THe idea is that indigenous groups are supposed to self-govern as much as possible... but there's no way these tiny middle-of-nowhere towns can build up enough infrastructure to run their own federal government.

(Note that I speak no Italian outside the kitchen and I doubt Sicily would let me immigrate.)

source: watch Gomorrah movie

You also can't say that if the place with the obnoxious rules is your home country. Which tends to be the majority of people.

"If you don't like it leave" works equally well in both cases tho. ("Equally well" meaning "not very" of course...)

There isn't a homosapien alive whose ancestors' people weren't subjected to some sort of brutality. Either the rules should apply to everyone or they should apply to no one.

Carving up perpetual special classes in any society will always serve to divide that society and promote dysfunction.

The fact is that it is disingenuous to pretend to have a nation governed by the rule of law while ignoring the rights of older sovereign nations which exist within your borders. Not all tribes have the same rights and status, but how we treat them is the best indicator of how legitimate our own legal structure can claim to be.

If this particular case is about national sovereignty of indigenous tribes, why is the ACLU mounting a first amendment religious protection defense?

You can't really validly say that to anyone but aliens and non-citizen immigrants -- for everyone else in the country, it is their country, whether or not their ancestors came from elsewhere (which they did, at some point).

Maybe it would be better to ask why it is bad to impose those ( and many others not mentioned) burdens on everyone as opposed to asking why we aren't burdening everyone equally.

Very few are willing to live with the consequences of this which ought to be letting the person who didn't get health insurance die because they chose to not afford care.

If you really believe you shouldn't force people to protect themselves, you should believe you shouldn't "force" them to recover when they're sick.

Or, if you do believe they shouldn't be left to die, and that you shouldn't force them to purchase individual health insurance, a logical reconciliation of those two positions is universal health care.

> Why is it bad to impose similar burdens on the Yup'ik?

I would agree with you here.

Reading between the lines suggests the dwindling catches are causing them to adopt more aggressive fishing measures, a vicious cycle of bad consequences. Dialing back their new fishing to earlier methods isn't imposing a burden as much as thwarting total collapse from their own changes.