Tribal Disenrollment vs. Federal Recognition: HUGE Disparity in Proof Needed for Recognition Vs. DeRecognition

Native American tribes looking for Federal Recognition have to jump through MANY HOOPS and show mountains of PROOF to be federally recognized.  The 35 page PDF is HERE  but here is an example of what they need below.

 Shouldn't tribes that disenroll their people have to show SOME proof that can be evaluated before US Indian affairs De-RECOGNIZES Natives?

a. Proposed Elimination of Current ‘‘Criterion (a)’’ and Requirement for External Observer as an Independent Criterion b. Proposed Criterion (a), Requiring Narrative of Pre-1900 Existence 

3. Criterion (e) (Descent) a. Requirement for 80 percent Descent b. Descent as a Race-Based Criterion c. Defining ‘‘historical’’ to be 1900 or earlier d. Evidence in Support of Descent e. Review of Descent 4. 1934 Starting Date for Evaluating Criteria (b) (Community) and (c) (Political Influence/Authority) 5. State Reservations and U.

S.-Held Land in Criteria (b) and (c) 6. Criterion (b) (Community) a. Using 30 percent as a Baseline b. Allowing Sampling for Criterion (b) c. Deletion of ‘‘Significant’’ in Criterion (b) d. Marriages/Endogamy as Evidence of Community e. Indian Schools as Evidence of Community f. Language as Evidence of Community 

g. Nomenclature as Evidence of Community h. Other Evidence of Community 7. Criterion (c) (Political Influence/ Authority) a. Bilateral Political Relationship b. ‘‘Show a continuous line of entity leaders and a means of selection or acquiescence by a majority of the entity’s members’’ c. Evidence 8. ‘‘Substantially Continuous Basis, Without Substantial Interruption’’ 

9. Criterion (f) (Unique Membership) a. Criterion (f), In General b. Deletion of previous rule’s provision prohibiting members from maintaining a ‘‘bilateral political relationship’’ with the federally recognized tribe c. Exception for Members of Petitioners Who Filed Prior to 2010 10. Criterion (g) (Termination)

 11. Splinter Groups B. Re-Petitioning C. Standard of Proof D. Third-Party Participation in the Acknowledgment Process 1. Who Receives Notice of the Receipt of the Petition 2. Deletion of Interested Party Status 3. Comment Periods E. Process—Approach 1. Letter of Intent 2. Phased Review 3. Technical Assistance 4. Providing Petitioner With Opportunities to Respond 5. Suspensions (proposed 83.31) and Withdrawals (proposed 83.30) 6. Decision-Maker 7. Automatic Final Determination 8 Prioritizing Reviews 9. Proceeding under the New or Old Version of the Regulations 10. Precedent and Other Comments F. Petitioning Process Timelines 1. Timelines—Overall 2. Timelines—Notice of Receipt of Documented Petition 3. Timelines—Petitioner Response to Comments Prior to PF 4. Timelines—Issuance of a PF 5. Timelines—Comment Period on PF 6. Timelines—Period for Petitioner’s Response to Comments on a Positive PF 7. Timelines—Petitioner Response to Comments and/or Election of Hearing 8. Timelines—Issuance of FD G. Hearings 1. Deleting the IBIA Reconsideration Process, and Adding a Hearing on the PF 2. Opportunity for Third Parties to Request a Hearing and Intervene in Hearings 3. Hearing Process Timelines 4. Scope of Record 5. Presiding Judge Over Hearings 6. Conduct of the Hearing 7. Miscellaneous Hearing Process Comments H. Previous Federal Acknowledgment I. Automatic Disclosure of Documents J. Elimination of Enrollment Limitations K. Purpose (Proposed 83.2) L. Definitions 1. ‘‘Historical’’ 2. ‘‘Indigenous’’ 3. ‘‘Tribe’’ 4. Other Definitions IV. Legislative Authority V. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866 and 13563) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Takings (E.O. 12630) F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) H. Consultation with Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. National Environmental Policy Act K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)