Posted on 08/01/2005 10:06:00 AM PDT by cll
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.
"so they can live tax-free in Puerto Rico"
How is Puerto Rico "tax-free"?
"Puerto Ricans are citizens and do, in fact, receive ALL civil rights afforded to citizens"
Let me count the ways your statement is not accurate:
1. I served 22 years in the U.S. Army. The guy in the foxhole next to me could vote for the Commander in Chief and I never could.
2. Congress taxes me and my employers without our consent. Social Security tax, Medicare tax, Unemployment tax, Income tax on mainland or offshore (non-Puerto Rico) income.
3. Congress makes most laws applicable to Puerto Rico without our consent.
4. The status quo serves only to a very small, select oligarchy.
5. Technically, Congress can do as it pleases with four million Americans. That is a state of tyranny.
6. We get labeled as democrats, liberals or socialists by ya'll, yet we are not given a chance to prove different. Puerto Rico is not East Harlem, you know.
Sincere thanks to you, my fellow American.
BTW, we use "country" a lot because the word has a different connotation in Spanish. Country, or "País", in Spanish, is used to refer to a place, or a region that can be clearly delineated by geography, or a number of reasons. So Texas is truly a whole other country. And so is Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Lousiana and so on.
A Puerto Rican, living in San Juan, has to pay US Federal Income tax?
as I recall, when R. E. Lee spoke of "his country" or "countrymen" he was referring to Virginia and Virginians, so you stand in good traditions, regardless of language.
If he has stateside income, yes. For example, my investments are handled by a mainland broker, USAA, they issue a 1099 and I have to fill my 1040. Every year. When I did consulting work and traveled to the mainland on business and got paid there, I had to pay Federal Income Tax. My wife's rental property in the maninland pays federal income tax. And that's just me.
I've learned here in FR that Lee was a truly great man and not the traitor as painted in history textbooks. My time in the Army was spent mostly in the South and I can appreciate the idea of true Federalism and States' Rights.
Hey, vote for statehood then. My point was that Puerto Rico chose this status for itself, and gets out of having to pay income tax because of it.
And where did I ever get the notion that Puerto Rico's congressional delegation would be all Democrat? I grew up in New York, next to a Puerto Rican neighborhood. I'll tell you, Puerto Ricans get a bad rap on a lot of things. A lot of people drive through a Puerto Rican neighborhood and presume its filled of drugs, prostitutes and crime just because a lot of Puerto Ricans have a dark skin color. But this thing about being Democrats? It's a fair rap. 90-95% Democrat.
Nice to run across you on FR. There is nothing more in keeping with conservative principles than one who speaks in the interests of his local community and family interests.
bump
No different than DC for twice as long.
An unlike DC, you (Puerto Ricans) have been given the opportunity to s*** or get off the can.
Why should you get all the bennies when you won't make a commitment one way or the other?
Why should you be the only ones who could vote on our President and our laws one day and take a walk the next?
(BTW, I think if DC residents were to vote in federal elections,
they should vote as residents of Maryland, from which DC is on loan.
They could do so without voting in Maryland state elections since Maryland has no authority in DC.)
Thanks.
It's easy to write off Korematsu AFTER the war.
Again, Puerto Rico is not East Harlem. Unfortunately for many stateside PR's in the north east, they were ghettoized.
Come see for yourself and you'd be surprised by the contrasts. You'll find a place that's heavily and very strongly Christian. A place where churches older than the United States of America still stand used. A place where most people either own or work for small and micro businesses. A place where we have learned from our large Cuban refugee population about the evils of socialism.
I'll bet you a case of premium Don Q Rum that when Congress finally formalizes Puerto Rico's annexation, we'll send 6 Conservatives to the U.S. House and 2 to the Senate.
Why do you think that one of the most despicable Democrats, Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez and self-described "Puerto Rican", opposes statehood? He knows we'll call his bluff. He's terrorized about being upstaged by real Puerto Ricans.
"We just want to work, buy, sell and get on with our lives."
"An unlike DC, you (Puerto Ricans) have been given the opportunity to s*** or get off the can."
Please name one instance where Congress has authorized a vote on status options. I'm sure you won't be able to find one. I have a case of premium Don Q rum waiting for whoever finds it.
The only vote where Congress allowed us to move an inch towards equal rights happened in 1952 where voters approved the local Constitution, whose preamble I posted above. In that preamble, which voters overwhelmingly approved, we referendated our Union with the rest of you, even if by virtue of the Insular Cases and the Insular Cases alone we remain in a position of servitude.
Please refer to Article IV, Section 3, paragraph two of the Constitution of the United States of America. There you'll find that a state of tyranny indeed exists WITHIN our great Federal Republic.
"Even by generous definitions, genuine, fully functioning democracy and rule of law are rare in Latin American history and culture"
Your friend is indeed an alarmist.
If I personally had the power the power, I could present to Congress an organized State of Puerto Rico tomorrow, accrding to the Tennesse Plan. It jus so happens that the very powerful lobby of the oligarchs that profit from our colonial condition do not allow it to happen. Mainly through the spreading of unfortunate stereotypes such as the one you project here.
I'll tell, ya. I read with amusement about the opposition to new states throughout U.S. history. They all follow the same script. The day before yesterday it was the railroads, yesterday the United Fruit Company and today it's the multinational manufacturers.
> Please name one instance where Congress has authorized a vote on status options.
DC has not had even a locally sponsored referendum.
If this is the only objection you have to several points I made,
the inconclusive result of three plebiscites makes it moot.
When you get 51% to make a choice, then you have a complaint.
Let's not kid ourselves, PR would be the poorest state in the union and one which would score low in key cultural indicators (high illegitmacy rate, low education levels compared to the mainland). Much like Hawaii, it would be a solidly Democratic state, due to all of those factors. Remember that the "Statehood Party" of Hawaii was pro-Republican, but the people voted Democrat anyway once statehood was achieved for cultural and economic issues. There's also the issue of language. If PR became a state you can forget about the U.S. ever making English the official language (not that I think it would happen anyway), as Spanish was, is, and will always be the FIRST language of PR.
I think we've already gone down this road before. Nevertheless, I'm happy to see you posting again Cll. Buena suerte a ti.
Good to hear from you too. We can agree to disagree. America. Wata Country!
You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but PR state taxes are quite high if you have a good income, so if you move to PR thinking you're going to get a break on taxes, you'll get a surprise.
I was considering staying, and it looked to me as if my taxes would be similar living on the island to what they are now, with US federal and my state tax.
You will probably gather that I favor statehood for PR, but not directed by some judge somewhere. The attitudes of the people I worked with would not be necessarily representative, since they were relatively few, but my impression was that they valued their US citizenship highly, but feared statehood for fear that they would lose their uniqueness somehow if they accepted full statehood.
They look across at Dominican Republic, or these days at Venezuela, and think there but for the grace of God and the US go I... but they still value their identity as Latin Americans in addition to their identity as US citizens.
But since you are from there, and breathe their reality on a daily basis, I value your opinion. I'm curious about your comment that the current territorial status favors the elite more than the average folks; that may be true but I would be curious to know some examples.
By the way, my understanding is that the tax breaks that originally brought manufacturers to the island have been discontinued, and PR must compete for manufacturing on a rather difficult playing field. NAFTA and CAFTA means PR must now compete with Mexico and the rest of Central America. Being 1000 miles from the mainland, at a distance from both suppliers and customers, makes it tough. But those industries already on the island seem prepared to stay for now (except for oil refining which is now mostly gone).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.