to foreign sovereign immunity also do not help Bodi. Bodi argues that the differences between tribal immunity and the immunity enjoyed by foreign nations suggest that a tribe waives its immunity by removing to federal court. In refusing to extend Lapides to the tribal immunity context, the Eleventh Circuit in Contour Spa reasoned in part that tribal sovereign immunity is instead “more analogous to foreign sovereign immunity,” and that “[t]he significance of the comparison inheres in the fact that foreign sovereigns do not waive their sovereign immunity by removing a case to federal court.” Id. at 1206 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d), Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1047 n.4 (11th Cir. 2001), and Rodriguez v. Transnave Inc., 8 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>)). Bodi asserts that this comparison should cut
holding that 28 usc  1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity holding the contract was not authorized by law holding that removal by a foreign sovereign is explicitly authorized by 28 usc 1441d and clearly cannot constitute waiver holding that 28 usc  1361 which provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction  to compel an officer or employee of the united states  to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that the provisions of title 28 in general and the foreign sovereign immunities act in particular are not laws regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce as contemplated by 28 usc  157d