RE: WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR COMMITTEE ON PUERTO RICO’S TERRITORIAL STATUS P.R. SELF DETERMINATION ACT STATEHOOD ADMISSION ACT
Dear Congressman, Grijalva:
I was born in Puerto Rico, U.S.A., and I am an American citizen resident of Puerto Rico. I am sending this written testimony in opposition to the proposed “Self Determination Act., which is not constitutionally viable, and to support the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. It is the only political alternative that fits in the U.S. Constitutional Framework, and it is 122 years overdue.
As you know, Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States since 1898. For 122 years we have been under the U.S. Government discriminatory practice of being denied the right to vote in Federal Elections, and of government without the consent of the governed. (3.4 million American Citizens by birth). We are also subject to unequal treatment in economic policies implemented by Congress for the states, which have moved Puerto Rico into bankruptcy. Moreover, for some cases the Federal Courts apply the U. S. Constitution, and not for others. Ironically, we pay more than $3 billion dollars a year in federal taxes, more than some states and many state regions. (IRS Highlights 2020).
The Committee of Natural Resources you preside, has expressed interest in pursuing Congressional action in the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico. I suggest that you consider as the most viable alternative that Puerto Rico be certified as an incorporated territory first, which de facto it is. Notwithstanding incorporation is not permanent, therefore Congress should simultaneously resolve to move Puerto Rico in transit to statehood at a definite date. Certification of Incorporation would make the U.S. Constitution fully applicable, and would give us parity with federal funds as if Puerto Rico were a state. We qualify for incorporation by having been assimilated more than any other U.S. Territory before becoming a state. Although there may be conflicting views of what is the political relation of Puerto Rico to the United States, due to the reality that we are still not a state, Congress has assimilated us gradually since 1898 into a federalist relation to be like a de facto incorporated territory. (See: G. Igartua, The “de facto” Incorporated Territory U.S. of Puerto Rico. A copy of the Book was mailed to you a few months ago, and one is being mailed to the Committee with this letter).
I respectfully suggest that you consider proposing to Congress to declare Puerto Rico officially an Incorporated Territory of the United States in transit to statehood. (See Petition enclosed – Annex A). It is the only political alternative that fits into the U. S. Constitutional framework, it is 122 years overdue. Rather than holding more hearings on what we could hypothetically be, which is discriminatory, our political and civil rights must be recognized by Congress based on what we are, 3.4 American citizens by birth residents of a de facto incorporated territory. Incorporation was recently supported unanimously by the National Association of U.S. Mayors. (Annex B). (See also, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Rullan, 586 FS 2nd 22 (2008).
No one in Puerto Rico wants independence, nor continue to be confused with political status alternatives which do not fit within the U.S. constitutional framework. No one in Puerto Rico wants to renounce their American Citizenship. A Republic of American citizens would be a matter of national security concern. (3.3 million Residing in Puerto Rico, 5 million residing in states). Many are confused by the daily practice of uncertainty brought by the questioning about what our rights are as American citizens, or could be. Consider within this context the “Puerto Rico Self Determination Act” proposed for American citizens after 122 years under our American flag. Were African Americans subjected, or should be subjected, to hearings on whether they would like to be slaves again, or be moved to a Country in Africa? Should Mexican Americans be asked whether they would like to renounce their American Citizenship to Mexican and be moved back to Mexico, or should their American citizenship status be questioned, as your Committee is doing with us in Puerto Rico in 2021?
Consider as constitutionally viable only to start holding hearings on how the American Citizens residents of Puerto Rico can have equal rights and government by the consent of the governed. (U.S. Constitution Amendments XIV and XV). Congressman Grijalva, statehood for you, for Congresswomen Velazquez and Ocasio, for all the members of your Committee, for all Congressmen, and statehood for us the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico. Time is of the essence.
I respectfully request to be allowed to participate in the April 15, 2021, hearing your Committee has scheduled on this subject, and in support of our American Citizenship rights.
Sincerely yours,
s/Gregorio Igartua
Gregorio Igartua
Note – Please provide a copy of this letter to all member of the Committee of Natural Recourses. Please make this written testimony part of the Official Record of the hearing on Puerto Rico’s Territorial Status scheduled by the Committee for April 14, 2021.
Domestic and International Legal Advice, L.L.C. c/o Gregorio Igartua Box 3911 Aguadilla P.R. 00605 Abogado – Notario Attorney at Law
L.L.M. INTERNATIONAL LAW – G.W.U. Tel. (787)891-9040 MASTER TAX LAW – G.U.L.C. Cel. (787) 379-5095 e-mail: bufeteigartua@yahoo.com
April 2, 2021
c/o email: raul.grijalva@mail.house.gov
Hon. Raul Grijalva House Committee on Natural Resources U.S. 2302 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 RE: WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR COMMITTEE ON PUERTO RICO’S TERRITORIAL STATUS P.R. SELF DETERMINATION ACT STATEHOOD ADMISSION ACT Dear Congressman Grijalva: I was born in Puerto Rico, U.S.A., and, I am an American citizen resident of Puerto Rico. I am sending this written testimony in opposition to the proposed “Self Determination Act., which is not constitutionally viable, and to support the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. It is the only political alternative that fits in the U.S. Constitutional Framework, and it is 122 years overdue. As you know, Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States since 1898. For 122 years we have been under the U.S. Government discriminatory practice of being denied the right to vote in Federal Elections, and of government without the consent of the governed. (3.4 million American Citizens by birth). We are also subject to unequal treatment in economic policies
2
implemented by Congress for the states, which have moved Puerto Rico into bankruptcy. Moreover, for some cases the Federal Courts apply the U. S. Constitution, and not for others. Ironically, we pay more than $3 billion dollars a year in federal taxes, more than some states and many state regions. (IRS Highlights 2020). The Committee of Natural Resources you preside has expressed interest in pursuing Congressional action in the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico. I suggest that you consider as the most viable alternative that Puerto Rico be certified as an incorporated territory first, which de facto it is. Notwithstanding incorporation is not permanent, therefore Congress should simultaneously resolve to move Puerto Rico in transit to statehood at a definite date. Certification of Incorporation would make the U.S. Constitution fully applicable and would give us parity with federal funds as if Puerto Rico were a state. We qualify for incorporation by having been assimilated more than any other U.S. Territory before becoming a state. Although there may be conflicting views of what is the political relation of Puerto Rico to the United States, due to the reality that we are still not a state, Congress has assimilated us gradually since 1898 into a federalist relation to be like a de facto incorporated territory. (See: G. Igartua, The “de facto” Incorporated Territory U.S. of Puerto Rico. A copy of the book was mailed to you a few months ago, and one is being mailed to the Committee with this letter). I respectfully suggest that you consider proposing to Congress to declare Puerto Rico officially an Incorporated Territory of the United States in transit to statehood. (See Petition enclosed – Annex A). It is the only political alternative that fits into the U. S. Constitutional framework, it is 122 years overdue. Rather than holding more hearings on what we could hypothetically be, which is discriminatory, our political and civil rights must be recognized by Congress based on what we are, 3.4 American citizens by birth residents of a de facto incorporated territory. Incorporation was recently supported unanimously by the National Association of U.S. Mayors. (Annex B). (See also, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Rullan, 586 FS 2nd 22 (2008).
No one in Puerto Rico wants independence, nor continue to be confused with political status alternatives which do not fit within the U.S. constitutional framework. No one in Puerto Rico wants to renounce their American Citizenship. A Republic of American citizens would be a matter of national security concern. (3.3 million Residing in Puerto Rico, 5 million residing in states). Many are confused by the daily practice of uncertainty brought by the questioning about what our rights are as American citizens, or could be. Consider within this context the “Puerto Rico Self Determination Act” proposed for American citizens after 122 years under our American flag. Were African-Americans subjected, or should be subjected, to hearings on whether they would like to be slaves again, or be moved to a Country in Africa?. Should Mexican –Americans be asked whether they would like to renounce their American Citizenship to Mexican and be moved back to Mexico, or should their American citizenship status be questioned, as your Committee is doing with us in Puerto Rico in 2021? Consider as constitutionally viable only to start holding hearings on how the American Citizens residents of Puerto Rico can have equal rights and government by the consent of the governed. (U.S. Constitution Amendments XIV and XV). Congressman Grijalva, statehood for you, for Congresswomen Velazquez and Ocasio, for all the members of your Committee, for all Congressmen, and statehood for us the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico. Time is of the essence. I respectfully request to be allowed to participate in the April 15, 2021, hearing your Committee has scheduled on this subject, and in support of our American Citizenship rights.
Note – Please provide a copy of this letter to all member of the Committee of Natural Recourses. Please make this written testimony part of the Official Record of the hearing on Puerto Rico’s Territorial Status scheduled by the Committee for April 14, 2021.
Pro-statehood attorney: Puerto Rico could be subject to an oversight board as a state
By The Star Staff
Even if Puerto Rico were to become a state, it would still be subjected to the terms of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act and an oversight board because of the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, under Article VI, which establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
“People think that we have the board because we are a colony but it is actually the federal government intervening because of a lack of fiscal controls,” pro-statehood lawyer Gregorio Igartúa said, noting that other U.S. jurisdictions have had fiscal boards imposed on them.
The lawyer spoke with the STAR amid his frustration that “the same people” will be talking in Wednesday’s hearing on status bills.
Igartúa sent a written testimony in opposition to the proposed Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, which he said is not constitutionally viable, and to support the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act.
“It is the only political alternative that fits in the U.S. constitutional framework, and it is 122 years overdue,” he said. “As you know, Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States since 1898. For 122 years we have been under the U.S. government’s discriminatory practice of being denied the right to vote in federal elections, and of government without the consent of the governed.”
The House Committee on Natural Resources has expressed interest in pursuing congressional action on the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico. Igartúa said the most viable alternative is for Puerto Rico to be certified as an incorporated territory first, which de facto it is, on the way to becoming a state. Puerto Rico is currently an unincorporated territory. Under federal law, an unincorporated territory is an area controlled by the U.S. federal government that is not “incorporated” for the purposes of United States constitutional law. In unincorporated territories, the U.S. Constitution applies only partially.
Igartúa said Puerto Rico has been virtually assimilated into the United States.
“Notwithstanding incorporation is not permanent, therefore Congress should simultaneously resolve to move Puerto Rico in transit to statehood at a definite date. Certification of incorporation would make the U.S. Constitution fully applicable, and would give us parity with federal funds as if Puerto Rico were a state. We qualify for incorporation by having been assimilated more than any other U.S. territory before becoming a state,” he said. “Although there may be conflicting views of what the political relation of Puerto Rico to the United States is, due to the reality that Puerto Rico is still not a state, Congress has assimilated the island gradually since 1898 into a federalist relationship to be like a de facto incorporated territory.”
Rather than holding more hearings on what Puerto Rico could hypothetically be, Igartúa said the reality is that Puerto Ricans do not want to live in an independent country and a majority voted in favor of statehood in a referendum.
“Many are confused by the daily practice of uncertainty brought by the questioning about what our rights are as American citizens, or could be,” he said. “Consider within this context the ‘Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act’ proposed for American citizens after 122 years under our American flag. Were African-Americans subjected, or should they be subjected, to hearings on whether they would like to be slaves again, or be moved to a country in Africa?
Should Mexican Americans be asked whether they would like to renounce their American citizenship … and be moved back to Mexico, or should their American citizenship status be questioned, as your committee is doing with us in Puerto Rico in 2021? Consider it constitutionally viable only to start holding hearings on how the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico can achieve to have equal rights and government by the consent of the governed.”
April 12, 2021
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Charles Schumer
Senate Majority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
House Republican Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Senate Republican Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Schumer, and Leaders McCarthy and McConnell:
We, the undersigned legal and constitutional scholars, write to express our strong opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R. 2070, and its Senate companion bill, S. 865, and to register our equally strong support for the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, H.R. 1522, and its Senate companion bill, S. 780.
Like all Americans, we support self-determination. But unlike the supporters of the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, we believe that genuine self-determination requires the United States to offer Puerto Ricans a real choice. By “real,” we mean constitutional and non-territorial. Puerto Rico’s self-determination options must be constitutional, for the obvious reason that neither Congress nor Puerto
Rico has the power to implement an unconstitutional option. And they must be non-territorial, because a territorial option is not self-determination.
There are two, and only two, real self-determination options for Puerto Rico: statehood and independence. Yet the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act defies constitutional reality by calling upon Puerto Ricans to define other non-territorial options. There are no other non-territorial options. For many decades, advocates of “commonwealth” status argued that it was non-territorial. They argued that when Puerto Rico made the transition to commonwealth status in 1952, it ceased to be a U.S. territory, became a separate sovereign, and entered into a mutually binding compact with the United States. But they were wrong. Quite simply, Congress does not have the power to create a permanent union between Puerto Rico and the United States except by admitting Puerto Rico into statehood. Lest there be any doubt, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and recently refuted the controversial “compact theory.” In Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (2016), the Court ended seven decades of debilitating debate over the question of whether Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status created a permanent union between two separate sovereigns with an unequivocal “no”: as the Court made clear, Puerto Rico is, and always has been, a U.S. territory, and Congress retains plenary power to govern the island under the Territory Clause of the Constitution (Art. IV, §3, cl.2). And in Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment
LLC. (2020), the Court went on to explain that Congress’s creation of a federal board with substantial powers over Puerto Rico’s local government was a permissible exercise of Congress’s plenary power over a U.S. territory. In short, as long as Puerto Rico is neither a state of the Union nor an independent nation,
it will remain a territory. By inviting Puerto Ricans to define non-territorial options other than statehood or independence, the inaptly named Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act disserves its purported goal by perpetuating the pernicious myth that such options exist. They do not.
Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 & S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.2 Despite longstanding political division within Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans have long shared an overwhelming consensus on two key points: They reject territorial status and they wish to remain U.S. citizens. But while both statehood and independence would fulfill the goal of self-determination, only one of those options would guarantee U.S. citizenship: statehood. Last November, in an unmistakable effort to determine their political future, a clear majority of Puerto Ricans voted “yes” in their own referendum on
statehood. Now that Puerto Ricans have publicly and officially asked for statehood, it is time for the
United States officially to offer it. The Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act does just that.
Proceeding respectfully, cautiously, and pragmatically, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act responds to the November referendum with an offer of statehood and sets the terms for admission, but it makes admission contingent on a second referendum in which Puerto Ricans would ratify their choice.
Were they to do so, the President would issue a proclamation admitting Puerto Rico as a state within one year of the vote. If they were to reject statehood, then the island would remain a territory with the option to pursue sovereignty at any time in the future—so the Act does not force statehood on Puerto Rico in any way. In other words, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act respects the result of Puerto Rico’s referendum by responding with concrete action, while ensuring that Puerto Ricans have the first and last word on their future.
In the 123 years since the United States annexed Puerto Rico, Congress has never offered Puerto Ricans the choice to become a state. Instead, the United States has allowed Puerto Rico to languish indefinitely as a U.S. territory, subjecting its residents to U.S. laws while denying them voting representation in the government that makes those laws. We strongly support a congressional offer of statehood to Puerto Rico, and we urge Congress to pass the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act immediately.
Signed,*
*University affiliations listed for identification purposes only.
Jack M. Balkin
Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment
Yale Law School
Christopher P. Banks
Professor, Political Science
Kent State University
Evelyn Benvenutti Toro
Professor of Law
Inter American University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Jessica Bulman-Pozen
Betts Professor of Law
Faculty Co-Director, Center for Constitutional Governance
Columbia Law School
Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &
S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.3
Kathleen Burch
Professor of Law
Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School
Guy-Uriel E. Charles
Edward and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law
Duke Law School
Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law
U.C. Berkeley School of Law
Cornell W. Clayton
C.O. Johnson Distinguished Professor of Political Science
Director, Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Service and Public Policy
Washington State University
David S. Cohen
Professor of Law
Thomas R. Kline School of Law
Drexel University
Andrés L. Córdova
Professor of Law
Inter American University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Erin F. Delaney
Professor of Law
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Walter Dellinger
Douglas Maggs Emeritus Professor of Law
Duke University
Carlos Días Olivo
Professor of Law
University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Michael C. Dorf
Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law
Cornell Law School
Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &
S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.4
Stephen M. Feldman
Jerry W. Housel/Carl F. Arnold Distinguished Professor of Law
and Adjunct Professor of Political Science
University of Wyoming
Martin S. Flaherty
Leitner Family Professor of International Law
Fordham Law School
and Visiting Professor
School of International and Public Affairs
Princeton University
Barry Friedman
Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law
New York University School of Law
Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Professor of Law, Class of 1950 Herman B. Wells Endowed Professor
Maurer School of Law
Indiana University
Lauren Gilbert
Professor of Law
St. Thomas University College of Law
Leslie F. Goldstein
Judge Hugh M. Morris Professor Emerita of Political Science and International Relations
University of Delaware
David Golove
Hiller Family Foundation Professor of Law
New York University School of Law
Mark A. Graber
University System of Maryland Regents Professor
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Jonathan Hafetz
Professor of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &
S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.5
Helen Hershkoff
Herbert M. and Svetlana Wachtell Professor of Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties
New York University School of Law
Gary J. Jacobsohn
H. Malcolm Macdonald Professor of Constitutional and Comparative Law
University of Texas at Austin
Randall L. Kennedy
Michael R. Klein Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
J. Andrew Kent
Professor of Law and John D. Feerick Research Chair
Fordham Law School
Mark R. Killenbeck
Wylie H. Davis Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Arkansas
Stephen R. Lazarus
Associate Professor of Law
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Lawrence Lessig
Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership
Harvard Law School
Sanford V. Levinson
W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair and
Professor of Government
University of Texas at Austin
Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law Emeritus
George Washington University Law School
Martha Minow
300th Anniversary University Professor
Harvard University
Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &
S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.6
Samuel Moyn
Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence
Yale Law School
Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus
George Welwood Murray Professor of Legal History
Columbia Law School
David Pozen
Vice Dean for Intellectual Life and Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law
Columbia Law School
Richard Primus
Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor
The University of Michigan Law School
Kermit Roosevelt
Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania Law School
Lawrence Sager
Alice Jane Drysdell Sheffield Regents Chair
University of Texas at Austin
Rogers M. Smith
Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science
University of Pennsylvania
Girardeau A. Spann
James & Catherine Denny Professor of Law
Georgetown University Law Center
Kate Stith
Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law
Yale Law School
Geoffrey R. Stone
Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor of Law
The University of Chicago
Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &
S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.7
Nelson Tebbe
Jane M.G. Foster Professor of Law
Cornell Law School
Laurence H. Tribe
Carol M. Loeb University Professor and
Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus
Harvard Law School
Stephen I. Vladeck
Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts
University of Texas School of Law
Kenji Yoshino
Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law
You must be logged in to post a comment Login