Also, contining with your post but I don't think was covered, I don't understand why the mother has to be a Indian for membership what about the Indian father (he has a mother). A person's bloodline comes from both parents. Descendants are mixed blood. Denying a descendant is denying (or not acknowledging) a blood by relative (out there somewhere no one wants to mention).

During the time of enrollment too, families were denied enrollment because they did not meet certain deadlines. Not meeting deadlines does not destroy a person's bloodline!!!!

The Indian tradition of the mother having to be an Indian is just not making sense to me because the nations have already violated their own traditions.

If an ancestor was a member (a citizen of a tribe), I feel that the descendant should be able to follow in that ancestor's foot steps and be granted membership into that same tribe whether freedmen or by blood.

Any one for comments???