As a matter of fact, I was just reading about one of the early French Canadian fur traders who was essentially adopted into an indigenous family while still a teenager. He wrote quite a lot about his experiences later, mostly as an elderly man, in some ways expressing regret that he did not at first understand how much his new family were bending over backwards for him. They felt an obligation to hunt for him (to feed him) and to otherwise meet his physical needs, but he didn't know he had reciprocal obligations he wasn't fulfilling. (He eventually figured it out.)

What really struck me is how free he was for most of his life. Many of his fellow French Canadians didn't treat indigenous people very well, to say the least, but nobody disputed that he was free to travel, to move among different cultures, and to live as he chose. His indigenous family did not try to stop him from living with other French Canadians when he decided to, and while some of them might have objected to his close ties to his indigenous family, nobody ever tried to force him not to travel or associate as he pleased.

I don't think that's an ethos that people today, accustomed to the controlling power of states, find very recognizable. We seem to take travel restrictions for granted, rather than recognizing them as infringements on basic human liberty.

This rather hit home for me fairly early in life, also in Canada, as my partner and I had to jump through very expensive and time-consuming hoops hoops to get legal permission for him to live with me in Montreal. (He's from Australia, a member of the Commonwealth of Nations with Canada, but that in no way made things any easier.)