.S. context.
While I agree that alliances, nontraditional alliances, have always been key to our long-term goals of self-governance with lands and territories, the liberal/anarchist sector in this particular arena of struggle, has not yet contributed anything critical to the public's understanding about the specificity of the Keystone XL Pipeline's exact distribution centers and refineries along the Texas coast. Texas is 'big', true, though the indigenous politics there are by no means invisible, nor difficult to locate with a minimal effort in Google.

I'm skeptical about the U.S. environmentalist focus on the dirty business of 'refining' and/or 'transporting' the oil, and how this lens completely obfuscates the underlying resistances, (centuries long) and struggles spearheaded by Indigenous Peoples across Texas, and in Konitsaii Gokiyaa, our homeland. We must look more critically at the way impacts in the U.S., by liberal-progressives focuses more on how the Pipeline project will impact their conception of U.S. territory as the domain of U.S. citizens and taxpayers, not Indigenous Peoples per se. The way in which 'rights' as articulated by liberal-progressives overshadows Indigenous Peoples interests, and focuses on the 'environment' and the limited way in which they view this as an Indigenous struggle against abusive and violent state governments, dispossession, criminalization, neocolonization, neoliberalism, and land claims contestations.

It is not any longer possible, given the prominence of Texas indigenous activism across the digital spaces, to not see that Indigenous peoples in Texas have been involved in a long-term battle and commitment to land claims, self-determination, self-governance, and autonomy in Indigenous Proprietary Title.
Yet, there is a great vagueness and unspecified, ethereal absence of groundedness surrounding the liberal-progressive activism in the 'front-line' (those arrested in Washington D.C.) of the Keystone XL Pipeline issue. The skimming over the lived realities of Indigenous Peoples on the real ground in S. Texas is a red flag.
How U.S. progressives enact their 'American' indignation and outrage about Indigenous issues embroiled in land and territorial paradigm shifts is directly tied to their cultures' historical amnesia, and in my opinion, we Indigenous Peoples cannot sustain an alliance with liberal progressives in the long run, due to an ongoing denial of genocide in Texas, the problematic negation of Nde' presence as the traditional holders of Aboriginal Title to the lands and resources in question.

I sincerely hope the liberal-progressives are learning the process of becoming meaningful and true 'allies' with, by, for, and alongside Indigenous Peoples is a lifelong journey which must be disseminated intergenerationally.

True allies in Indigenous Peoples' struggles for self-determination and autonomy are rare. It is one thing to vehemently and honorably uphold the rights of the Indigenous Peoples in Canada, and quite another to bring this concept to bear in regards to unpacking privilege, violence, and ignorance as the normed U.S. and Texas 'Indian Policy' which threatens through denying the very existence of Nde' Peoplehood, rights, and Aboriginal Title in Texas, which has everything to do with true Indigenous to Indigenous alliance building on the Keystone XL Pipeline issue. It is a much deeper relationship related to reciprocity and mutual protection of our rights as the land owners.

Sadly, what I have witnessed thus far in the media, is a vacancy and muted absence of any such leanings to true decolonization by the purported liberal-progressive 'allies' of this important anti-colonial movement spearheaded by the Indigenous Peoples.
The time has come to put the faces and places on this issue within a U.S. geopolitical, historical, and political-economic map, so to speak. We Indigenous Peoples must step up and claim this issue as ours across all our similarities and differences. We Indigenous Peoples must take responsibility to ‘locate’ the shatter-zone of impacts to our peoples, lands, and futures within precise sites where the ongoing colonialist oppression of the Tar Sands...is coming home, intimately and violently.

We mustn't miss/avert the downstream specificities, or relegate this work to others who do not know, nor care to apply, the real history of colonization and ongoing genocide.

Considerations Related to the UNDRIP, Article 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, and 36, 37.
We cannot deny how the Security, Prosperity Trade Partnership’ and U.S. national interests and foreign policy on the U.S.-Mexico border, Mexico, and Latin America produces the conditions for the terrain of multiple and intersecting oppressions. Examine the Canada-Tar Sands to South Texas refineries to exports to Mexico, Central and South America...and Caribbean matrix.

For example:
“Going to Jail for the Environment,” The Baltimore Sun, August 22, 2011. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-08-22/news/bs-ed-tar-sands-20110822_1_wind-farms-tar-sands-pipeline
The other vision embraces a massive, 1,700-mile pipeline from Canada to Texas full of "tar sands oil," the dirtiest petroleum fuel. This proposed pipeline, if built, would steer our nation toward another generation of polluting automobile use.”
“Waxman dares ask if tar sands oil pipeline will benefit Koch Industries,” Daily KOS, Friday, May 27, 2011,
Koch also owns a heavy oil refinery in Texas, so it is not unreasonable to assume it will also have some stake in tar sands crude moving through the Keystone XL pipeline.”
“Most of the refined transportation fuels we are exporting is going to countries (e.g., Mexico, Canada) that have significant refinery capacity. What these countries do not have is the ability to refine heavy crude oil like that produced from tar sands. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips, or Koch Industries cannot sell tar sands crude to these countries, but can sell them refined products from that crude.”

“Much of those exports are shipped from the Gulf Coast refineries, particularly those in Texas.

What the Keystone XL pipeline does is bring tar sands oil to refineries in Texas. So, the question someone should be asking is whose interests are being served by the pipeline. Does it serve the energy needs of American consumers as claimed by Republicans like Fred Upton? Or does it serve to move tar sands crude from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries where petroleum products can be produced for export?

Conclusion
Nde' and relations, let us move together in unity, clarity, affirmation and in a forthright manner. The current construction of a mega- bridge over the Texas-Mexico border wall, (down the road from El Calaboz) is a ‘connector’ for the TransTexas Corridor (Texas to Canada) giving capacity for large freight trains... to travel over the wall, to move oil from Canada (source) to Texas (refineries) to Mexico (‘markets’). It is time for decisive action. 

Ahi'dn, thank you,
Hada'didla Nde', Konitsaii Nde'
Lipan Apache Band of Texas

South Texas Links to Keystone Pipeline and Tar Sands (Dene Traditional Territory/Alberta, Canada)




























South Texas Indigenous Peoples Should Be Seriously Concerned About the Links Between the Tar Sands and Indigenous Peoples' Human Rights,
Post #1: Background Context

For Immediate Release
May 5, 2011
Contact:
Marty Cobenais, Indigenous Environmental Network, ienpipeline@igc.org, 218-760-0284
Kelly Trout, Friends of the Earth, ktrout@foe.org, 202-222-0722
Major Tar Sands Oil Pipeline Spill Adds to Doubts About Controversial Keystone XL Proposal
Today, tribes and environmental organizations reiterated their call for the rejection of new of tar sands oil pipelines following a major tar sands oil pipeline spill in Alberta, Canada. Last Friday, a pipeline owned by Plains All American spilled over one million gallons of tar sands oil in the Peace Region of Northern Alberta.
The massive spill—larger even than the tar sands oil pipeline rupture that polluted Michigan’s Kalamazoo River last summer—reinforced public concerns over the growing use of tar sands oil in the U.S. and, in particular, about the controversial Keystone XL tar sands oil proposal. The Keystone XL project, proposed by Alberta-based TransCanada Pipelines, would stretch 1,700 miles from Canada across the American Midwest to Texas and is currently under review by the Obama administration.
“Pipelines are not safe,” stated Sac & Fox Principal Chief George Thurman, headquartered in Stroud, Oklahoma. “These leaks in Canada only verify our concerns with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. We must protect the water, air, land and our significant cultural and historical sites for future generations, therefore, the Sac & Fox Business Committee stands opposed to construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.”
In the U.S., tar sands oil pipelines have come under increasing scrutiny in the last year. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has drawn opposition from a wide range of U.S. officials, including Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns (R). Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, a source of water for many of the nation’s farms, could be polluted by spills from the Keystone XL pipeline.
“These tar sands oil pipelines have been found to have serious safety risks,” said Marty Cobenais, pipeline organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, citing a recent report by the Pipeline Safety Trust and Natural Resources Defense Council. “This report concluded that Alberta’s pipeline system, which mostly carries tar sands oil, has had 16 times more spills from internal corrosion than the conventional crude pipelines that are in the U.S.,” Cobenais added.
A week earlier, the Trans Mountain pipeline in Alberta was shut down following a spill. A pin-sized hole in the pipeline released an unknown amount of oil into the ground and a nearby creek before being discovered by local landowners.
Last summer, a tar sands oil pipeline spilled nearly one million gallons of oil into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, the largest oil spill in Midwest history. Nearly a year later, the impacts are still being felt and the EPA announced that a 30-mile section of the river will be closed to the public for this summer.
“Tar sands oil pipelines are simply not safe,” said Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “The Peace Region spill once again shows the costs of our continued oil addiction. We should choose healthy children, clean water, and a strong clean energy economy over dangerous pipelines like the Keystone XL.”
The Keystone XL pipeline is currently undergoing a second round of environmental review and a public comment period is open through June 6.
###

 
 
Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director
Indigenous Environmental Network
PO Box485
Bemidji, MN 56619 USA
Ph: + 1 218 751 4967
Fax: + 1 218 751 0561
Email: ien@igc.org
Web: www.ienearth.org

Sunday, May 29, 2011

El Calaboz Gathering June 24-26, 2011

A DRUG & ALCOHOL FREE, TOBACCO RESPECTFUL, ANTI-VIOLENCE GATHERING

ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST GO THROUGH FORMAL REGISTRATION in EL CALABOZ

CONTACT: el.calaboz.2011@gmail.com for details




































Poster El Calaboz 2011 Espanol




Poster El Calaboz 2011 English






Saturday, April 16, 2011

Nde' Delegation Participate in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues-10



Margo Tamez (Nde'-El Calaboz) shaking hand of future indigenous leader, in the circle of honor at Blue Lake Rancheria, March 20, 2011.

CHAIRMAN DANIEL CASTRO ROMERO, JR. & Nde' Community Member


DR. MARGO TAMEZ, Testimony at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights/Organization of American States.

April 16, 2011

After participating in the North American Indigenous Peoples' Caucus, March 18-20, at Blue Lake Rancheria, California, the Nde' representative from El Calaboz Rancheria, Margo Tamez, Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas-Mexico, and Chairman Romero, representing the Nde' traditional territory, re-grouped to participate in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 10th Session, New York City, NY, May 16-27, 2011.

Dr. Margo Tamez (Nde', Co-Founder, Lipan Apache Women Defense) and Chairman Daniel Castro Romero, Jr. (Lipan Apache Band of Texas) accompanied an Apache delegation to present concept papers, research, and interventions related to the human rights violations in the matter of Lipan Apache peoples and Indigenous Proprietary Title ('Aboriginal Title'), land claims, the border wall, gender violence, and the situation of Indigenous women human rights defenders, among the many concerns raised by Nde' communities.

Margo Tamez stated, "We have a specific mandate from indigenous people, and it is up to us to ensure that indigenous peoples' voices and concerns are heard and understood by our peer Indigenous leaders and delegates at the UNPFII 10th Session, by U.N. officials, NGOs, and by States--particularly Spain, the Holy See, Mexico and the U.S.

"Indigenous peoples in South Texas, the LRGV and along the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo river are and have always been deeply related along cultural, social, political and economic perspectives and our histories of colonization. The Nde' delegation is actively engaging international arenas today more than ever. This is not accidental, nor a recent development, as Nde' (Lipan Apache peoples) have long been dynamic actors in international sovereign to sovereign and nation to nation relations--with the Holy See, Spain, Mexico and Texas--since the mid 16th century."

"Thus, this diligent work towards the reclamation of self-governance of Nde' traditional territory, is a crucial part of a broader movement of Indigenous peoples across the hemisphere. Nde' are finally reclaiming the rightful place in the international legal arena as a Nation--firmly embracing a self-determination process in which Nde Lipan Apaches are uniquely situated for, given our long international relations experiences with Spain, Mexico, Texas and the U.S."

Nde' Human Rights, Land, Territories, and Futures
The Nde' ('Lipan Apache') delegation formally requested a formal meeting with the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, (U.N. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights). This formal request by the Nde' was granted by Special Rapporteur Anaya.

The issues of Nde' land claims, Nde' land grants, Nde' Crown title mechanisms, Indigenous Proprietary Title, redress, and revenue sharing of oil, uranium, copper, coal, and other mineral elements, including biodiversity, are at stake for indigenous self-determination and self-governance.

Implementing the UNDRIP along the Texas-Mexico border is complicated by the states' policies of militarization, criminalization of indigenous peoples, globalization, climate change, unresolved historical contexts of violent dispossession and supplantation of Indigenous governance systems, and the human rights of Indigenous women, children, families, and workers.

The Nde' delegation raised these and more for the formal review of the Special Rapporteur.

Specifically, in her face-to-face meeting with Anaya in New York City on May 18, Tamez articulated that the Nde' of El Calaboz formally request that the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples make an official visit to the Texas-Mexico Border along the trajectory of the border wall, and to observe, witness, and to document the rights violations against Indigenous families, communities, elders, women, children and workers who are the most severely impacted by the U.S. violation of international law. The office of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples is organized within the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In fulfillment of his mandate, Special Rapporteur Anaya:
* Promotes good practices, including new laws, government programs, and constructive agreements between indigenous peoples and states, to implement international standards concerning the rights of indigenous peoples (See Promotion of good practices)
* Reports on the overall human rights situations of indigenous peoples in selected countries (see Country reports);
* Addresses specific cases of alleged violations of the rights of indigenous peoples through communications with Governments and others (see Communications);
* Conducts or contributes to thematic studies on topics of special importance regarding the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples (See Thematic studies).
James S. Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Sunday, March 20, 2011

North American Indigenous Peoples' Caucus, March 19-20, 2011

A delegation comprised of Lipan Apaches of El Calaboz Rancheria, the Lipan Apache Band of Texas, and San Carlos Apache Tribe formed a working group to attend, learn, share, inform, and make interventions on the issues affecting Nde' and Nnee' ('Apache') peoples' self-determination and sovereignty. Some of these are borders, gender violence, taxation, the right to mobility across traditional territories, livelihoods, Traditional Knowledge, dispossession, expropriation, environmental destruction, militarization, uranium mining and production, oil drilling and extraction, Free Prior Informed Consent, Human Rights violations, self-determination and sovereignty, as well as Indigenous Proprietary Title ('Aboriginal Title').


Thursday, February 3, 2011

THE REAL COST OF ANTI-NDE' BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST NON-RECOGNIZED TRIBES

The All Segments Waiver, authored by former U.S. Homeland Security Director, Secretary Michael Chertoff, at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1207080713748.shtm.

Billing Code -4410-10
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
as Amended AGENCY: Office ofthe Secretary, Department of Homeland Security ACTION: Notice of determination.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the
international land border of the United States.
DATES: This Notice is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. DETERMINATION AND WAIVER: I have a mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the borders of the United States. Public Law 109-367, § 2, 120 Stat. 2638, 8 U.S.C. § 1701 note. Congress has provided me with a number of authorities necessary to accomplish this mandate. One of these authorities is found at section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRlRA"). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat.3009-546,3009-554(Sept.30, 1996)(8U.S.C 1103note),asamendedbythe REALIDActof2005, PublicLaw109-13,Div.B,119Stat.231,302,306(May11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of2006, Public Law
109-367, § 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. § 1103 note), as amended by the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, § 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In Section 102(a) ofIIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In Section
102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress has called for the installation of fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not less than 700 miles of the southwest border, including priority miles of fencing that must be completed by December 2008. Finally, in section 102(c) of the IIRIRA, Congress granted to me the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious
construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.
I determine that the areas in the vicinity of the United States border described on the attached document, which is incorporated and made a part hereof, are areas of high illegal entry (collectively "Project Areas"). These Project Areas are located in the States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. In order to deter illegal crossings in the
Project Areas, there is presently a need to construct fixed and mobile barriers (such as
fencing, vehicle barriers, towers, sensors, cameras, and other surveillance,
communication, and detection equipment) and roads in the vicinity of the border of the
United States. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads
that Congress prescribed in the IIRIRA in the Project Areas, which are areas of high
illegal entry into the United States, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise
the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of the IIRIRA as amended.
Accordingly, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of roads
and fixed and mobile barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the project area, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of fences, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, surveillance, communication, and detection equipment of all types, radar and radio towers, and lighting) in the Project Areas, all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following laws, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91190,83
Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 D.S.C. 4321 et seq.)), the Endangered Species Act
(Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (Dec. 28,1973) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act) (33 D.S.C. 1251 et seq.)), the National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16 D.S.C. 470 et seq.)), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 D.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 D.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Archeological Resources Protection Act (Pub. L. 96-95, 16 D.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 D.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act (42 D.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 D.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 D.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 86-523, 16
D.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Antiquities Act (16 D.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 D.S.C. 461 et seq), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90-542, 16 D.S.C. 1281 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 D.S.C. 4201etseq.),theCoastalZoneManagementAct(Pub.L.92-583, 16D.S.C. §1451et
seq.),theWildernessAct (Pub.L.88-577,16U.S.C. 1131etseq.),theFederalLand Policy and Management Act (Pub L. 94-579,43 D.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Pub. L. 89-669, 16 D.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-1024, 16 U.S.C. 742a, et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73-121, 16D.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 D.S.C. 551 et seq.), the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Pub. L.
106-145), Sections 102(29) and 103 of Title I of the California Desert Protection Act (Pub. L. 103-433),50 Stat. 1827, the National Park Service Organic Act (Pub. L. 64-235,
16 D.S.C. 1,2-4), the National Park Service General Authorities Act (Pub. L. 91-383, 16
D.S.C. la-l et seq.), Sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Actof 1978(Pub.L.95-625),Sections301(a)-(f)oftheArizonaDesertWildernessAct (Pub. L. 101-628), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 D.S.C. 403), the Eagle Protection Act (16 D.S.C. 668 et seq.), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 D.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 D.S.C. 1996), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 D.S.C. 2000bb), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 D.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the Multiple Dse and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 D.S.C. 528-531).
This waiver does not supersede, supplement, or in any way modify the previous waivers published in the Federal Register on September 22,2005 (70 FR 55622), January 19,
2007 (72 FR 2535), and October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60870).
I reserve the authority to make further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary to accomplish the provisions of section 102 of the IIRIRA, as amended.

Dated:
Michael Chertoff, Secretary
~,

The Hidalgo Fence Waiver, authored by former U.S. Homeland Security Director, Secretary Michael Cheroff, at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1207080713748.shtm.

Billing Code -4410-10
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
as Amended AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security ACTION: Notice of determination.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the
intemationalland border of the United States.
DATES: This Notice is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. DETERMINATION AND WAIVER: The Department of Homeland Security has a mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the borders of the United States. Public Law 109-367, § 2, 120 Stat. 2638,8 U.S.C. § 1701 note. Congress has provided the Secretary of Homeland Security with a number of authorities necessary to accomplish this mandate. One of these authorities is found at section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat.3009-546,3009-554(Sept.30, 1996)(8U.S.C 1103note),asamendedbythe REALIDActof2005, PublicLaw109-13,Div.B,119Stat.231,302,306(May11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law
-----_U-
U-n -n ---n -n------. -n-----un 109-
367, § 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. § 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, § 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26,2007). In Section 102(a) of the IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In Section
102(b) of the IIRIRA, Congress has called for the installation of fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not less than 700 miles of the southwest border, including priority miles of fencing that must be completed by December of 2008. Finally, in section 102(c) of the IIRIRA, Congress granted to me the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of the IIRIRA.
I determine that the area in the vicinity ofthe United States border as described in the attached document, hereinafter the Project Area, which is incorporated and made a part hereof, is an area of high illegal entry. In order to deter illegal crossings in the Project Area, there is presently a need to construct fixed and mobile barriers and roads in conjunction with improvements to an existing levee system in the vicinity of the border of the United States as a joint effort with Hidalgo County, Texas. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads that Congress prescribed in the IIRIRA in the Project Area, which is an area of high illegal entry into the United States, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of the IIRIRA as amended. Accordingly, I hereby waive in their entirety, with
-n---------------n
-_n__---~-m__respect
to the construction of roads and fixed and mobile barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the project area, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of fences, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, surveillance, communication, and detection equipment of all types, radar and radio towers, and lighting) in the Project Area, all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following laws, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,
1970) (42 V.S.C. 4321 et seq.)), the Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884) (Dec. 28, 1973) (16 V.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act) (33 V.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16 V.S.C. 470 et seq.)), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 V.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42
V.S.C.
7401 et seq.), the Archeological Resources Protection Act (Pub. L. 96-95, 16
V.S.C.
470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 V.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act (42 V.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 V.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 V.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 86-523, 16 V.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Antiquities Act (16 V.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 V.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 V.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the Coastal Zone Management Act (Pub. L. 92-583, 16V.S.C. § 1451 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Pub L. 94-579,43 V.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
-~----n_u-
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Pub. L. 89-669, 16 V.S.c. 668dd-668ee), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-1024, 16 V.S.C. 742a, et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73-121, 16 V.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 V.S.C. 551 et seq.), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 V.S.C. 403), the Eagle Protection Act (16 V.S.C. 668 et seq.), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 V.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 V.S.C. 1996), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 V.S.C. 2000bb), and the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (31 V.S.C. 6303-05).
I reserve the authority to make further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary to accomplish the provisions of section 102 of the IIRIRA, as amended.
Dated:
Michael Chertoff, Secretary
\