Clearly, the positions that presidential candidates take on Puerto Rico issues will influence the increasingly important group of voters of Puerto Rico origin in the 50 States. However, presidential candidates may not have realized that what they say about Puerto Rico can also have a significant impact on Hispanic voters in general.
First and foremost, Hispanics wish to be acknowledged as Americans --that, despite our origin, we are a part of "We the People of the United States." As an immigrant rights advocate, Julissa Reynoso pointed-out that "to many Americans, Latinos' roots are in Latin America and Mexico, as though having some connection with Latin America trumps any possibility of becoming a 'true' U.S. citizen." Karl Rove was keen to recognize the problem of "Hispanicness" being associated to foreignness regardless of citizenship and stated before the National Council of La Raza that the debate over immigration reform had "clouded the views of some people in America and led them to fail to understand that Hispanics, and all immigrants, are real Americans."
Nothing captures the essence of this problem more clearly than Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, a little-known case that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1922. Most Americans would not conceive of the Supreme Court making decisions about the application of the Constitution on the basis of race or origin. But that is precisely what was done in this case.
When in 1917 Congress granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans, it was generally understood that the Islands had been incorporated into the United States. But, five years later, the Supreme Court decided that an American citizen residing in Puerto Rico did not have the right of trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment because it could not have been the intention of Congress to "incorporate in the Union these distant ocean communities of a different origin and language from those of our continental people."
The communities to which the Court made reference were Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Despite the fact that Congress granted American citizenship to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico after having set the Philippines on the path to independence in 1916, what mattered to the Court was not citizenship but origin.
In a glaring act of judicial law-making the Supreme Court disavowed Congress and departed from the precedents of Louisiana and Alaska in which granting citizenship to its inhabitants resulted in incorporation. The basis for making a distinction with Puerto Rico was, in essence, its Hispanic population.
The opinion in Balzac was written by Chief Justice Taft. He had been Governor of the Philippines and had lost his 1912 reelection bid to Woodrow Wilson who signed the Jones Act granting American citizenship to Puerto Ricans. Taft's bias is plain to see when one considers that, as Governor, he referred to the Filipinos as our "little brown brothers" and reported to President McKinley that they would need "fifty or one hundred years" of close supervision "to develop anything resembling Anglo-Saxon political principles and skills."
As President, Taft had also referred to Puerto Rico as "the favored daughter of the United States". But discrimination on the basis of race or origin, however benevolent or paternalistic, is still incompatible with the Constitution.
Balzac is to the American citizens of Puerto Rico what Plessy v. Ferguson was to African Americans before Brown v. Board of Education. And thus, Balzac should be condemned by every American who understands the Constitution as a source of equal rights. Moreover, Balzac should be offensive to all who believe that judges overstep their constitutional authority when legislating from the bench.
It is incomprehensible that, after four generations of American citizens born in Puerto Rico, Balzac still provides grounds for The White House to assert that Puerto Rico is an "unincorporated" territory --a possession that is separate from, rather than a part of, the United States.
It is long overdue that a U.S. President asks his Attorney General to challenge the validity of Balzac whenever the application of the anachronistic "incorporation doctrine" is argued before a federal court. Ninety-five years ago on March 2nd President Wilson signed into law the Jones Act. March 11th marks the anniversary of the report by the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico. And Puerto Rico's Republican primary will be held on March 18th. Those are ideal junctures for a candidate to pledge that as President he will seek the reversal of Balzac. In so doing, he would acknowledge Puerto Ricans, and all Hispanics, as "real Americans."
Hispanics are not connected by ancestry to the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the framers of the Constitution but, because they share with them the principles and values on which our Nation was founded, they are equal to them in citizenship and entitled to claim those documents as their own. This we believe today as much as Abraham Lincoln believed it of recent immigrants in 1858. But while Balzac is "good law," no one can claim it is truly so.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Latino Bashing GOP Seeks Puerto Rican Votes
And specificaly about the tax situation in Puerto Rico, it's logical that if ALL Puerto Ricans were required to file Tax Returns to the IRS, only a small fraction of them would have to pay anything at all.
And finally, I don't know if this "loophole" has been closed, but when I moved out of PR a few years ago, THOUSANDS of residents of PR who were not reqired to file Federal Tax Returns were VOLUNTARILY doing so anyway, because when they did, they would qualify to receive a FULL REFUND of that $3,000 Credit for Dependent Children. I know it doesn't sound flattering to be taking advantage of that "loophole", but hey!, it was there and it was legal, so why not take it?????
So maybe these people should think twice before making such a big deal that "Puerto Ricans don't pay taxes" and that this situation has to be corrected, because as the saying goes; "Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it"!
But let's say that they did manage to require that PR adopt English as it's ONLY "official language" (because as I said before, it already IS one of our "official languages"). When Montana was going to become a State, there was a very powerful man who had a lot of land and influence in the territory, most of them located in Billings (I'm not 100% certain, but bear with me) He managed to get Congress to require that the Capital of the new State of Montana be moved to Billings, instead of Helena, where it already was, and the Legislators really didn't want to move from there. So what did the Montana Legislature do? They accepted the requirement! Montana was made a State, the Legislature convened in Billings, and the first Law that they passed was TO MOVE THE CAPITAL BACK TO HELENA!!!!! Sneaky, huh?????
I have been in the restaurant where Obama ate when he visited the island. I have eaten there by now several hundred times in the last 35 years and it is pure propaganda that they don't hire Puertorricans. I also know that they eat there because it was selected and approved by the candidate from the PPD to eat there. It is a very good place to eat and pretty close to the airport. The location is rather restrictive in parking but nevertheless close to the airport.
I don't dissagree that at first glance it seemed deliverate but I think their Cuban sandwiches are in fact very good and so are the "fritas".
As for speaking Spanish or being "Americans" I would inform you that the US came to our Island and claimed us as a war prize after it's less than noble "defeat" of the NON-existant Spanish colonial forces in the Caribbean in 1898.
As a result of that "triumph", Puerto Rico became a US protectorate and then in 1917 we were granted US citizenship, NEVERMIND we didn't ask for it, since before Uncle Sam "claimed" us, we had been in negotiations with Spain to declare our independence.
But don't let the facts confuse you.
And how about those French-speaking Cajuns in Louisiana?
And those German-speaking Wisconsites in Milwaukee?
Or those Yiddish-speaking Jews in Brooklyn?
And let me not forget those Italian-speaking Italians in Providence, RI?
Is Puerto Rico that different? I mean legally( not culturally).
We must look at Hawaii as an example. Hawaii became a state in spite of the Hawaiians because it was in the best interest of the American Corporate Complex. MONEY!
If Puerto Rico ever wants to become a state, it would have to forget about the possible political maneuvers. It must make sure to lobby the American Corporate Complex, because IT is the grease that moves the machine.
Don’t think so? Then read “Elite Deviance”( Google it) and as a former soldier I saw how ACC influence politics and Governments in Central America, the book points out the rest of the world.
Corporate America can build plants in Puerto Rico and employ people and avoid a great deal of the regulation that is applied on the mainland.
Take a look at where most of your prescription drugs are produced, Puerto Rico, you think it’s because the weather is nice?
Same thing with another possession, Saipan. If you look at the labor conditions there, forced abortion, slave wages but it’s all propped up by the Republican Party, they passes a regulation about territorial status so that clothing made on Saipan can be labeled “Made in America” without any of the American labor laws.
Then again, if we combine the Dakotas we could stay with the old flags.
1.Not long ago,I was at a faculty member's home.That evening his uncle began talking to me and commented on my"EastCoast"accent. I explained I had lived in NY,CT,MA and in London, Madrid, Mallorca and the UnitedArabEmirates,but that I was born and raised in Puerto Rico.He thought for a moment and asked...
..."do they still wear grass skirts in your homeland?".
I almost dropped by umbrella drink and bacon-wrapped Cajun shrimp!
I share this story,because the topic of PuertoRico to most AmericanPresidents,Congresses and academics is very ill-informed.
2.I DOexpect more from fellow-Americans,but I am never shocked when I am confronted by an "American"whose only reference for us is J-Low's *ss or RitaMoreno's "everythingFREE in Amereeeka".
3. The people of Puerto Rico have rejected statehood.So do you really expect the US government and all its ignorantminions to cloud their already foggy brains with the topic? Mijo?
So don't EVEN begin to expect any bureaucrat to understand PR's status or suggest any comparisons to legal statutes legislated in the 50 "admitted" states.
In theUS they still thinkSasquatch exists and Hawaii is just off theDisneyland coast.
4.And PLEASE don't make the fatal mistake of aligning PuertoRico's political (mis)fortunes with the convoluted,confused and totallycompromised "LaTino" agenda in the States. These idiots are still arguing the word "legal"!
Focus on keeping drugs and illegals OFFthe Island.THAT,should keep you busy for100years and is FAR more relevant than the"Puerto Rico-51st State" licenseplate colorscheme.
It will never go away. I can spend an hour explaning financial terms to someone and even talk about physics but at the end all I get is "you got an accent, you are not from around here, are you!" Beyond furious!
http://napoleonlive.info/what-you-think/la-reconquista-giving-our-country-back-to-the-indians/
NO, it is not in Nebraska, but that's just me, I guess.
Oh, and Hawaii is not in Minnesota either.
Hawaii was usurped from a legal Royal Government by the American Corporations(quite literal) The American Corporation influence the politicians in WaDc to send the Army and the Navy to take over the island and topple the Government, because that government was making it difficult for the corp to do business. Sugar, Pineapples, and God know what else. Hawaii has a dark history where mainland people have very little knowledge. Most native Hawaiians did not even want the statehood. So for a long time it was just like Puerto Rico, a territory. Again after the war and the increase influence of American Corporations it became in the best interest to make it a state. Money was the determining factor in both Alaska and Hawaii.