Native American Corporations Terminate Contracts with ICE
A growing trend among Native American corporations is the termination of contracts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This shift follows increasing community pressure to reject partnerships perceived as contradictory to Indigenous values.
Native American Corporations Sever Contracts with ICE
Recently, the Oneida ESC Group, a subsidiary of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, canceled a $3.8 million agreement with ICE. This decision came after the Oneida government expressed concerns about the contract and subsequently replaced the subsidiary’s board of managers.
Chairman Tahassi Hill emphasized the importance of aligning actions with the nation’s core values, stating that every Indigenous nation should uphold its vision and governance principles.
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation’s Decision
In a similar move, the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation in Kansas rescinded a $29.9 million contract with ICE. This contract involved planning and designing secure facilities. Tribal Chairman Joseph “Zeke” Rupnick noted the historical significance of their reservations as sites of unjust confinement.
Community Voices Influence Change
Community members played a crucial role in prompting these organizations to reconsider their contracts. Becky Webster, an attorney and Oneida Nation citizen, voiced her shock upon learning about the ICE contract, describing it as fundamentally opposed to their collective identity and values.
Matthew L. M. Fletcher, a law professor and member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, linked these contracts to affirmative action policies aimed at supporting historically disadvantaged businesses. He explained that various forms of federal contracts exist to assist tribally owned entities.
Implications for Indian Nations
- Contracts with ICE have drawn scrutiny and criticism from tribal leaders.
- Indigenous corporations are often able to operate independently from their nations.
- Community advocacy has proven effective in influencing corporate decisions.
Fletcher pointed out that the absence of public accountability for tribal corporations can lead to conflicts between community values and corporate actions. Many tribes, including Alaska Native corporations, have secured significant federal contracts, some of which may conflict with community ethics.
Historical Context and Future Directions
The cancellations of these contracts highlight a broader conversation about the role of Indigenous businesses in government contracting. Critics argue that reliance on such contracts can perpetuate harm rather than alleviate historical injustices.
Winona LaDuke, an environmentalist and advocate from the White Earth Reservation, underscored the need for vigilance among tribes regarding their corporate ventures. She warned that financial pressure could lead to decisions that contradict Indigenous values.
As Native American corporations navigate complex dynamics with federal entities like ICE, ongoing dialogue and community involvement will be key to ensuring alignment with their cultural identity and historical legacy.
