Uncle Sam Wants You, Eh? Our Military Tries to Recruit Canada's Inuit

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0352/mondo2.php

As Bush was ramping up the Iraq war last winter, Canadian military officials were startled to discover Pentagon recruiters roaming through their nation's native population reserves trying to persuade Inuit and others to enlist in the U.S. military. The Americans started cropping up on the Atlantic Coast in Quebec, in the Sault Sainte Marie area of Ontario, and in Western Canada. A Canadian Defense Ministries report said the U.S. claimed that under the 1794 Jay Treaty it had the right to recruit Canadian native inhabitants for its military because aboriginal Canadians held dual U.S.-Canadian citizenship.

Alarmed top Canadian officials from the ministries of Justice, Foreign Affairs, and Defense huddled with Privy Council bigwigs and, screwing up their nerve, decided to tell the Americans that Canada didn't like what was going on. "As a result of our interaction with the U.S. embassy, a letter was sent from the director, Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, to the vice chiefs of the U.S. military services, reminding them that their recruiters are to refrain from entering Canadian territory," Foreign Affairs official Reynald Doiron told The Vancouver Sun earlier this month. The prohibition on recruiting applies to U.S. activities in Canadian high schools and university job fairs as well as on native reserves. The U.S. embassy confirmed that it would stop active recruiting in such places in Canada. If Canadians want to join the U.S. military, they will have to cross the border to do so.

The American recruiting efforts are aimed at filling the ranks of an army stretched thin by the Iraq war and by having to post troops in other world hot spots such as Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. The U.S. may well have to put a permanent military presence in the Gulf of Guinea, off the coast of West Africa, to protect oil and gas reserves against regional squabbles. The U.S. currently recruits from among green-card holders—people with permanent resident status who aren't yet American citizens. In an effort to boost recruitment from such groups, Bush has signed an order reducing the time holders of green cards must wait before becoming citizens. Currently some 37,000 such people are in the military, out of a total of 1.4 million.

The way some Canadians see it, the U.S. has already stolen their oil and gas, metals, diamonds, and water, and owns much of their industry. Now their manpower? Even the most laid-back of our neighbors to the north think this is going a bit far.

[stevedeshazer]

1. These guys will try anything

<snip>
A Canadian Defense Ministries report said the U.S. claimed that under the 1794 Jay Treaty it had the right to recruit Canadian native inhabitants for its military because aboriginal Canadians held dual U.S.-Canadian citizenship.
__________________________________________________________________

So are we offering US citizenship to aboriginal Canadians now, too?

[AliceWonderland]

2. 1794 Jay Treaty??

Is it real life? Is it satire? Who can tell anymore?

[happyslug]

3. Here is the Jay treaty of 1794

Only Article 3, 9 and 10 are in Force according to the US State Department:
See for treaties in Force maintained by the State Department:
http://www.state.gov/s/l/24224.htm

Here is part of Article 3 of the Jay Treaty of 1794

A It is agreed that it shall at all times be free to His Majesty's subjects, and to the citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said boundary line, freely to pass and repass by land or inland navigation, into the respective territories and countries of the two parties, on the continent of America, (the country within the limits of the Hudson's Bay Company only excepted.) and to navigate all the lakes, rivers and waters thereof, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other. But it is understood that this article does not extend to the admission of vessels of the United States into the seaports, harbours, bays or creeks of His Majesty's said territories; nor into such parts of the rivers in His Majesty's said territories as are between the mouth thereof, and the highest port of entry from the sea, except in small vessels trading bona fide between Montreal and Quebec, under such regulations as shall be established to prevent the possibility of any frauds in this respect. Nor to the admission of British vessels from the sea into the rivers of the United States, beyond the highest ports of entry for foreign vessels from the sea. The river Mississippi shall, however, according to the treaty of peace, be entirely open to both parties; and it is further agreed, that all the ports and places on its eastern side, to whichsoever of the parties belonging, may freely be resorted to and used by both parties, in as ample a manner as any of the Atlantic ports or places of the United States, or any of the ports or places of His Majesty in Great Britain

For the Complete Jay Treaty See:
http://www.jdhodges.com/log/1356

[happyslug]

4. But the US Supreme Court Disagrees with the State Department:

While the State Department says that Article 3 of the Jay treaty of 1794 is still in effect the US Supreme Court has said it is NOT in Karnuth v. United States, 279 U.S. 231 (While ruling Article 9 and 10 are enforced. Article 9 and 10 set forth is the rights of property owners as opposes to the Right of Movement set forth in Article 3).

I quote from the US Supreme Court Opinion:

“Westlake classifies treaties not affected by war as (1) those providing what is to be done in a state of war, (2) transitory or dispositive treaties, including such as are intended to establish a permanent condition of things, such as treaties of cession, boundary, and recognition of independence, as well as those having no conceivable connection with the causes of war or peace, and (3) treaties establishing arrangements to which third powers are parties such as guarantees and postal and other unions. Westlake, International Law, Part II, pp. 29-32. He then says:

"Outside the exceptions which have been discussed, treaties between belligerents do not survive the outbreak of the war. At the peace there is no presumption that the parties will take the same view as before the war of their interests, political, commercial or other.”

The Court than goes on and says Treaties regarding the Movement of people are dissolved by War (In the case of the Jay Treaty, the War of 1812).

[stevedeshazer]

5. Thanks for digging this stuff up

That explains a lot.

That the Republicans are willing to dig back this far says a great deal about their tenacity, in any case.

[Astarho]

6. Wait a minute!

They claim Natives in Canada have dual citizenship from the Jay Treaty of 1794, but The US government did not grant them citizenship until 1924.

And the text of the treay in the replies looks like it simply grants them rights to travel and trade with both the US and the British (later Canadians)

[proud patriot]

7. Exactly

From the treaty "the Indians dwelling on either side of the said boundary line, freely to pass and repass by land or inland navigation, into the respective territories and countries of the two parties, on the continent of America"

It says the Indians can travel between the two,
not the pentagon :grr:

[HEyHEY]

8. I know why

Because while Canada lays claim to the Northwest Passage and other Northern points the US and some european nations will not acknowledge our ownership. Bush wants to get a bunch of locals up there on his side to weaken the hold Canada has (or doesn't have) on the area.

If it ever comes to a dispute or a vote, he plans to have the locals fighting for the USA on the issue.