By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On January 15, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were photographed in Richfield, Minnesota, as they appeared to be walking away from a vehicle. The image, captured by an Associated Press photographer, depicts the agents’ departure. The photograph provides a visual snapshot of ICE activity in the area during that time. The image potentially captures the aftermath of an encounter between ICE and the occupants of the vehicle.
Read the original article here
The situation unfolding with the Blood Tribe of Alberta and their members being stopped and detained by ICE is, to put it mildly, complicated. The heart of the matter lies in the Jay Treaty of 1794, an agreement between Great Britain and the U.S. that was supposed to allow for free passage across the border for Indigenous peoples. The Blood Tribe, and presumably other members of First Nations, believe this treaty should protect their rights to cross the border without issue. However, the exact strength and applicability of the Jay Treaty today, particularly in this current climate, is a point of contention and confusion.
The historical context is important. The Jay Treaty isn’t the only potentially disregarded document at play. Some people, perhaps sarcastically, point to the U.S. Constitution itself as another document that seems to be selectively applied. The frustration stems from what some perceive as a disregard for long-standing agreements and the rights of a population that rightfully belongs in this land, a population that ICE, the US customs agency, seems to be targeting. The very idea of ICE detaining members of the First Nations raises serious questions about historical awareness and fundamental fairness, especially considering the historic mistreatment First Nations have suffered.
A key element in understanding the situation is that the Supreme Court of Canada declared in 1956 that the Jay Treaty wasn’t in force, meaning it doesn’t automatically grant reciprocal rights for U.S. Indigenous people entering Canada. But this raises the question: if Canada doesn’t fully respect the treaty, why should the U.S. still be held to its terms? This creates an unsettling legal gray area. Despite this, a specific provision of the treaty is codified in U.S. federal law, Section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This act outlines the requirements for those seeking to cross the border under the treaty, including providing documentation to prove their American Indian heritage.
The Assembly of First Nations has advised its members to carry additional identification, beyond tribal ID cards, because U.S. law enforcement “may not be familiar” with such documentation. This is an understatement that touches on a deeper issue: a lack of understanding and respect for Indigenous rights. Some commenters draw comparisons to other historical events, pointing to a pattern of actions which demonstrate a tendency to overlook and even dismiss the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The motivations behind these actions are also questioned. Some suspect that the real goal isn’t even about deporting people, but rather about the potential to profit from the prison system. The more people detained, the bigger the budget, and the more money made. This is a severe accusation, suggesting that people are being treated as commodities.
In a practical sense, the requirements for crossing the border under the Jay Treaty are also complicated by a “blood quantum” requirement, meaning that individuals must demonstrate a certain percentage of “American Indian blood.” This is where the situation becomes, to put it mildly, fraught with challenges. The notion that you can quantify someone’s Indigenous heritage with a percentage feels very arbitrary and potentially discriminatory. It’s a concept that leads to a host of problems, including membership eligibility for tribal affiliation.
This insistence on blood quantum requirements raises questions that aren’t easily answered. How can you accurately define and measure a person’s heritage, especially considering the history of intermarriage, forced assimilation, and the complexities of identifying one’s origins? It is a practice that can exclude people and further marginalize those who have already suffered historical injustices. The fact that ICE and American systems can make up their own definitions to suit their ends creates a very unstable situation.