![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A couple things I learned for the first time today. One is definitely injustice, the other more questionably so. I was surprised by both but probably shouldn't be.
Some Native Americans are not allowed to vote because there aren't street addresses on the reservations where they live. This isn't the part that's a surprise. It was less than 100 years ago that all Native Americans were determined to be U.S. citizens (some were before that, but not all) and it was just over 50 years ago that Federal law allowed all Native Americans to vote. However, each state is allowed to determine how elections are conducted and the rules for voting, and in some states people without actual street addresses aren't allowed to vote. I believe that in those states, it most directly affects Native Americans (and, of course, homeless individuals). I know there are people fighting on their behalf to change the rules, but I also think that a lot of people don't know and of those that do, a lot don't care.
The surprise - what I just found out today - is that the town of Carmel, California doesn't use street addresses at all. This is from the town website: "A unique characteristic of Carmel-by-the-Sea is that there are no street addresses. Properties are identified, for example, as being on the “west side of San Antonio Street, 3 houses south of 12th Avenue”. In addition to this, many owners give their homes a name. The name you choose does not have to be approved or registered with the City." Do you know who lives in Carmel? Rich white people (93%). Clint Eastwood has been the mayor in the past. California, from what I can tell, doesn't require a street address for voter registration, so it's not an issue. But I would bet money that if the state changed the law, there would be a lot more people upset about the mass disenfranchisement of the residents of Carmel than people upset about disenfranchisement of Indians on a remote reservation (or the homeless, for that matter).
The second thing I never knew is about American Samoa. The US has five inhabited territories - Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. Everyone born on four of those territories are US citizens - but not American Samoa. American Samoans born on American Samoa are US nationals and owe their sole allegiance to the US by law but aren't US citizens (unless one of their parents is a citizen when they're born). They're allowed to reside in the US but can't vote in elections if they do (residents who move from the other territories may vote if they live in the US because they're citizens) and are restricted to which relatives they can sponsor for immigration to the same degree as other non-citizen, legal residents. There are also certain professions they're not allowed to have in the US due either to Federal or state regulations. Ironically, a large number of American Samoans serve in the US military - proportionately larger than citizen residents from the other four inhabited territories. From what I've read, this isn't a cut-and-dried issue where the country is just being unfair by not allowing them birthright citizenship. That depends not just on Congress but on whether the majority of American Samoans want it. Apparently it's never been very clear that it's something they want - though also from what I've read, it seems that no one in the position to do so has tried to make an official determination. It's an interesting situation. (I don't think most Americans would care about it - from comments I saw and heard back in 2017, I'm pretty sure a large number didn't know Puerto Ricans are citizens and that's probably the only US territory they're aware of.)
Some Native Americans are not allowed to vote because there aren't street addresses on the reservations where they live. This isn't the part that's a surprise. It was less than 100 years ago that all Native Americans were determined to be U.S. citizens (some were before that, but not all) and it was just over 50 years ago that Federal law allowed all Native Americans to vote. However, each state is allowed to determine how elections are conducted and the rules for voting, and in some states people without actual street addresses aren't allowed to vote. I believe that in those states, it most directly affects Native Americans (and, of course, homeless individuals). I know there are people fighting on their behalf to change the rules, but I also think that a lot of people don't know and of those that do, a lot don't care.
The surprise - what I just found out today - is that the town of Carmel, California doesn't use street addresses at all. This is from the town website: "A unique characteristic of Carmel-by-the-Sea is that there are no street addresses. Properties are identified, for example, as being on the “west side of San Antonio Street, 3 houses south of 12th Avenue”. In addition to this, many owners give their homes a name. The name you choose does not have to be approved or registered with the City." Do you know who lives in Carmel? Rich white people (93%). Clint Eastwood has been the mayor in the past. California, from what I can tell, doesn't require a street address for voter registration, so it's not an issue. But I would bet money that if the state changed the law, there would be a lot more people upset about the mass disenfranchisement of the residents of Carmel than people upset about disenfranchisement of Indians on a remote reservation (or the homeless, for that matter).
The second thing I never knew is about American Samoa. The US has five inhabited territories - Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. Everyone born on four of those territories are US citizens - but not American Samoa. American Samoans born on American Samoa are US nationals and owe their sole allegiance to the US by law but aren't US citizens (unless one of their parents is a citizen when they're born). They're allowed to reside in the US but can't vote in elections if they do (residents who move from the other territories may vote if they live in the US because they're citizens) and are restricted to which relatives they can sponsor for immigration to the same degree as other non-citizen, legal residents. There are also certain professions they're not allowed to have in the US due either to Federal or state regulations. Ironically, a large number of American Samoans serve in the US military - proportionately larger than citizen residents from the other four inhabited territories. From what I've read, this isn't a cut-and-dried issue where the country is just being unfair by not allowing them birthright citizenship. That depends not just on Congress but on whether the majority of American Samoans want it. Apparently it's never been very clear that it's something they want - though also from what I've read, it seems that no one in the position to do so has tried to make an official determination. It's an interesting situation. (I don't think most Americans would care about it - from comments I saw and heard back in 2017, I'm pretty sure a large number didn't know Puerto Ricans are citizens and that's probably the only US territory they're aware of.)
Tags:
