The "Tribal Provision" of the Violence Against Women Act
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: The "Tribal Provision" of the Violence Against Women Act

  1. #1
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default The "Tribal Provision" of the Violence Against Women Act

    WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden is quietly working with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to try to pass an inclusive version of the Violence Against Women Act in the lame-duck Congress. And so far, sources tell HuffPost, Cantor is on board as long as one thing is stripped from the bill: a key protection for Native American women.


    Staffers for Biden and Cantor have been trying to reach a deal on the bill for at least a week. Neither camp publicly let on it was talking to the other until Wednesday, when Cantor said the two are in negotiations and he's feeling hopeful about a deal.


    "I am speaking with the vice president and his office and trying to resolve the issue of the differences surrounding the VAWA bill," Cantor said during remarks on the House floor.


    "This week I've actually been encouraged to see that we could very well see agreement on VAWA, and I'm very hopeful that that comes about. But I am encouraged about the discussions that my office is having with the vice president's office right now, that bill being a high priority of Vice President Biden."


    VAWA, which has been reauthorized consistently for 18 years with little fanfare, was, for the first time, left to expire in Sept. 2011. The sticking point has been new protections for three particularly vulnerable groups: undocumented immigrants, members of the LGBT community and Native Americans. The additions are supported by Democrats and opposed by House Republicans, who are calling them politically driven. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill in April with the additional protections, and House Republicans passed their own bill in May that omitted those three provisions. Since then, the issue has gone nowhere.


    The fact that Cantor is working directly with Biden, an original sponsor of the 1994 law and a strong supporter of the Senate bill, suggests a real possibility that something could advance in the final weeks of a Congress otherwise consumed by a major tax fight. And now that the elections are over -- and the GOP received the message that they need to do a better job of appealing to women and minorities -- House Republicans may be more inclined to support the more inclusive bill.


    But two sources familiar with negotiations on VAWA, both of whom requested anonymity given the sensitive nature of talks, have told HuffPost that Cantor is refusing to accept any added protections for Native American women that would give expanded jurisdiction to tribes, and is pressuring Democrats to concede on that front. There does seem to be room to negotiate with Cantor on the other two provisions relating to LGBT and undocumented immigrant protections, the sources say.


    Asked to confirm if this is the current state of play in VAWA talks, a Cantor spokesman said only, "Your source is mistaken."


    Later, the Cantor spokesman said in a statement, "Majority Leader Cantor and the Vice President have had a conversation seeking to find a solution. Since then, we have continued to work with the Vice President's staff, as well as Senate Democratic staff to work on a solution that gets to the root of the problem, namely, violence against women. Our staffs continue to work towards a compromise on those multiple provisions outstanding in the hopes of finding a solution."


    A White House official did not respond to a request for comment on the tribal provision but confirmed that Biden is "talking to both the Senate and House about trying to get [VAWA] done if possible."


    Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the author of the Senate VAWA bill, went to the Senate floor on Thursday and plainly announced that House Republican leaders are blocking his bill "because of their objections to [the] ... tribal provision."


    Leahy explained the provision, probably the least understood of the three additions in the Senate bill: It gives tribal courts limited jurisdiction to oversee domestic violence offenses committed against Native American women by non-Native American men on tribal lands. Currently, federal and state law enforcement have jurisdiction over domestic violence on tribal lands, but in many cases, they are hours away and lack the resources to respond to those cases. Tribal courts, meanwhile, are on site and familiar with tribal laws, but lack the jurisdiction to address domestic violence on tribal lands when it is carried out by a non-Native American individual.


    That means non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on tribal lands are essentially "immune from the law, and they know it," Leahy said.


    The standoff over including VAWA protections for Native American women comes at a time of appallingly high levels of violence on tribal lands. One in three Native American women have been raped or experienced attempted rape, the New York Times reported in March, and the rate of sexual assault on Native American women is more than twice the national average. President Barack Obama has called violence on tribal lands "an affront to our shared humanity."


    Of the Native American women who are raped, 86 percent of them are raped by non-Native men, according to an Amnesty International report. That statistic is precisely what the Senate's tribal provision targets.


    The two sources say, to Cantor's credit, his staff has said they're willing to try to come up with other solutions to responding to violence against women on tribal lands, as long as the solution doesn't give tribes jurisdiction over the matter. But proponents of the Senate bill see the limited jurisdictional change as the only realistic way to address the problem.


    Some House Republicans do support giving tribes that limited jurisdictional authority and have put forward a solution of their own. Earlier this week, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Tom Cole (R-Okla.) introduced a bill that has the same jurisdictional language for tribes as the Senate bill, but would also allow the defendant to move his case to a federal court if he feels his rights were violated in a tribal court. As a standalone bill that wades into complex jurisdictional laws, though, even Issa told HuffPost last week that the bill has little chance of passing in the lame duck.


    Cantor's insistence on keeping the tribal jurisdictional provision out of VAWA has infuriated some backers of the Senate bill and elicited vows to prevent any VAWA bill from advancing that doesn't protect all victims of abuse. Terry O?Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women and someone who regularly talks to people directly involved in VAWA negotiations, called Cantor's stance "completely outrageous."


    "Who is Eric Cantor to say that it's okay for some women to get beaten and raped?" O'Neill said. "If they happen to be Native women who are attacked by a non-Native man, as far as Eric Cantor is concerned, those women are tossed."


    O'Neill's incendiary and extreme charge highlights the intense passion that has engulfed the negotiations around the bill.


    The NOW president said she didn't know why the GOP leader was so opposed to keeping the provision, since it has the backing of the Justice Department. She said any concerns about constitutional laws being circumvented on tribal lands have already been vetted. Regardless, she said she doesn't expect the White House or Democratic lawmakers to cave on the provision.


    "We are not going to leave behind sisters who have been brutally raped," O'Neill said.
    Bolding mine.

    What are your thoughts on the Tribal Provision of the VAWA? Should non-Native American men who are accused of raping Native American women on tribal land be tried in tribal courts? If not, are there other solutions that you think might work?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  2. #2
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,554

    Default

    I am a little fuzzy on the details. What exactly does the Violence Against Women Act do?

    ~Bonita~

  3. #3
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Here is the Wiki on it:

    Violence Against Women Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law (Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355) signed as Pub.L. 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.


    VAWA was drafted by the office of Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), with support from a broad coalition of advocacy groups. The Act passed through Congress with bipartisan support in 1994, clearing the House by a vote of 235–195 and the Senate by a vote of 61–38, although the following year House Republicans attempted to cut the Act's funding.[1] In the 2000 Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, a sharply divided Court struck down the VAWA provision allowing women the right to sue their attackers in federal court. By a 5–4 majority, the Court's conservative wing overturned the provision as an intrusion on states' rights.[2][3]


    VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005.[4] The Act's 2012 renewal was fiercely opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas.[5] In April 2012, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and the House subsequently passed its own measure (omitting provisions of the Senate bill that would protect gay men, lesbians, American Indians, and illegal immigrants who were victims of domestic violence). Reconciliation of the two bills has been stymied by procedural measures, leaving the reauthorization in question.
    Thought the bolded was interesting. I can see why we wouldn't necessarily protect men (gay or otherwise) specifically in the Violence Against Women Act, but why wouldn't we protect all women?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  4. #4
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    double post
    Last edited by Alissa_Sal; 12-07-2012 at 02:08 PM.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  5. #5
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,554

    Default

    I really don't know a ton about this, but speaking for all laws in general, I grew up next to an Indian Reservation. They have their own laws and we can not enforce our laws on them. It would be like the US making a law for France.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #6
    Prolific Poster ftmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    I dont think they are saying these groups are not protected. There are laws against rape and domestic abuse etc already. The specific issue seems to be weather tribes are able to directly prosecute men who commit violence against their women, as apposed to it going to federal court.

    I assume the issue is that a tribal court would be predisposed towards the native woman, and non-native men could be falsely accused and prosecuted. I am not saying I agree with this assessment, but I do see the point. I look forward to seeing some arguments on this
    Kyla
    Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)

  7. #7
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,601

    Default

    No I don't think that giving Native American courts jurisdiction over non-Native American men is the answer. If this is a problem, then this is the problem that they need to solve. Give federal and state law enforcement more resources or a dedicated resource to investigate and prosecute these cases.

    Currently, federal and state law enforcement have jurisdiction over domestic violence on tribal lands, but in many cases, they are hours away and lack the resources to respond to those cases.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    It definitely does seem like a loophole but it is something I'm not familiar with. If tribes prosecute non native men how does that work? How do we prosecute through federal govt for something done on tribal land.

    Good question and I would also like to hear others opinions.

  9. #9
    Posting Addict smsturner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hamilton, NY
    Posts
    5,863

    Default

    Abusers are abusers. If there is a loophole that lets men off when they are abusing their wives, I would like to think we'd step in if possible. Our land or not. Our citizens or not.
    Still not sure why we would oppose any protection we could offer for these women?

    If you go into france and beat up a woman there, wouldn't we let france prosecute? So let them prosecute non-natives. As long as there is a fitting punishment and protection for the abused.
    Susan, dh Tom, dd Megan, ds Marcus, ds #2 coming Feb, 2014

    Lilypie Maternity tickers

    I never knew until that moment how badly it could hurt to lose something you never really had. - Missed Miscarriage at 10 weeks - 3/26

  10. #10
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smsturner View Post
    If you go into france and beat up a woman there, wouldn't we let france prosecute? So let them prosecute non-natives. As long as there is a fitting punishment and protection for the abused.
    This is kind of what I was thinking too. I know that reservations aren't a different country, but they do have their own governing bodies, laws, et cetera that are separate. I think in this case, it should be treated like a separate country, in that if you go on their land and violate their laws, you face their courts. How awful to think that people have been exploting a loophole that basically allows them to get away with rape.
    smsturner likes this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions