By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A second Native American-owned corporation recently terminated a multi-million dollar contract with ICE following community pressure, mirroring a similar decision by the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation last month. The Oneida Nation of Wisconsin’s subsidiary cancelled a $3.8 million contract for federal facility engineering and inspection after the Oneida government condemned the deal. These contracts are rooted in affirmative action programs designed to benefit historically disadvantaged, minority-owned businesses, particularly through the federal 8(a) program, which allows for no-bid awards. While some tribal corporations are severing ties, others, like Akima, continue to hold contracts with ICE, including detention services, raising concerns about the ethics of such arrangements and the potential for a new form of colonization.
Read the original article here
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE. It’s a headline that definitely grabs your attention, isn’t it? The news seems to be about the Oneida in Wisconsin and the Potawatomi Tribe in Kansas, the latter having dropped their contracts last month. It immediately prompts a question: why the change?
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE is a complex issue, as it is layered with economic realities and historical context. It seems there’s a significant number of Native-owned businesses working with the federal government. They handle a lot of security contracts for government buildings, and it’s something about preferred consideration given their ownership status. This opens up a lot of layers to the story.
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE might seem surprising to some, but perhaps not to those familiar with the history. Historically, the relationship between Native Americans and the federal government has been fraught, to say the least. Considering this background, it’s easy to see how the motivation behind these contracts could have been rooted in a desire to overcome poverty and make ends meet, particularly for tribes that have been economically marginalized.
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE brings up a point that it’s important to be aware of: greed can be a motivator, just like it is for anyone else, regardless of background or heritage. There are even instances of embezzlement of tribal funds, underlining how capitalism’s pressures can impact everyone.
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE involves pretty substantial contracts too. We’re talking about millions of dollars here. The news also highlights the common business practice of targeting contracts based on ownership, be it Native American-owned, women-owned, or veteran-owned. This whole dynamic raises questions about the contracts themselves, as well as the types of businesses, as IT with a tribe can focus on anything from housing to fracking.
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE also raises a question about values, specifically the intersection of money and ethics. It brings up a larger conversation about capitalism, and the desire to improve conditions. The story evokes the complicated history of Native Americans, including land theft, marginalization, and the struggle against poverty and substance abuse.
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE prompts thoughts about how individuals and communities respond to difficult circumstances. While some may disagree with this decision, it’s understandable how those in a difficult economic position may choose to earn money by any means possible, even if they aren’t fully in line with a sense of morality.
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE points to the nuanced way such choices are made. It appears that the companies involved are owned by tribes but might not be directly managed by tribal members. There is the suggestion of independent entities seeking profitable opportunities to benefit the tribe. The main idea here is for the company to make money and support the tribe.
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE, based on the comments, shows that some people see it as a courageous move to reject a situation that is potentially morally compromised. Maybe it highlights how the political and economic realities of working with a controversial agency such as ICE can shift.
Two Native American-owned corporations cancel contracts with ICE creates a situation where the tribes have made a choice based on their own value. In the end, it is the tribes who are making a choice to reject what some see as “blood money” from ICE, making a point about the values and the moral compass of the people.