Second Circuit Rejects Jay Treaty Statute Defense to Criminal Prosecution

Here are the materials in United States v. Malachowski:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

CA2 Order

An excerpt:

Malachowski invokes 8 U.S.C. § 1359, which allows American Indians born in Canada to freely cross the borders of the United States, and contends that he was wrongfully convicted of counts three, four, five, and six. The statute extends only “to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American Indian race,” and we previously expressed skepticism that Malachowksi satisfied his burden of proof on this point. See Malachowski, 415 F. App’x at 313 (noting the “dearth of evidence respecting [Malachowski’s] ancestry”). Neither the immigration officer assigned to Malachowksi’s case nor the ATF agent investigating Malachowksi unearthed evidence of his American Indian heritage. G.A. 58, 146-47. And when Malachowski was arrested by a border patrol agent and asked “Do you claim any legal status in the United States?” Malachowski answered “No.” G.A. 54. During this encounter, Malachowski also did not “claim any other citizenship or nationality.” Id. Malachowksi has accordingly fallen short of prevailing on this claim.

New Scholarship on “the Unparalleled Rights Enjoyed by American Indians Born in Canada to Freely Access the United States”

The Seattle Journal of Environmental Law has published “Canadian Indians, Inuit, Métis, and Métis: An Exploration of the Unparalleled Rights Enjoyed by American Indians Born in Canada to Freely Access the United States.”

Here is the abstract:

This article expands on an earlier work published in October 2013, jointly by Bender’s Immigration Bulletin and Western Washington University’s Border Policy Research Institute.

Certain American Indians born in Canada enjoy access to the United States unrestricted by the Immigration and Nationality Act, a right stemming from the Jay Treaty of 1794. An examination of this right, reflected by codification as § 289 of the INA, reveals qualifying ABCs are entitled to privileges unparalleled by all but United States citizens to enter and remain in the U.S. “for the purpose of employment, study, retirement, investing, and/or immigration” or any other reason.

Unpublished California ICWA Opinion Reversing for Non-Compliance

A long and sad opinion here, but a few things of note:

-as usual, Jay Treaty arguments are brushed aside.

-the State’s assumption that a claim of tribal membership is vague doesn’t mean ICWA might apply. And families might involve many tribes, from geographically diverse areas.

-there is or was a dedicated ICWA court or docket in Los Angeles County.

-the foster parents were not interested in helping with reunification in the slightest.

New Scholarship on the Jay Treaty Right to Free Access for Indians

Greg Boos and Greg McLawsen have posted “American Indians Born in Canada and the Right of Free Access to the United States” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Certain American Indians born in Canada enjoy access to the United States unrestricted by the Immigration and Nationality Act, a right stemming from the Jay Treaty of 1794. An examination of this right, reflected by codification as § 289 of the INA, reveals qualifying ABCs are entitled to privileges unparalleled by all but United States citizens to enter and remain in the U.S. “for the purpose of employment, study, retirement, investing, and/or immigration” or any other reason.

Michigan Indian Legal Services Winter 2011-2012 Newsletter

Here:

MILS_Newsletter_Winter_2011-2012_Edition

Interesting articles on Jay Treaty border crossings and right to counsel in tribal courts. Oh, and MSU ILPC alum Erin McCormick.

Illegally Deported Canadian Indian May Not Sue Dept. of Homeland Security for Constitutional Violations

Here are the materials in McDonald v. Dept. of Homeland Security (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing McDonald Complaint

Homeland Security Motion to Dismiss

McDonald Opposition

DHS Reply

Dan Lewerenz on the Jay Treaty Free Passage Right

Dan Lewerenz has published his award-winning paper, “Historical Context and the Survival of the Jay Treaty Free Passage Right: A Response to Marcia Yablon-Zug,” in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law.

.

Paul Spruhan on the Canadian Indian Free Passage Right

Paul Spruhan (Navajo Nation AG’s Office) has published, “The Canadian Indian Free Passage Right: The Last Stronghold of Explicit Race Restriction in United States Immigration Law” in the North Dakota Law Review. Paul continues his long string of outstanding articles in legal history and Indian law. This one should be of special interest to immigration specialists as well.

Here is an excerpt:

[T]his article reviews the tangled legal history of the Canadian Indian free passage right to answer the question why such a racial restriction continues to exist today. Part II-A discusses the origins of Indians’ free passage right in treaties between the United States and Great Britain, and a congressional statute passed in 1928. Part II-B, through an analysis of cases and administrative policies, shows how officials struggled to define “Canadian Indian” under the 1928 act, conceptualizing Indian status at first as a “political” status defined by Canadian law and then as a “racial” status defined by American law. Part II-C then discusses the adoption of the blood quantum restriction as part of a comprehensive overhaul of American immigration law in 1952, and the apparent reasons for why Congress adopted a half-blood rule.
In section III, the article discusses problems arising after 1952 for Canadian Indians, like Peter Roberts, who must prove their amount of Indian blood to invoke their passage right. Section IV discusses the implications of the explicit racial restriction for federal Indian law and immigration law. It notes that both are premised on congressional “plenary power,” historically outside constitutional review by the United States Supreme Court. It discusses how the Supreme Court, since the 1970s, has reviewed the constitutionality of Indian legislation under equal protection principles, but has not done so for immigration legislation premised on race. Contrasting the current state of racial legislation under Congress’s powers to legislate in Indian affairs with its power to legislate concerning immigration, the article suggests that the blood quantum restriction for Canadian Indian free passage may present an opportunity to distinguish definitions in federal Indian law that use blood quantum and to challenge prior precedent exempting immigration legislation from judicial scrutiny.

Homeland Security Memo re: Border Crossing

From NCAI: Here is a memorandum from the Department of Homeland Security regarding the upcoming Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) implementation on June 1, 2009 and it’s effect on North American Indians.

Homeland Security Letter

To summarize the memorandum, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will not require those persons who fall under the Jay Treaty exceptions to present a WHTI compliant document on or after June 1, 2009 until such time as an alternate document is approved and issued.