All those years living there and they did not pay a dime in taxes? Sounds like the need to go. You would think the past 100 years someone could have bought the land.from the little I know families would go there for the last 100 years. Someone was researching the area for some reason and found out those people weren't supposed to be there. They were then told to leave and they failed to fight it on the grounds of squaters rights in time so they were forced to leave.
Been to a casino lately?? Native Americans are Communists? Hmmmm .... LOL Maybe I don't quite understand your definition of communism. I wonder why they didn't just offer these people the land and sell to them what they use? Anyways, here's the rest of the story.Actually, a society which respects property rights (ie you can't be there if you don't own it) is in direct contrast with Communism, which argues against private property and supports collective ownership. To argue against it would be far more supportive of Communism than those who have criticized the family above.
In the US, property is not a right. If you make it a right, solely because of the duration of occupation, where do you draw the line?