₦airaland Forum

Osebanjo:
You guys have to rest about this indigenous of you and all. It’s not as if many of you lots will take it lightly becoming a stranger in your own aboriginal land. Even Australia, Canada and e.t.c are all recognizing the aborigines and doing everything to make up for years of wrongdoing. There’ll rather be no peace than for indigenous people not to enjoy the benefit of their own land.

helinues:
That was a political statement. Amaechi is only trying to press some people's blokos

Blue3k:
Irrelevant we are talking about Nigeria not Australia. Their laws and history dont apply here because the constitution here hasn't been amended. There's no logical argument for discriminating against residents of the state paying same taxes to uphold the institution. Notice I have nothing to say of out if state residents or foreigners that pay a different rate.



Probably but its a good teaching moment. People should notice these politicians are ignorant about basic facts and should stop blaming the constitution for every societal issue.

Blue3k:
Irrelevant we are talking about Nigeria not Australia. Their laws and history dont apply here because the constitution here hasn't been amended. There's no logical argument for discriminating against residents of the state paying same taxes to uphold the institution. Notice I have nothing to say of out if state residents or foreigners that pay a different rate.



Probably but its a good teaching moment. People should notice these politicians are ignorant about basic facts and should stop blaming the constitution for every societal issue.

Ibrahimcoomasie:
Where in Nigeria are you from? Our cattles need grazing lands.
I would like to take up indigeneship in your land.

Blue3k:
The most interesting thing about any future reforms is that an indigene who lives outside their home state and hasn’t reestablished residency would be charged the same as any other non-resident. This would essentially make indigene nonindigene distinction only matter in terms of federal charter character. No candidate has said they want to end it so I wont get into it.

Borrowing from U.S. state models, the rule could be:

Minimum continuous physical presence in the state for at least 2 years before the first semester.

Proof required (at least 3 of the following):

• Utility bills in applicant’s or parent’s name
• Lease or property ownership documents
• State tax payments or local government levies
• Employment verification in the state
• Attendance at a school in the state
• Voter registration in the state

Blue3k:
Irrelevant we are talking about Nigeria not Australia. Their laws and history dont apply here because the constitution here hasn't been amended. There's no logical argument for discriminating against residents of the state paying same taxes to uphold the institution. Notice I have nothing to say of out if state residents or foreigners that pay a different rate.

Probably but its a good teaching moment. People should notice these politicians are ignorant about basic facts and should stop blaming the constitution for every societal issue.

adamusuleiman1:
You are contradicting yourself.

Blue3k:
Not a contradiction. Australia laws dont apply here because our laws and history is different. The USA does apply because our laws are similar because the states isnt allowed to discriminate against its citizens.

Blue3k:
Not a contradiction. Australia laws dont apply here because our laws and history is different. The USA does apply because our laws are similar because the states aren't allowed to discriminate against their citizens.

Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) – Prohibits states from denying any person “equal protection of the laws,” which includes discrimination in education.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI – Bars discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal funding, including public universities.

adamusuleiman1:
You are still not getting it.



Metropolitan State University of Denver is a public institution and there are several like that across different state offering free tuition to indigenous Americans aka Red Indians.

adamusuleiman1:
You are still not getting it.

Metropolitan State University of Denver is a public institution and there are several like that across different state offering free tuition to indigenous Americans aka Red Indians.

Raskimonojendor:
There are 574 federally recognized tribes/aboriginal nations in the US. Most, if not all, universities in the US across different states offer them either zero tuition or reduced tuition. They are the real Omo onile.

The reason is that, under U.S. constitutional law, Native American status is generally treated not as a racial classification but as a political one tied to membership in a federally recognized tribe. This comes from the fact that Native tribes are considered sovereign nations with a unique government-to-government relationship with the U.S., so benefits for enrolled members are viewed as fulfilling treaty obligations or promoting tribal self-determination, rather than as racial favoritism.

For example:

Michigan State University (MSU) offers Michigan Indian Tuition Waivers to members of federally recognized tribes in Michigan, funded under state law.

If a state tried to do something similar based purely on race (e.g., “free tuition for all Black students”), it would almost certainly be struck down under the Equal Protection Clause. But for Native Americans, the Supreme Court has upheld programs like these as legal because of the “political classification” doctrine from Morton v. Mancari (1974).

Blue3k:
You're still not getting it bringing up irrelevant things that dont apply to Nigeria. Native Americans are treated as a different nations. Nigerians arent according to our laws because this place wasn't settled through conquest of the natives. Apples to oranges comparison won't help you if you're too lazy to read about history or laws of both countries.

Blue3k:
You're still not getting it bringing up irrelevant things that dont apply to Nigeria. Native Americans are treated as a different nations. Nigerians arent according to our laws because this place wasn't settled through conquest of the natives. Apples to oranges comparison won't help you if you're too lazy to read about history or laws of both countries.

adamusuleiman1:
Shifting goal post already. Lmao.

Nigeria has ethnic nations. To prevent what happened to native Americans is exactly why the indigenous nonsense that Amaechi talked about would be rejected.

In Nigeria, states would do whatever they can to protect their ethnic groups and tribes including offering reduced school fees just like in the American example you quoted. We have had our own war of conquest and settlements which is still happening till date in the middle belt.

Blue3k:
Stop lying where in the constitution does it say that. The goal post wasn't shifted. I cited laws and Supreme Court case in America. I cited the laws of Nigeria and the history of America. Its not my fault you dont understand how to make apples to apples comparisons.

Blue3k:
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI – Bars discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal funding, including public universities.

Blue3k:
Man you're lazy. Did you forget to read 📚 the Supreme Court ruling Morton v. Mancari. Whats the point of citing the USA when its doesn't help your argument in Nigeria?

Morton v. Mancari (1974) is one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases explaining why certain programs for Native Americans are not considered unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Key Reasoning

Political, not racial, classification.



The Court said that laws for “Indians” recognized as members of federally recognized tribes are based on a political relationship between the U.S. and the tribes, not on race.

Native Americans are members of quasi-sovereign tribal nations, with a unique legal and historical status grounded in treaties and the U.S. Constitution’s Indian Commerce Clause.

Trust responsibility

The U.S. government has a trust obligation to promote tribal self-government and the welfare of tribes — this allows for special programs that benefit Native Americans in ways that would not be allowed for purely racial groups.

Not a general racial preference

The hiring rule applied only within the BIA (an agency serving tribes) and directly furthered the goal of tribal self-determination.

The Court noted that Congress can enact legislation “singling out” tribes if it’s “tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians.”

Blue3k:
Man you're lazy. Did you forget to read 📚 the Supreme Court ruling Morton v. Mancari. Whats the point of citing the USA when its doesn't help your argument in Nigeria?

Morton v. Mancari (1974) is one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases explaining why certain programs for Native Americans are not considered unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Key Reasoning

Political, not racial, classification

The Court said that laws for “Indians” recognized as members of federally recognized tribes are based on a political relationship between the U.S. and the tribes, not on race.

Native Americans are members of quasi-sovereign tribal nations, with a unique legal and historical status grounded in treaties and the U.S. Constitution’s Indian Commerce Clause .

Trust responsibility

The U.S. government has a trust obligation to promote tribal self-government and the welfare of tribes — this allows for special programs that benefit Native Americans in ways that would not be allowed for purely racial groups.

Not a general racial preference

The hiring rule applied only within the BIA (an agency serving tribes) and directly furthered the goal of tribal self-determination.

The Court noted that Congress can enact legislation “singling out” tribes if it’s “tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians.”

adamusuleiman1:
Let me highlight and post your own screenshot as well..
In case you did not see it clearly.

Raskimonojendor:
Shifting goal post at its finest.

You were the one that brought in the US argument first.

If we had not bring up the US native issue, you would NEVER have mentioned it. As it hasn't helped your argument, you are now back tracking.

Local government and state are doing same in Nigeria, but you are not happy and want that taken away from the indigenes, but also you are justifying it in America. Make it make sense.

adamusuleiman1:
Let me highlight and post your own screenshot as well..
In case you did not see it clearly.

SPECIAL BENEFIT

adamusuleiman1:
Let me highlight and post your own screenshot as well..
In case you did not see it clearly.

SPECIAL BENEFIT

Raskimonojendor:
Shifting goal post at its finest.

You were the one that brought in the US argument first.

If we had not bring up the US native issue, you would NEVER have mentioned it. As it hasn't helped your argument, you are now back tracking.

Local government and state are doing same in Nigeria, but you are not happy and want that taken away from the indigenes, but also you are justifying it in America. Make it make sense.

Blue3k:
Irrelevant we are talking about Nigeria not Australia. Their laws and history dont apply here because the constitution here hasn't been amended. There's no logical argument for discriminating against residents of the state paying same taxes to uphold the institution. Notice I have nothing to say of out if state residents or foreigners that pay a different rate.



Probably but its a good teaching moment. People should notice these politicians are ignorant about basic facts and should stop blaming the constitutional for every societal issue.

aribisala0:
What is the legal definition of Resident?
How long does it take to become resident?
Is that based on anything written down anywhere?
If we say residency should count should it be in the constitution? Or defined by each state

As of today it is not in the constitution where does tha leave us?

Blue3k:
The most interesting thing about any future reforms is that an indigene who lives outside their home state and hasn’t reestablished residency would be charged the same as any other non-resident. This would essentially make indigene nonindigene distinction only matter in terms of federal charter character. No candidate has said they want to end it so I wont get into it.

Borrowing from U.S. state models, the rule could be:

Minimum continuous physical presence in the state for at least 2 years before the first semester.

Proof required (at least 3 of the following):

• Utility bills in applicant’s or parent’s name
• Lease or property ownership documents
• State tax payments or local government levies
• Employment verification in the state
• Attendance at a school in the state
• Voter registration in the state

Blue3k:
If this does go to the Supreme Court and im right about the constitutionality the rules will have to be made up by us. Residency doesn't have to be in the constitution in my opinion. Im guessing it will vary state to state unles s the federal government steps in.

aribisala0:
until then what is the legal status quo?

School fees are the obvious one but there are many other subsidies across life e.g bursary, scholarships hajj sponsorship etc

We cannot pick school fees in isolation

Blue3k:
The status quo is what’s currently happening. School fees are determined by indigene status. I’m not familiar with bursaries or scholarships, so feel free to educate me. I kept my focus narrow to stay concise. You can pick your battles one at a time, or fight them all at once—that’s your call. I respect your zeal.

State-sponsored religious activities are likely unconstitutional, but such cases rarely reach the Supreme Court. The Atheist Society of Nigeria tried suing Akwa Ibom over a church construction but failed. The blasphemy law case also failed. We don’t know how broadly or narrowly the Supreme Court would rule, but it’s guaranteed to be a landmark case.

aribisala0:
The status quo is fine

aribisala0:
We cannot pick school fees in isolation

Blue3k:
What was the point of this statement then and who is we?

Arguing online does nothing. This has to go to court. It's good to see nobody here has a legal argument against what was stated.