Indian Country Times : Did you realize that you would anger some Indians when you waived the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other laws earlier this year in an effort to speed the building of a border fence between the U.S. and Mexico?
Chertoff: I understood that waiving the laws would generate some controversy. The difficulty is this: Congress has mandated that we put into place tools to protect the border - and to really get a lot of it done this year. Each of these laws, we knew, could be fertile grounds for litigation [as we moved forward with the border protection process].
It's not that we want to disregard the interests of Native Americans or environmentalists. We're perfectly open to engaging with them. And we do engage with them if there's a practical concern, like disturbing a sacred location. ... But we need to be able to do it in a sufficient, informal way, as opposed to getting involved in years of courtroom litigation. ...
ICT: A lot of individual Indians, especially those living on the Texas border with Mexico, have raised complaints and lawsuits as a result of the border fence issue. How concerned are you about these actions from Indian individuals?
Chertoff: I don't think it's something that's unique to Indian landowners. There have been some landowners who have expressed concern ... and sometimes it's not practical - it's based on an ideological view. They just believe that the border ought to be open. ...
But it's not only my view, it's also Congress' view that we have got to get control of the border. We can't make issues of national security optional for individual landowners. ... We've got to have a national policy and protect the whole country. ...
Leave a comment