Supposedly yet more intrusion and division of their land is the only solution to some new problem someone else caused.
Sounds like it’s surveilling the reservation to me. The stated purpose is to monitor border crossings, but that’s not the same as surveillance of the border.
As someone living in Tucson, and having to go through these Border Patrol checkpoints, it does feel like they've gotten more aggressive over time. The last time I went through a checkpoint, they didn't even ask about citizenship, just wanted to run their dog over the car sniffing for drugs, which I feel is a 4th amendment violation, even though the supreme court probably disagrees.
I'm not sure if they have any legal recourse, but I'd love to hear a lawyer chime in. IANAL.
per se, latin for "in itself"
What the article fails to mention is that some Tohono O'odham members have been heavily involved in both human and drug trafficking due to the cross border nature of their nation.
(Of course the morality of laws leading to smuggling are up for debate)
But, by picking a border reservation, the exact same surveillance is falsely setting CBP up as a bogeyman apparently racist towards natives - all of which is left unsubstantiated by the article.
The origin of surveillance tech is of no relevance, other than to malign Israel. What would change if the tech were from, say Canada? Nothing but the outage channeled at Israel.
Here's the entirety of the article without the undercurrent prodding outrage:
Surveillance towers capable of infrared tracking of humans for upto 1 mile are common along the border. Some borderland overlaps with Indian reservations.
* A history of harassment by CBP towards inhabitants of the reservation which is driving people away.
* CBP is abusing this surveillance technology to monitor protestors.
* CBP lends its surveillance technology to other law enforcement agencies in a way that seems to have insufficient oversight and large potential for abuse.
Wherever CBP presence increases, questionings increase, regardless of race. To frame this tension as harassment targeting natives is disingenuous. CBP often gets accused of racism, especially towards Hispanics, though some 70% of CBP officers deployed along the border are Hispanic themselves.
If the protests are happening within CBP jurisdiction (100 miles from the border), how is deploying authorized surveillance per law "abuse"?
It's very telling that governments seek to abuse the rules they set forth, to deny citizens as much as possible. This idea that there is a 100-mile radius from the border, where constitutional rights just don't apply, is laughably authoritarian and will be expanded in the future. The history of human governments shows that absent very strong protections against the government, the citizenry will always lose in the end, whether it be loss of freedom, or loss of nation stability.
But its only a matter of time until someone gets up on the pulpit and starts complaining about 'external sovereign powers having undue influence over American politics' .. as has been the case with the ridiculous Russia narrative of late.
I guess its a matter of having the 'right people' on the 'right side' of history - but frankly, given the choice, I'd rather live on the plantation any day. The oppressed natives of America have, time and again, demonstrated the kind of resilient human spirit that I admire.
And now, here we are, with the perpetrators of one of the worst apartheid states in the modern era, bringing it within the US' borders. How do people rationalise this against the "mah Russia' narrative backdrop?
If you want an example, then look at Israel, which is one of the first state that wasn't created unilaterally through force or as a result of war, but (at least initially) through a UN resolution from an assembly of states that (almost) all agreed on the necessity of partitionning the populations living in the area. And look at the result...
A handful of UN dopes sitting on the Golan Heights who have to run to Israel for safety when actual trouble from the region affects them do not deter anyone.
The UN recognition is nice, but israel would exist without it.
In the post WW2 context, with the cold war looming, having the UN ratify the existence of Israel was a huge thing. Don't forget that both in 49 and in 67 nobody was giving Israel any chance to survive in a war against its arab neighbourghs. At that time, things were very very different from now.
The fact that this declaration was accepted by a majority of states including the most powerful ones, and yet lead to an immediate never-ending war is the point i was trying to make. To my knowledge, borders always get determined through war, even if you try to begin with a legal procedure.
I'm not sure what you consider a western colonial power in this list, but yes indeed, arabs refused the rights for jews to have any kind of state at the time.
Did they refuse them rights to any kind of state, or refuse them rights to any kind of state on land that was at that time Arab land? It’s not hard to see why a country would be against giving over its own land.
Arab population never got along well with the idea of having jews (or anything non-muslim) rule any part of the region, but i don't think the reason has anything to do with sovereign country giving its own land...
There well Palestinian Jews who had lived there for centuries, well integrated, the spoke Arabic, and there were hardly any issues prior to Zionism.
It's changed hands a lot. I guess that's not surprising given the location. Anyone building an empire in much of Europe, Asia, Egypt, Persia, and the like at some point would be passing by Palestine on the way to some juicy target--might as well grab Palestine on the way.
Either way, I don't think the fact of Israeli involvement in surveillance theatre regarding Native American Indians is a positive development. I'm very curious as to how this can possibly be justified, given the state of Gaza today.