Before my two week trip to Puerto Rico, I took some time to read a little of the island’s history and investigate its chances (and inclinations) with regard to becoming America’s 51st state. Although I went once before on a personal matter, I had no time to see much of the island nor to consider such matters. This time I did.
What do they want?
The most important question on my mind was whether Puerto Ricans wanted to become a state, remain a territory or become independent. As I noted previously, there’s a fairly large percentage of people who favor statehood which is approximately 44% according to the past referendums. Yet, a majority has never been achieved. So I set off asking questions. The information cited here is based on those conversations which naturally only represent the views of family and friends. The one thing almost everyone agrees on is that Puerto Rico has little to no chance on its own. While some wistfully expressed interest in independence, I found everyone to be quite realist when it comes to the island’s future. Thus, independence is out. My next question was what has kept Puerto Rico from voting for statehood?
Here answers began to vary. Perhaps one of the most interesting was that many people are mostly scared of losing “national” symbols such as their Olympic team (who’ve won 6 medals), beauty queeions (having won the Miss Universe pageant five times in1970, 1985, 1993, 2001, 2006), and especially their language. On top of that, Puerto Rico’s legal system is based on Spanish civil law and uses US law for federal matters. Incorporation as a US state would radically change many of the island’s laws. Thus, it seems that if some accommodations were made, a majority could possibly be reached. Yet, the question is whether the US should alter its rules for a potential state it doesn’t really need financially or strategically?
Up to par?
Assuming that a majority favored statehood, the most important question, blatantly obvious to anyone who’s visited, is whether the island even meets US standards? With an unemployment rate of 12%, a huge percent on food stamps, rampant crime, the highest crime rate in America, and what I term “third world tendencies,” the island as the 51st may cost more than its worth. While fantastic by Caribbean standards, PR falls far short of America ones. The drive from San Juan’s airport quickly reveals this. Missing street signs, chaotic traffic, lax police, serious potholes, broken traffic lights are all quite a shock to anyone expecting this US territory to be “American.” This driver even (albeit accidentally) broke a few traffic laws in plain view of the disinterested police.
Crime
But after our drive, the picturesque colored houses of old San Juan and past the palm trees, gorgeous beaches and friendly people, Puerto Rico has a serious poverty problem more comparable to many third world places I’ve visited than to America (though America does have bad areas too). The presence of crime is also immediately obvious with regard to omnipresent jail like houses. Nearly every patio, window, balcony and house has bars and fences. Sitting on the porch feels like “exercise time” before heading back to your cell. Spikes adorn the top of many a high wall, even second and third story apartments have bars! While this is certainly not something unique to Puerto Rico, it’s far more extreme than security measures one would see in America. And to make a final note about crime, drugs are an enormous problem as Puerto Rico has become the front line for drugs headed north. Over 60% of murders are drug related and more policemen die in Puerto Rico than in New York. The state seems far from having a monopoly on violence.
The economics of it all
Economically, Puerto Rico is also behind the US with a per capita GDP of $18,700 compared to America’s $41,600 and unemployment at 12% compared to the US’s 5%. While tourism is a strong and growing source of income and development for the island (over 5 million tourists annually), its previously strong agrigucultural industry was decimated by the introduction of the American minimum wage. According to Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook:
[...] Puerto Ricans have a 48.2% poverty rate. By comparison, the poorest State of the Union, Mississippi, had a median level of $21,587 [GDP -chirol] , according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, 2002 to 2004 Annual Social and Economic Supplements. Since 1952, the gap between Puerto Rico’s per capita income and U.S. national levels has essentially remained unchanged — one third the U.S. national average and roughly half that of the poorest state. Nevertheless Puerto Rico remains the most developed nation in Latin America…
This only forces the question the island’s fitness for statehood. Economically, Puerto Rico is a net loss for the United States and strategically it has lost most of its value (as well as its bases).
Coming or going?
In addition to crime, and economics, culturally Puerto Ricans are indeed a unique group, an ethnic mix of African, Indian, Spanish and American and a cultural mix of Caribbean, Latin and American. Although American citizens, they have a much stronger attachment to the island than say Americans do to their state. They have to ask themselves where their loyalty lies.
This author believes in the right of Puerto Ricans to decide their own fate which is also exactly what American policy has allowed. As an American, I would welcome them should they opt to be a state (despite being citizens). From my government’s perspective, they are almost certainly a much bigger liability than asset. Strategically, they may have lost much of their former importance but cutting them off would certainly create another failing state in the Caribbean in the long term. Ultimately the choice is theirs, however Americans must ask themselves how long they are willing to wait (and pay for it).

Comments to this entry
Chief Wiggum
January 14, 2007
3:33 am
Is there a constitutional scholar out there who knows if a supermajority in the congress is required to admit a new state? If so, I doubt it would happen. The District of Columbia has not been admitted as a state either, for the same reasons.
I've had several Puerto Rican friends over the years. They had an affectionate regard for the place, but they were very glad they didn't live there.
Sonagi
January 14, 2007
3:53 am
Rommel
January 14, 2007
4:28 am
However, statehood would mean 51 states. 50 is an even number,
51 is not. Would Americans tolerate this?
nykrindc
January 14, 2007
5:32 am
Do you think that Puerto Rican's perception of themselves will change as America becomes more Latin? That is, the last census demonstrated that Hispanics are already the largest majority in the United States, and could very well become the majority within the next 50 years. This would likely cause Puerto Ricans to rethink their identity a bit, if only because the character of the US would have also changed.
Barnett argued in PNM (I think) that once the US became more Hispanic, the US would begin to expand southward, incorporating other Latin American nations, and as our own conception of what is an American changed, so too would our conception of which country(ies) could become states.
Corpy
January 14, 2007
7:53 am
The notion of a pan-latin american identity is a pure construct of the American media and belligerent anti-Americans like Hugo Chavez. Just mistake a Puerto Riqueno for a Mexican and you'll know what I'm talking about...
Sonagi
January 14, 2007
1:57 pm
Twice recently, the topic of racial/ethnic differences and identity have come up. It is evident from talking with my fourth graders that they have no awareness of anyone mistreating them or not liking them because of who they are. It is easier to maintain a separate identity if you have been persecuted or excluded in some way from the mainstream culture. Happily, this doesn't seem to be the case with the mostly undocumented Hispanic children in our small Virginia town.
Miriam Ramirez
January 14, 2007
2:34 pm
It is still cheap... they don't have to pay federal taxes on their billions of profits, but their money still has the protection of Washington's face on it.
With our per - capita of about $10,000, unemployment at over 12%, how can you explain that in an island with 4 milllion population, they are the third richest hispanic family in the world?
Puerto Rico is literally "owned" by these 21st century sugar barons who have the best of both worlds.
During status referendums, and discussions, they scare people against statehood utilizing the tax factor. They also cultivate passion for local nationalism against the US influence. Those of us who support statehood are persecuted and harrased.
To those in the several states who think we should not be a state, I ask this question. do you think it is fair that the US took over Puerto Rico almost 110 years ago; made us all US citizens; and then denies us the right to vote for the President and have representation in Congress? Haven't we fought a couple of wars out there defending other citizen's right to precisely have those rights?
Excuse me? I did not quite hear your reasons for such an anti democratic abuse of US citizen's rights by the US government.
Someone in this blog wrote that "we immigrate"? What? Is that what you call when other US citizens move from New York to Georgia? please clarify..
Miriam Ramirez - former Senator (mjean@prtc.net)
nykrindc
January 14, 2007
8:03 pm
That is what I was getting at. I think Corpy misunderstood my point. Mainly, what I meant to say was not that all Hispanics are alike and that as they become the majority of America they will adopt a pan-latin American identity. Rather, as Sonagi pointed out, these kids are becoming Americanized. Hence, they will have a common identity (not a hispanic, latin-american mind you) but an American one that will also change to adopt elements of the different groups that make it up.
What I argued, is that as this happens and more latinos become "Americans" it will become more palatable for other latin nations to want to eventually join the American Republic. There is a history of Latin American countries, such as Costa Rica, of wanting to join the United States. There reason it may become more palatable, is because as the Latino section of the US grows, perceptions of Americans will change and will become less foreign. That is, if we begin to look like them, we will no longer be "gringos" but rather other Latinos.
As for the "notion of a pan-latin american identity is a pure construct of the American media and belligerent anti-Americans" this is not quite as clear cut. I lived in NYC for quite a long time, and I lived in heavily hispanic neighborhoods and can tell you that although there were instances of Mexican-Puerto Rican-Dominican-etc. conflicts, whenever they all felt threatened by a specific piece of legislation, or saw it in their interest to unite for a common purpose, they did so. I recall seeing plenty of marches where there were American flags mixed in with flags from throughout Latin American and the people who represented them. In addition, another factor that helps construct a feeling of unity or at least of a similar identity is that there are only two spanish channels on tv, Univision and Telemundo, both of which see it in their interests to promote said identity.
Sonagi
January 15, 2007
6:41 pm
Someone in this blog wrote that "we immigrate"Â?? What? Is that what you call when other US citizens move from New York to Georgia? please clarify..
I used the phrase "immigrate to the mainland." Puerto Ricans are US citizens, like the people of Guam and some other US territories, but Puerto Rico is not,as you noted, a US state.
Miriam Ramirez
January 15, 2007
6:47 pm
We must make it absolutely clear that if you do not describe US citizens from other states who move from one place to another as immigrants, calling Puerto Ricans so, is inappropiate.
We do not call citizens from your state, immigrants, when they move to PR. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, I consider it a discriminatory remark.
Sonagi
January 15, 2007
6:50 pm
To those in the several states who think we should not be a state, I ask this question. do you think it is fair that the US took over Puerto Rico almost 110 years ago; made us all US citizens; and then denies us the right to vote for the President and have representation in Congress? Haven't we fought a couple of wars out there defending other citizen's right to precisely have those rights?
Excuse me? I did not quite hear your reasons for such an anti democratic abuse of US citizen's rights by the US government.
Sonagi
January 15, 2007
7:05 pm
Statehood is not the only alternative; there is independence. National borders expand and contract as regions join and separate. When the US took possession of Puerto Rico 100 years ago, it had been a colony of Spain for 400 years. Every single US state joined the Union through a Congressional vote. If Puerto Ricans such as yourself wish for statehood, then you must convince your fellow Puerto Ricans AND your fellow Americans that this change benefits everyone. I do not see how America would be better off with Puerto Rico as the 51st state and would rather see the island independent.
Unfortunately, although the US became what it is today because of the hard work of immigrants, today that description is used as a negative discrimnatory adjective to describe almost any hispanic.
Nonsense. You're confusing "immigrant" with "illegal immigrant."
We do not call citizens from your state, immigrants, when they move to PR. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, I consider it a discriminatory remark.
Consider it what you like. Puerto Rico is a territory not a state. Online dictionaries define the word "immigrate" as follows: to settle in a country or region in which one is not native. The words "immigrate" and "immigration" are generally used to describe taking up permanent residence in another country, but these words are not limited to that meaning.
Jayson
January 16, 2007
12:34 am
Nykrindc, could you please cite a source or reference for this? (For extra-convenience, preferably a web link.)
I've always had the impression of the exact opposite. (See William Walker, and all that).
Incidentally, isn't there presently a "large" (how "large"?) American expatriate community in Costa Rica? (Recall mention of this in John Reilly's "Long View" blog--he said that the most recent members of the community had been "fleeing" what they preceived as the approaching "creeping socialism" of the Clinton years).
And what other Latin American countries have sought to join the Union?
lirelou
January 16, 2007
1:11 am
More to the issue: Dona Miriam's supporters view statehood for U.S. citizens living in an unincorporated territory as something that should be a rubber stamp process. That is not how the U.S. constitution views the process. Note that the great majority of territories which became states were composed of a majority of U.S. citizens before they became states. Utah is one example of a contiguous American territory that waited nearly 50 years to become a state. The process in non-contiguous Alaska and Hawaii took longer.
This lengthy process frustrates statehod supporters, and is often used by their enemies to undermine their arguments. According to the ultranationalists, America is a racist country that would never accept Puerto Rico as a state, and if it did, it would only be to bring in large multi-national corporations to rape the island's (very few) natural resources and culturally overwhelm the local population ("cultural genocide"). Small wonder that in each election, statehood is routinely portrayed as a mortal threat by its opponents, and a panacea for Puerto Rico's ills by its supporters.
The question for Americans is: What's in it for us? What will Puerto Rico bring to the table that will offset the tremendous financial drain that it costs us (roughly, $22 billion a year in welfare payments and matching federal fund outlays)? Has Puerto Rico outlived any strategic utility it ever had for the U.S? Do we have a vested interest in keeping it, as opposed to letting it go and becoming another failed Caribbean state? (If that's our argument, why not make the Dominican Republic a state?) Would the drug war be better served by shutting down the Puerto Rican connection? Those are the major questions that must be asked and resolved in any formal political process that would admit Puerto Rico to the union. Statehood for Puerto Rico is rightfully a bilateral issue, and not some unilateral "Let the Puertorrican electorate decide" debate that the statehood party so desperately wishes to make it.
The frank truth is that the United States has a territory which it has held for 109 years, whose inhabitants have enjoyed the full benefits of U.S. citizenship for 90 years, of whom 50% cannot decide whether they are Americans first, or Puertorricans "para siempre". I would term that a failure. Congress, of course, has the power to remedy this. It can simply set a date and declare that as of that date, Puerto Rico will be independent. It might go further, and require that those legally resident in Puerto Rico at that time make some positive affirmation of their choice should they desire to remain American citizens. Should such a "drop dead" timeline be set reasonably in the future (2017, for example, the centennial of the Jones Act), Congress might even allow for a plebescite among the Puertorrican people to state their simple statehood vs. independence preference (i.e., no commonwealth or any other option), with the understanding that in the first instance, the final say on statehood is a political question independent of the plebescite, and in the second instance, anything less than an 85% vote for statehood in the plebescite will kill any chance of a statehood bill going forward.
Miriam Ramirez
January 16, 2007
1:33 am
No I'm not. People generalize when they refer to most hispanics and use the word immigrants in a derogatory manner.
J.Kende
January 16, 2007
2:00 am
No. Some people, maybe even many people, do as you say. But that is not the same thing as all people doing so. You are being oversensitive in this case, as Lirelou so eloquently discussed. From what I have seen this is a mostly PR friendly discussion here on Coming Anarchy. The posts from Chirol could even be characterized as exhuding a glowing warmth towards the island.
I am myself the grandchild of Puerto Rican "immigrants" and have always thought of the term in a positive manner. I do not doubt that your actual opponents have been downright vicious in twisting terms into derogatory meanings. There actions do not change the correct meaning of the terms they use, no matter how much they may insist otherwise. We should not join them in accepting a negative meaning for immigrant. That the term has come to have a tarnished image in Puerto Rico is a true shame.
Sonagi
January 16, 2007
2:37 am
As for the word "immigrate," I did some googling and found that Puerto Ricans use the term "migrate." That is an appropriate word and I shall use it to describe Puerto Ricans who move to the mainland. It seems the the word "immigrant" has a negative connotation in Puerto Rico, but it does not here in the States. It is, as I wrote previously, illegal immigration/ illegal immigrant that are generally used in a negative way. I use the term undocumented resident/worker and have been angrily corrected by Americans with strongly negative views towards foreign nationals living and working here without proper visas. One must be careful about making generalizations with words like "most" because such generalizations are very difficult to prove.
Miriam, you and I are US citizens, but consider this: I have met many mainland Americans who identify themselves as Puerto Ricans. These Americans were either born here or migrated here at a very early age. If I meet an American who identifies themselves as a Californian, a Texan, a New Yorker, a New Englander, or a Midwesterner, that person either was born and raised in that particular state or region or has lived there for a very long time. I have two close friends who moved to Virginia from Pennsylvania and raised a daughter here. The daughter does not call herself a Virginian of Pennsylvanian heritage even though she was born in Pennsylvania and both of her parents were born and raised there and the grandparents still live there. There are Americans of Puerto Rican descent, like J. Kende, but there are no Americans of Floridian or Washingtonian descent. The distinction between Puerto Rico and the 50 US states is more than just a legal distinction, and you are not being honest if you do not recognize this distinction which Puerto Ricans themselves make. Puerto Rico's identity as a Spanish-speaking caribbean island US territory is unique.
Miriam Ramirez
January 16, 2007
2:51 am
What is, is the fact that over 4 million US citizens cannot vote for the President, do not have representation in Congress and some people in the continental USA find excuses such as how do we call ourselves, to feel justified to deny us those rights.
When our men and women fight in Iraq and all wars since World War I, they fight as Americans and die as Americans.
It is not a matter of whether we vote or not for statehood... the US has a moral obligation to allow full rights as US citizens available to us here, in the same territory where they made us citizens and part of the US.
We should not have to "migrate" to the US to be able to vote. US citizens llive in foreign countries and vote.
Carlos Padilla
January 16, 2007
3:42 am
Taxes and increased productivity.
Right now Puerto Rico does not pay federal taxes. On the contrary it receives $10 billion which ends up in the hands of the rich PUerto Rican families and the multinational corporations.
The Commonwealth status is not a good deal neither for the American taxpayer neither for the US citizen living in Puerto Rico.
These vested interests refuse to teach English to the Puerto Rican public school students lest they have the audacity of thinking that they have the same rights as the rest of the US citizens in the rest of the States.
It does not look too convincing that the US should spend billions of dollars with the help of Puerto Rican soldiers to bring democracy in Iraq when right at home it denies to the blacks and to the Puerto Ricans.
The reason that the colonial interests get away with murder is that they play to the worst instincts of the Americans.
Black people and Hispanic people should not vote. Or if they do not vote, I could care less.
That is morally wrong, it is bad politics, and it is bad economics.
Carlos Padilla
Zoraida
January 16, 2007
3:53 am
Sonagi
January 16, 2007
3:54 am
We should not have to "migrate"Â? to the US to be able to vote. US citizens llive in foreign countries and vote.
Statehood does matter as Article II of the US Constitution confers the right to vote through the states. While living overseas, I maintained my former Michigan address as my permanent address for the purposes of voting and filing income tax statements. The only legal way for Puerto Ricans to gain full voting rights is either through statehood or through an amendment similar to the 23rd Amendment, which fully enfranchised US citizens residing in the nation's capital.
As I understand, there is actually very little support for independence, but rather Puerto Rico's people are almost evenly split between statehood and something called "enhanced commonwealth status" which seeks to give Puerto Ricans the best of both worlds: full voting rights and more autonomy than the 50 states. Which are you in favor of?
Miriam Ramirez
January 16, 2007
4:11 am
The great economic forces, including some outrageously rich families in PR, mantain Puerto Rico as a territory, so as not to pay Federal Taxes. We have also become a haven for money laundering.
Yet, as said when this forum began, our per-capita is low and unemployment high because our economic model is different from that of our fellow citizens in the US.
We have been here for over 108 years, we're not something new. We don't want to move to your backyard to get the citizen's rights we deserve. We want them here, in our home, Puerto Rico, USA.
lirelou
January 16, 2007
5:00 am
(Abrazos desde Corea, de un "gringorriqueno"/caborrojeno ausente)
Pete
January 16, 2007
6:09 am
As for the other arguments, the reality is that residents of PR have earned the right to become a state. We have done it the hard way: with our blood. Thousands of island residents have given the supreme sacrifice on behalf of our nation---I didnt'see anyone complaining about then being spanish speakers or being overly fond of the island culture. Even now, thousands of island residents are serving our county in Iraq and Afghanistan (over 50 island residents have been killed in the line of duty), so I think this answers the "what's in it for us"argument, aside from the fact that is not, as lirelou appears to represent, a one way street when it comes to federal money. Island residents are subject to Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment insurance taxes, as well as to a host of other fees charged by the Federal Government for services---yet island residents have no say as to what Congress does regarding these programs. That is just plain un-american. In effect, we are being taxed without any representation. Last time something like that happened in America, King George got the boot.
Another way of looking at the "what's in it for us"argument is that if Congress does not make PR choose to be either independent or go for statehood, then federal and state (yes, because more and more island residents are relocating stateside) government will continue to bear the burden of a colonial government that does not work anymore. That is certainly not in the USA's interest, just as it cannot be in its interest to maintain the existence of a colony where 4 million americans are called upon to defend their nation but denied the right to vote for their leaders.
Chariquintero
January 16, 2007
6:50 am
I found pretty interesting your essay about PR actually you made a pretty good examination and explanation about the island. But (there's always a but right) the law system in PR isn't nothing like the Spanish law system. Belive me, our system is based on the Louisina State System. So is American Style based (sorry to break your bubble) the rules and laws are mostly similar to the Federal district court. Imagine how the systme has been influence by the Federal Law that there are a lot of cases that are porsecuted in the local courts and in the federal courts and that only could happend under similar systems and the evidence is used in both courts. And the lawyers that have license to practice in the district federal court can practice here and in some cases they have license to practice int eh Atlanta circuit like in the Boston Circuit (thats the circuit the corresponds to PR).
But canging the subject. Yes we are like a third world country, but we are not a State we are a territory, but a territory that brings a lot of soldiers to the armed forces of the United States, and a lot of Engineers to NASA and other things. So things aren't that bad. And remember that the erithromycin and Penicillin that is used in the states is Manufacture here in PR (thats why it can have a sign that says MADE IN USA) LOL. And the first site of Pfizer that make the 80% of Sildenefil (commonly known as Viagra) was here in Barceloneta PR equally with Zythromax, Zoloft,Celebrex (all from Pfizer) ,Vioxx (from merck, co), Humalog (from Elli Lilly) and lets not forget that the Biggest Biotechnology plant that Lilly build is PR-5 and is located here in Carolina,PR (close to the airport if you remember your trip). Certanly on the other hand what the author said about the crime problem in the island is completely true but remember that usually the crime problems are proportional to the unemployment and economy problems. And I don't think that our problems are beyond been solve. If the Goverment of the USA can put so much money on Irak and on other places why not put some here. And we are a good bussiness for the states. We just need a little push. And on the other hand I am not sure if we will went on the democratic side. There are a lot of people here in PR that are conservative. Thank you fro your attention and for reading all of thins.
Ro
Chirol
January 16, 2007
9:12 am
Secondly, many readers have raised the point that Puerto Ricans are Americans yet lack the right to vote in federal elections. There is no contradiction here. In exchange, the island receives broad autonomy and elects its own government. It's part of the island's status problem. You can't vote if you aren't a state (or DC). Which congressmen will you vote for? And what state gets your votes to turn into electoral votes? That issue is the fault of Puerto Ricans, a statement I say matter of fact, not negatively. It simply stems from the strange status of the island.
Miriam Ramirez
January 16, 2007
11:36 am
That is a lame excuse to ignore the problem. Be brave and take a position. Do you support that Puerto Rico become a state? If not tell us why....
I have to say that your words reminded me of comments made during the discussion of slavery, when whites said that African Americans were happy to be slaves.
Yoly
January 16, 2007
1:36 pm
I included this article by Orlando Vidal, Esq. on the Boston Herald that illustrates. The great injustice in the present political condition of the island.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOSTON HERALD
Puerto Rico Rights At Stake
By Orlando Vidal/ As You Were Saying...
July 30, 2005
Though most Hispanic Americans are unaware of it, let alone the population at large, we still have on the books our own Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu.
I am referring to the Insular Cases, a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court between 1901 and 1922. Collectively they held that the inhabitants of the then newly unincorporated territories acquired after the 1898 Spanish-American War - the last remaining and most populous of which is Puerto Rico - do not enjoy all the rights otherwise afforded to people in the states under our Constitution.
Dred Scott, holding African-Americans were not full citizens, in many ways precipitated the Civil War. Plessy upheld the doctrine of ``separate but equal.'' And, in Korematsu, the court upheld the forcible internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But while those awful precedents have since been overturned, the Insular Cases still affect the lives of our citizens in the territories.
In justifying the court's refusal to extend all constitutional protections to the peoples of the territories, Justice Henry Brown wrote that the newly acquired territories ``are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws . . . and modes of thought, such that the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible.'' That time for Puerto Rico's 4 million citizens has lasted 106 years.
One surely wonders how much longer the court thinks it should take to extend the full blessings and protections of our Constitution to the people of that island.
Justice John Harlan understood well the implications of the court's holding, stating in dissent, with his usual eloquence: ``The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces - the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them - is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution.'' People in Puerto Rico have remained, as the court's dissenters anticipated they would, in an ``intermediate state of ambiguous existence for an indefinite period,'' and - without any doubt - second-class citizens with no right to vote in presidential elections, with no voting representation in Congress and with no right to equal treatment in federal programs.
Such is the absurdity of the present situation that citizens residing abroad have, in many respects, more rights on foreign soil than those citizens would have within U.S. territory. For example, if a citizen moved to North Korea, he could still cast an absentee ballot for president in his former state of residence. Not, however, if he moved to Puerto Rico. Similarly, citizens living in Puerto Rico have only the right to receive a fraction of the Social Security benefits that mainland citizens or mainland citizens who have retired abroad enjoy, though all pay the same in taxes.
While senators are sure to attempt to determine Judge John G. Roberts' views on the most contentious issues of our time, they would do well to also inquire into the nominee's view on the continued validity of the Insular Cases. Determining his view on that issue will not only shed light on the impact of a Justice Roberts on millions of our fellow citizens who, by accident of birth or choice, happen to live in territories, but would have the benefit of disclosing his view on the extraterritorial application of the Constitution, an issue with particular relevance now that we detain prisoners in places such as Guantnamo Bay, Cuba.
With Hispanics now the largest minority in the country, and the possible nomination of the first Hispanic-American justice later, it might be time to have the court reconsider the Insular Cases.
With luck, we may not have to wait much longer if a Justice Roberts lives up to Justice Harlan's standards and, by leading the court to overturn these unfortunate precedents, affirms that great justice's views that the ``Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'' Those words still hold special resonance in the territories.
Orlando Vidal is an attorney with Sullivan & Worcester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first time after 108 year as an unincorporated territory a branch of the US government officially acknowledges the true political relationship of the island. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, have informed what the majority of Puerto Ricans have come to realize, despite the best efforts of the political parties to confuse them, that we remain under the plenary powers of Congress. That's why we need congress to enact legislation that will allow the citizens of the United States residing in the island to choose between clear and constitutional options of permanent status.
Is important for the island to choose a path for the future status development there is no way the island can achieve its full potential without a clear path for the future. Political parties are taking economic and political decisions based on their preferred status options, causing chaos in our economy and anxiety which generate discord and violence between the residents which in turn damage investment climate turning the commonwealth on a burden for the American tax payers. When the island with a permanent status could be a great asset for the American economy and politically instead of bringing criticisms from others nations as been the oldest colony in the world it could be like Hawaii in the pacific the shining star of our Nation in the Caribbean.
As the study by J. Tomas Hexner Chairman of Hex, Inc. and Glenn Jenkins Director of the International Tax Program at Harvard Law School and Fellow of the Harvard Institute for International Development found.
http://www.puertoricoherald.org/issues/vol2n03/hexner-jenkins.shtml
"Puerto Rico economic potential cannot be fully realized, however, without a definitive resolution of the political status issue. Failure to resolve the issue has stymied development efforts in the past, and will continue to prevent any economic development strategy from yielding long-term results. "
"SELF-DETERMINATION WILL REDUCE THE $13 BILLION ANNUAL FEDERAL SUBSIDY OF PUERTO RICO TERRITORIAL COMMONWEALTH"Â?
Pete
January 16, 2007
3:19 pm
Chirol
January 16, 2007
7:34 pm
Let's not overreact and start comparing it to slavery. Next you'll be talking about Hitler.
Chirol
January 16, 2007
7:37 pm
Wilma Cadilla
January 16, 2007
8:21 pm
lirelou- American citizens residing in Puerto Rico DO NOT enjoy full civil rights. We do not have the right to vote for our President and Vic-President, and we DO NOT have the right to elect voting members in Congress. Therefore, we cannot decide on which laws get enacted and which ones apply to us or not.
Also, I would like to know what you think the statehood process is that would be "trashed" by admitting us as the 51st State. It seems each State went through different processes, depending on their specific issues. There is no such thing as a defined "statehood process", unless I have missed something you didn't.
In response to: Chirol
It seems to me you have the wrong idea about how our Island is managed and how the PR-US relationship works. We have a seudo-self-government that is not self-governing, since it is subject to federal laws and regulations. This is not so different in the 50 States. They have their own state government, laws and regulations, their own governors and legislatures. They are also subject to federal laws and regulations. But they also have Senators and Representatives in Congress to make sure federal legislation approved in Congress is to their advantage. We cannot do that, since we only have a Resident Commissioner with no voting power in the House of Representatives.
Becoming the 51st State would give us the same level of autonomy and self-government as the 50 States now enjoy. As things stand now, we have less rights than they do. Not the other way around.
In general, I would like to clarify that it is NOT TRUE that Puerto Ricans DO NOT pay federal income tax. That is not correct, since there are may federal employees in Puerto Rico who actually pay federal income tax. And we also pay other taxes imposed by the federal government on certain products we buy in Puerto Rico, such as foreign cars and other products. This tax is included in the purchase price and so we are not fully aware of it. But it is there, trust me.
Also, even though many of our laws are based on Spanish laws, like our Civil Code, many other laws in Puerto Rico are based on common law and federal laws. There are other States, such as California, Louisiana and Florida who have Spanish laws still in effect. In fact, Louisiana has a civil code similar to ours.
Finally, as Mr. Carlos Padilla has noted in other forums, poverty levels and dependence on federal aid would decrease considerably in Puerto Rico if we could participate on equal footing with the 50 states, in the national economy. Elimination of tax benefits to multi-national companies and other local big businesses would force them to open the market to competition and employment figures would also improve. Paying federal taxes would also produce more participation in certain programs, allow us to receive more funds for better roads and transportation needs, for example. Social security beneficiaries would enjoy higher benefits than they do now, and so on. But we would be paying our fair share into the funds we would be later receiving.
More competition and private employment are necessary to end over 50 yrs of 90% government employment levels. In other words, 90% of employed people here work for the government because there are not enough private jobs available. This creates a vicious cycle of dependence on low-paying jobs, a bigger than necessary government budget and payroll expenses, and the continuance of political party control of the limited resources of the government and the vote of those they employ.
lirelou
January 16, 2007
11:05 pm
What I hear the "insularismo" side saying here is: Commonwealth is broke. That's the fault of the United States, because we're a colony. Fix it. I dissent from your reasoning, but I agree with you all on your conclusions. Without federal intervention, the status issue will never be resolved. But this intervention cannot be risk free. If the Congress is going to intervene, essentially cutting the rug from under the commonwealthers, it cannot guarantee statehood, and indeed, it must leave full independence as an obvious alternative. Were I drafting that law, I would set the bar at 85%. If Puerto Rico cannot convince that many of its own citizens to choose to be Americans first, then Congress should set a definite date for independence and you ladies and gentlemen can began reviewing your futures as expatriate Americans in "la isla del encanto".
Chariquintero
January 17, 2007
12:23 am
Thank you for the correction. I use to think that our system was based ont eh Louisianna State system. And I remember to hear a Prof in college saying that. And I am not a lawyer I am a Biologist (my mistake repeating what I hear) but since the source was a Profesor that was a lawyer. I should check out next time.
Thanks
To Chirol
You are right about the voting issue with PR since we aren't a state and we don't have representation and the complex election system of the States we will never be able to vote from PR. But the irony here is that if I were out overseas during the election period I will receive the balling to vote from the embassy of the states. Curiose even if you are Puerto Rican thar live in Puerto Rico. Thank you for attention
Ro
Mutantfrog
January 17, 2007
12:32 am
Miriam Ramirez
January 17, 2007
12:34 am
Sonagi
January 17, 2007
1:15 am
But the irony here is that if I were out overseas during the election period I will receive the balling to vote from the embassy of the states.
Have you actually done this? While living overseas, I received an absentee ballot application through the embassy, but from then on, as I recall, the process of voting was completed through the registrar of the township where I had long been registered to vote. I mailed the completed application to her, received the blank ballot from her, and mailed the completed ballot back to her.
lirelou
January 17, 2007
1:23 am
lirelou
January 17, 2007
1:30 am
Wilma Cadilla
January 17, 2007
1:39 am
We DO have a Constitution written based on the US Constitution and approved by Congress. Very little changes would be needed to adapt it for a State. It went into effect in 1952.
I do agree with you that action from Congress is needed to make the changes we want and I also agree they should set a deadline and stick to it. I am sure we could get 85% of voters to vote for statehood, IF we get Congress to include only two options: STATEHOOD OR INDEPENDENCE!!
lirelou
January 17, 2007
4:21 am
Mutantfrog Travelogue » Blog Archive » What might have been?
January 17, 2007
6:18 am
dogbert
January 17, 2007
7:52 am
Chirol
January 17, 2007
9:44 am
Eng. Manuel Rolon Marrero
January 17, 2007
10:47 am
Wilma Cadilla
January 17, 2007
2:22 pm
Also, please be advised that more Puerto Ricans live in the continental U.S. right now, than in Puerto Rico, and they have NOT affected the way Americans communicate amongst themselves, not changed their customs..... quite the contrary, they adapt to the American way of life, they learn and speak the English language, obey the laws and make a better living than they can in Puerto Rico. They still speak Spanish at home, eat rice and beans and celebrate Three King's Day......
The same goes for other ethnic groups who establish themselves in the Continental U.S....... chinese, vietnamese, hondurans, etc.... they all learn English and adopt the American way of life...... some Americans do learn Spanish and learn about their cultures and customs and share them.... there is nothing wrong with that, and I think it helps enrich the American culture......
Chariquintero
January 17, 2007
8:22 pm
This is not my case. This case was with a friend of mine that is the son of a very prestigious Doctor in Mayaguez PR. He was studying Medicine in Dominican Republic and in the 2004 election he had the gift or pleasure of excercise his civil right of voting for the President of the United States but he only got the ballot to vote for the president. And again the irony here is that he never got the voting ballot to vote in the Puerto Rican election but he had the ballot to vote for the president.
Ro
David Diaz
January 17, 2007
8:35 pm
I am not a lawyer , but just look into what I just said and end of the problem. We been looking in the wrong place to solve the problem. Werther congress desires to really look into this or not it is their call. Once they take the step to solve this matter, then and only then we can start talking about Puerto Rico becoming a state.
Sonagi
January 17, 2007
9:00 pm
Carlos Padilla
January 18, 2007
7:29 pm
If the US Congress, which has the constitutional duty of disposing of the territories it holds, finally comes to the conclusion that having Puerto Rico as a colony is tantamount to having a policy of equal but separate, decides that it will not have anymore of it and therefore gives Puerto Rico a choice between statehood or independence, you will have the 85% support that you are looking for.
You must understand that even if the slaves vote for slavery, it is still not a valid choice.
Similarly, a colony cannot vote to remain a colony. Therefore, the colonial status is not an option. It is the problem.
If a the same time you can show that the economy is bankrupt, that the same process of empowerment that occurred in 1948 and 1952 (when Puerto Ricans were allowed to choose their governor) needs to take place today to let Puerto Ricans vote for their senators and the President, then there is neither a moral nor practical reason not to accept Puerto Rico as a state and keep it a colony.
Lincoln said, "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master."
In the 21st century that translates to, "As the thirteen colonies would not be colonies indefinitely , so they would not be an Empire keeping colonies indefinitely."
The US is a Republic. It has a process of making the territories equal an integral parts of the Republic, and that process is being denied to the US citizens of Puerto Rico based on the same arguments used in Plessy vs. Ferguson in the 19th century by the Supreme Court to justify a permanent policy of "equal but separate" for the blacks.
Congress needs to act.
Carlos Padilla
lirelou
January 19, 2007
12:18 am
The "Puerto Rico as colony" argument is a construct that Congress does not presently accept. Colonies are governed by the Metropolis, and the colonial subjects are not citizens. Even when they move to the Metropolis, the cannot vote in elections. That the PNP adopted a Humpty-Dumpty definition that makes Puerto Rico a colony (originally argued by "fupistas" and "pipiolos" seeking support for their cause) does not resonate among any in congress save for the few Puertorrican leftists there who have infiltrated Congress' ranks.
You state an eloquent case, but you must know your jury. We are ten years from the centennial of the Jones Act. That gives you ten years to sell the Humpty Dumpty definition, or find a ore nuanced approach. As stated previously, I believe that they should set a date for Independence, began cutting federal funds to the island in preparation for making it fiscally independent, and include a "notwithstanding" clause in the Puerto Rico Independence Act. I.e, "notwithstanding the provisions above, should the People of Puerto Rico express their overwhelming desire to remain within the United States via a democratically conducted plebescite, the Congress shall entertain a bill proposing statehood for the island." (Note that the Congress' power is not unilateral. THe President must approve the bill for it to become law. Thus, the political battle will be for more than the Congress' support.)
And overwhelming had better be just that. Otherwise, you will be living in another bankrupt republic (as an expatriate American citizen). Americans are a practical people, and there are some very practical arguments for cutting Puerto Rico away altogether. Neither the "shining star" of the Caribbean, nor Hawaii (which we're now stuck with), would make a pimple on the behind of Taiwan, Singapore, or Hong Kong. All of these are more heavily populated than Puerto Rico (and Hawaii), all are subject to natural disasters such as typhoons, floods, and earthquakes, and all are financially independent, though only the first two enjoy territorial sovereignty. Americans put a lot of money into Puerto Rico, and our arguments for the benefits they get will find some powerful counterpoints as those examples show. The "we bled for the U.S." should also be used with caution. First, someone might mention Kelly Hill (where units of the 65th Infantry refused orders to attack). Second, a lot of non-U.S. citizens fought for this country, to include more than a few Mexicans. Several Mexicans even received the Medal of Honor. Yet that is hardly an argument for making Mexico a state of the union. Moreover, some congressman might just ask: "And how many of those wars did you (the speaker) serve in?" Not all of us were Sargento Cartagenas, and "many" does not mean "the majority". (If you want to compare war records, take a look at Hawaii's WWII 442nd Infantry as compared to Puerto Rico's 65th Infantry.)
Sorry, I'm off on a tangent, but you understand my point. Frame your arguments carefully, with your jury in mind. What draws a response in Bayamon, Cidra, or Aguasbuenas might boomerang badly in Georgetown and Alexandria. Enough! Obviously my previous post was "la penultima". I apologize for breaking squelch and will sign off. But ...
The quickest way to get Congress to act, is to get Puerto Rico to act. And Puerto Rico's inaction (which can easily be construed as action expressing a desire NOT to be a state) is not the Congress' fault. The "no es culpa nuestra" argument will rightfully earn the Congress' scorn.
Norika Rodriguez
January 24, 2007
11:59 pm
I'm a 41 years old US citizen who resides in Puerto Rico. I'm not a politician; I'm a woman, a wife, a mother, a professional"¦ a common citizen.
For 109 years the people of Puerto Rico have heard from the different Presidents and Congressmen that the United States of America believes that the four million disenfranchised American citizens residing in Puerto Rico have the right to a permanent and fully democratic status of their choice. Now, that the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status has given three recommendations for Puerto Rico's future status and relationship with the United States, again I'm asking myself if the new #110 Congressmen are going to help the Puerto Rican people solve what I understand is our nowadays biggest problem - the solution of the Puerto Rico's status "“ enabling Puerto Ricans to choose among realistic options.
The following arguments have been heard for years by the people of Puerto Rico and are very similar to those of millions of Puerto Ricans who believe in the US Nation and in the Statehood for Puerto Rico:
1. That the American history is the story of a diverse people striving to realize our ideals: a common dream of equality, and opportunity, freedom and community. That you believe in a better America, more equal, more free, more American.
I have always believed that the US Nation is based in the diversity of races, cultures, political and religious believes"¦ and that these are the most important components of what the words equality and freedom mean for most of the American people"¦ except for the approximately four millions of Puerto Ricans who resides in this 100 x 35 Island. Equality? Freedom? Do you really think that we, the people of Puerto Rico, can feel more equal, more free, more American, when we don't have the same rights as Puerto Ricans who resides in the Mainland?
2. That your commitment to civil rights is ironclad.
I hope that #110 Congressmen commitment to civil rights don't be another promise. They have to know that the USA Mainland have four million of American citizens whose rights are transgressed with every sunset, only because we don't reside in the Mainland; and that we will continue fighting to obtain the equality that we deserve.
3. That US is a nation of immigrants, and from Arab-Americans in California to Latinos in Florida, we share the dream of a better life in the country we love.
"I have a dream"¦"�. I'm sure you have read and heard these words, because they are part of the US Nation history. Let me re-use some of the words of the August 28, 1963, Marthin Luther King's speech to dramatize my dream and the dream of thousands of Puerto Ricans: "But one hundred years later, the Puerto Ricans still are not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Puerto Ricans is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Puerto Ricans live on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Puerto Ricans are still languished in the corners of American society and find themselves an exile in his own land. And so I come here today to dramatize a shameful condition"�. Fourty-four years ago, Marthin Luther King, Jr., had a dream"¦ Nowadays, I have a dream, too"¦
4. That voting is the foundation of democracy, a central act of civic engagement, and an expression of equal citizenship. Voting rights are important precisely because they are protective of all other rights.
Puerto Ricans have been statutory US citizens since 1917. As I'm sure you know, that means that our future US citizenship and nationality is not guaranteed. When Puerto Rico became a Commonwealth in 1952, it meant that Puerto Ricans could vote for our governor and other Puerto Rican government posts, but not for the US President. Also, there is a non-voting representative in Congress from Puerto Rico. If the #110 Congressmen really believe that voting is the foundation of democracy, why, at the 21st. Century, the US Nation has approximately four millions of US citizens who do not have the right to vote for the President and Congressmen who make the laws that affect their life and future?
5. That you will hasten family reunification for parents and children, husbands and wives.
As you may know, currently half of Puerto Ricans reside in the Mainland, and the other half in the Island. This is because since 1898, when Puerto Rico became a territory of the United States, Puerto Ricans have lived 109 year tradition of cultural integration with Mainland society and have looked for a better future for our families, seeing the US Nation as one of freedom and equality. But nowadays, Puerto Ricans who reside in the Island still deal with social, educational, language, housing, and employment discrimination"¦ Why?
6. That you are committed to equal treatment of all service members and believe all patriotic Americans should be allowed to serve our country without discrimination, persecution or violence.
Puerto Ricans have served in the US Armed Forces since 1917. In all the wars in which the US has been involved, the participation of Puerto Rico has been greater than that of 22 states of the Union. Over 225,000 Puerto Ricans have fought in all US wars since World War I. More than 2,000 have been killed in action; more than 3,000 wounded, and hundreds have remained disabled for life. Four Puerto Ricans have received the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism. As it was the case in the past, during the present state of war in which our Nation finds itself fighting the savage and cowardly terrorists, Puerto Ricans are voluntarily offering to serve and the members of our National Guard and Reserve Components are responding to the call of duty (as up today 55 Puerto Ricans soldiers have died in the Irak war). The above could not be more eloquent evidence of the trust and confidence which the US has placed in Puerto Ricans. The US Nation has a debt with all of those Puerto Ricans who, throughout these 109 years, have served in the US Armed Forces. It has to be #110 Congressmen responsibility to work for obtaining for them the 100% of the benefits they deserve under the federal and state laws.
7. That for all those who live under our flag, you support strong economic development and fair and equitable treatment under federal programs.
For 109 years, as a US territory the Commonwealth of PR has had a poor economic growth if we compared it with the 50 states, and the difference between the Island and the States is wider with every sunset. In the past 30 years, the Island's economy has decreased and continues decreasing. Nor the lower federal benefits nor the income tax exemptions that PR receives have been sufficient to obtain the expected growth rate. Under the Commonwealth, PR has not been able to close the difference between it and the poorest states of the US Nation. Our labor force participation is under the Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina ones; our unemployment rate is twice the US; our poverty indicators are near the 50%, and our older citizens receive pensions under the average of the 50 states. In summary, Puerto Ricans who reside in the Island have more difficulty to obtain a job; when we find one, we receive a lower salary, and when we retire, we receive fewer benefits compared with the Puerto Ricans who reside in the Mainland. As you may see, as a territory Puerto Ricans will never reach our objective to obtain greater levels of income and economic growth because of the limitations this condition imposes us.
"The future does not belong to fear; it belongs to the freedom"Â?. It's time, Mr. Chirols, that the new #110 US Congressmen give Puerto Ricans who reside in the Island the opportunity to choose among realistic permanent and fully democratic status options.
Sincerely,
Norika RodrÃÂguez Carmona
US citizen who resides in Puerto Rico
Santa Juana IV
X2 10A St.
Caguas, PR USA 00725-2081
snow
January 26, 2007
9:04 am
Wilma Cadilla
January 26, 2007
2:03 pm
We do need congressional approval on a local plebisicite simply because local government officials will do everything they can to stop the process and include the current status, which is totally unacceptable for us and is the reason why statehood has not advanced.