U.S. Senate Kills H.R. 2499, White House Delays Task Force on P.R.’s Status Report

A Lesson on Territorialism and why Supporters of Self-Determination Clamor “TENNESSEE! TENNESSEE!”

Once again, the U.S. Senate refused to be a constructive partner in solving Puerto Rico’s unequal status. After months of claiming senators wanted to wait for the White House task force report at the end of October, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chairman of the senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, informed the public that his colleagues could not reach a consensus on moving forward with Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi’s House-approved Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009/10 (H.R. 2499).

What is there to know, senators?

Let us see:

• The United States invaded Puerto Rico (a colony of the Empire of Spain) in 1898.
• Since, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States under the U.S. Congress’ plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution’s Territorial Clause.
• Congress made all Puerto Ricans United States citizens in 1917 and in 1952 gave them autonomy to organize in a republican form of government under a constitution of their own writing (amended by Congress, of course).
• After 1952, Puerto Rico remained a United States territory, now called a “Commonwealth” in English and a “Free Associated State” in Spanish—still not a state or an independent country, but an American colony where the citizens have second-class citizenship.
• There have been three attempts at finishing the current unequal territorial status through a direct, democratic vote. Once in 1967, another in 1993, and yet another in 1998—all of them inconclusive for various reasons, none of which are legitimate reasons not to proceed with a final self-determination vote for citizenship equality.
• The Americans of Puerto Rico still wait for a congressionally sanctioned plebiscite for a chance to vote for their future.

Facts are facts!

The United States Senate has been singularly instrumental in keeping the four million American citizens of the island territory unequal for 112 years. The Senate has never passed a bill giving Puerto Rico a clear path toward self-determination, while the U.S. House has, at the very least, engaged the political leadership of the territory in short debates about the status. The White House, through the Clinton-, W. Bush-, and Obama Administrations, has been involved in trying to build consensus among the key status factions in Puerto Rico on what the status alternatives mean to Puerto Rico and the U.S. On October 12, the Obama Administration signaled that it would give the President’s Taskforce on Puerto Rico’s Status more time (perhaps until December) to complete its report.

The White House’s decision, reported in El Nuevo Dia by Jose Delgado, also seems to include two key new pieces of information. The first is the notion that the Obama Administration is going to focus heavily on economic development in the American territory. The second, and most Obamaesque, is that  the new report will back away to more “neutral” ground assertions made on the first and second Taskforce reports about Puerto Rico’s true colonial status.

The 2005 and 2007 reports (see Must Axxess Files box, below), ordered originally by the Clinton Administration and concluded under the W. Bush Administration, inflamed the “Commonwealth” PPD Party because they asserted in no equivocal terms that the federal hold on the territory was absolute, so much so that the federal government could give Puerto Rico away to another foreign power with no reason whatsoever.

These not-so-new developments—this federal dance, if you will—is unworkable. This is a political process more than it is a problem. Supporters of Self-Determination cannot allow this to continue!

We have the federal house acting on well-intentioned but mingled bills to solve the unequal status of four million Americans. We have a federal senate that refuses to look at their fellow citizens in the face while, simultaneously, single-handedly denies them even the opportunity to exercise their most fundamental democratic right to self-determination. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a federal executive that seeks neutrality and consensus in that which can have neither the former nor the latter. In the words of a once-bold leader, it is time for Change. Another such political pioneer was a man by the name of George Lehleitner who, according to the University of Alaska’s statehood files, was a “New Orleans businessman who single-handedly convinced the Alaska Constitutional Convention to adopt the ‘Alaska-Tennessee Plan’ in order to lobby for statehood.”

The U.S. Constitution spells out the statehood and territorial processes, but in constitutionally short language:

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 & 2

Traditionally, Congress has filled the constitutional gaps through vigorous involvement in the constitutional management of territories, but not always. Since the original Thirteen Colonies (i.e. March 4, 1789 to Present), the territorial map of the United States has had over 100 variations, with as many flags to match an Age that was—long before it was named—Manifest Destiny.

Congress has never made a state. It simply manages territory under the auspices of the federal government, and when, and only when, certain population centers develop to a certain number and write a constitution that forms a republican democracy can they petition the federal government for statehood. That is the way the overwhelming majority of territories became states; of course, powerful interests did get involved in all statehood petitions, but that is not to say that the goal of statehood did not benefit most in the particular territory.

There are other ways.

California never had a “territorial status”; Congress carved it out of the unorganized territory acquired from Mexico after Californians instituted their own version of the Tennessee Plan. Congress organized the remaining territory as the Utah and New Mexico Territories. Texas was meant to be five states, but it was left as one. North Carolina gave up all of its land beyond its present-day western border to the federal government, which turned it into the Southwest Territory and later admitted it as the State of Tennessee—through the Tennessee Plan.

Why these niceties about the territorial process?

Because since 1796, when the Southwest Territory (also called the Territory of Tennessee) became the State of Tennessee four month after it instituted its namesake Plan, a series of other territories have successfully instituted their own bold plan for self-determination. Because today, the enemies of equality seek to portray Puerto Rico’s internal, democratic plebiscite process as one out of synch with the national traditions of statehood simply because Puerto Rico seeks to have Congress clarify the real options for its people through congressional action before the ballots are printed.

However, many in Congress—Doc Hastings their leader during the H.R. 2499 debate in the House—have argued that Puerto Rico does not need a congressional mandate before it carries a local plebiscite on status because they have done it before without congressional mandate; further, they argue, a congressional mandate would do two things that are incompatible with the traditional process: 1) it would put the Congress in front of the proper petition for statehood from the territory; and 2) it would indirectly “bind” Congress into accepting a vote for statehood that might result from a plurality of the votes cast (e.g. a 34 percent vote for statehood, 33 percent for independence, and a 33 percent for “Commonwealth”). This is the same class of congressional impotence that gave rise to the Tennessee Plan.

If the territory of Puerto Rico were anything like the territories that came before, the status issue would have been resolved long ago.

No other territory has ever had to weigh three or more options before petitioning for statehood. There are those for which Congress explicitly stated its intent to grant independence (i.e. Cuba, Philippines, and various post-WWII trusteeships), but in terms of territory acquired, organized, and kept, none has had a “Commonwealth” movement, though they might have had a weak independence movement, like the territory of Puerto Rico. Congress, for over a century now, has inculcated a sense of perpetuity in the minds of the “Commonwealth” status supporters, and president after president has simply gone along.

Let us not doubt Puerto Rico’s current capacity allows it to fulfill the four traditional requirements imposed by Congress: 1) population; 2) republican form of government; 3) a written constitution; and 4) a petition for statehood. The last requirement, of course, has not happened, and it has much to do with the aforementioned example of congressional approval for a Puerto Rican vote, but a lack of support for an actual law clearing the way for Puerto Rico’s exercise in self-determination.

What would the first unorganized territory of the United States, which later became the Northwest Territory, and even later the states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, had been left as a territory for one hundred years before Congress acted on its management and advancement on behalf of the American people outside of the original Thirteen? What would the Louisiana Purchase look like as a permanent territory under the dubious status of Puerto Rican “Commonwealth”? What about the lands acquired from Mexico after 1848? What would most of the country look like?

After Tennessee instituted its Plan, seven other states successfully followed suit: Michigan, California, Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, and Alaska.

The territory of Puerto Rico is unique in this tradition, and not for its language or local culture, but because it has been mismanaged as a territory of the United States of America. Our American tradition of self-determination for the peoples of the territories has always worked, but sometimes some territories had to push harder than others did.

As George Lehleitner said as he concluded his argument for the Tennessee Plan à laAlaska:

“You have already seen that it is NOT irregular. Nor is it illegal. For the very first Article of our Bill of Rights, you will recall, guarantees that ‘Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

In its very essence, the ‘Tennessee Plan’ is a forthright and logical form in which to petition the Government for the redress of a monstrous grievance. Because the grievance is real and stubborn, the petition for its correction must be vigorous and dramatic. For these reasons the ‘Tennessee Plan’ has ALWAYS succeeded in the past.”

For the Americans of Puerto Rico, their most “vigorous and dramatic” move should be preceded by the equally bold move of passing H.R. 2497 and S.B. 1407 (see Must Axxess Files box, below) in the Puerto Rico legislature. By forcing a vote between statehood and independence, Puerto Rico will be able to present a petition for statehood to the U.S. Congress. After that, in the name of citizenship equality, “TENNESSEE, TENNESSEE, TENNESSEE!”

Soberanistas versus Autonomistas within the PPD

Forthcoming Schism Presents Existential Threat to the “Commonwealth” Party

On August 2, La Chuleta Congelá’ commented on the feud that occurred between state senator Antonio Fas-Alzamora and state representative Jorge Colberg-Toro as the Popular Democratic Party leadership and membership were trying to compose the party’s platform on the various policy problems facing the island territory. The Fas-Alzamora vs. Colberg-Toro dispute, we stated, is illustrative of a forthcoming schism in the PPD; a divide that will finally bring down the curtain on the almost-sixty-years-old farce they named the “Commonwealth” status.

Today, we bring you more up-to-date information on the continuing battle between the two camps represented by Fas-Alzamora and Colberg-Toro: Soberanistas and Autonomistas (respectively).

Let us, first, get some facts straight:

The Autonomistas represent what the Popular Democratic Party in Puerto Rico has always wanted since the founding of the “Commonwealth”: unequal territorial status with more local autonomy (without describing any real constitutionally viable status option). They are the so-called establishment wing of the party. The Soberanistas represent a growing movement within the party that seeks to gain international autonomy for Puerto Rico through (real) sovereignty. Both wings wish to retain perpetual American citizenship, and claim not to want independence (per se) for Puerto Rico. There are two “pacts” circulating within the PPD. The first—the Autonomistas’—is the official (work-in-progress) party platform, el Pacto de Futuro (Pact for the Future), and Autonomista Colberg-Toro is in charge of its assembly; the second—you got it, the Soberanistas’—is the 52-page treatise put forth by Soberanista Fas-Alzamora, el Pacto de Asociación (Pact of Association) [see “Must-Axxess Files” box below].

Moreover, the only permanent and sovereign status forms the U.S. Constitution accepts (according to the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status 2005 and 2007 reports) are statehood and independence. Of these two, the only status option that guarantees permanent American citizenship—not only to the current inhabitants of the island, but also their children—is statehood. Whether an independent Republic of Puerto Rico wished to enter into what is called a Pact of Free Association is up to the presumed president and congress of Puerto Rico and their counterparts in the United States of America. Nevertheless, “Free Association” means independence first, association later—like some current pacts currently in force, mainly the pact between the U.S. and the Republic of Palau.

Now, with those facts in mind, let us proceed to the feud at hand.

The intra-party war began when Soberanista-in-Chief Fas-Alzamora raised his newly penned Pact of Association for consideration into the PPD’s platform, the Pact for the Future. The Fas-Alzamora Pact is the result of outside pressures asking for definitive answers from the PPD on what it considers an acceptable definition to its status option, one that is both sovereign and permanent. Soon after the Soberanistas presented their document, Autonomista state representative Jorge Colberg-Toro, a member of the PPD’s internal Junta de Gobierno and point man in the crafting of the party platform, came out predicting that the Pact of Association stood no chance of being accepted as part of the party platform because the document resembled the Palau treaty and did not guarantee American citizenship perpetually. Fas-Alzamora and theSoberanistas criticized Colberg-Toro and the Autonomistas and asserted that nobody could predict what the party would accept as part of the platform. The Soberanistas also claim their document does, in fact, protect perpetual American citizenship and incorporates the “17-point PPDAutonomista program on status.”

All that before the PPD met!

Finally, on August 17, the PPD met. As the party committee met, supporters of both camps rallied for their causes. One of the verbal shots fired from an Autonomista was captured by El Nuevo Dia: “The word ‘sovereignty’ is [in Puerto Rico] associated with ‘separation’ and we cannot separate from the United States. If [the Soberanistas] want sovereignty, they can go to Panama, the Dominican Republic, to Haiti and see what sovereignty does.” Harsh!

Another PPD member, this time a Soberanista, stated that “Sovereignty is not in play; we are 800,000 strong.” (An overwhelmingly telling exaggeration.)

Earlier that same morning, Fas-Alzamora delivered scathing criticism against his party’s secretary for federal affairs, Autonomista Jose A. Hernandez-Mayoral for dismissing the Soberanistas’ Pact of Association during the intra-party deliberations. Hernandez-Mayoral claimed that the Pact of Association was but a “plagiarized” version of the pact between the U.S. and the Republic of Palau. Fas-Alzamora was indignant and went on a rant about Hernandez-Mayoral’s political past and even characterized him as a coward who was offered the party leadership on a “silver platter” and “ran” at the thought of it. Ouch!

The PPD civil war has already escalated to threats of secession from the Soberanista side, threats of exile from the Autonomista side, and personal insults between the two—and by now the “meeting” was not even over. The five-hour, marathon-long meeting between the two camps shows that the argument over citizenship is an irreconcilable difference. It is important to note that a large portion of Independentistas(of course, independence supporters) in the island, who suffer from extremely low popular support, have allied with the PPD in the past, but now have began to talk about pulling all support for the party. They claim the PPD has reneged on the principles of autonomy and sovereignty that it has sold for the past 60 years.

Subsequently, after the meeting ended and the PPD party platform (el Pacto de Futuro) was voted on, the cleavage was even more pronounced.

Remember how Colberg-Toro, Hernandez-Mayoral, and the Autonomistas warned that the party would not accept the Soberanistas’ Pact of Association? Moreover, how Fas-Alzamora and the Soberanistas derided the Autonomistas’ prognostications? Well, turns out, now theAutonomistas claim that they have accepted and incorporated “most” of the Soberanistas’ Pact, while the Soberanistas now claim their plan was “wholly” ignored (as predicted by their enemies on the other side)! Both sides claim the other has not “read” their document.

What is going on? Each side is claiming that its respective “pact” incorporates the other side’s ideas; while the “other” side claims it was ignored. Well, both sides cannot be right, and it turns out they are both wrong!

One the one hand, the Soberanista Pact of Association is acceptable under the U.S. Constitution as a permanent, non-territorial, sovereign form of government for Puerto Rico—but it does not guarantee American citizenship in perpetuity—if it did, it would be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. The Pact of Association only guarantees American citizenship to those who already have it and their children. However, after a generation or so, all persons born in Puerto Rico will be regarded Puerto Rican citizens. Therefore, the wishes of the American people in Puerto Rico for a permanent status solution that perpetually and universally guarantees American citizenship have been ignored by Fas-Alzamora and the Soberanista camp.

On the other hand, the Autonomista platform (the Pact for the Future) does guarantee American citizenship in perpetuity, but it does not afford the Americans of Puerto Rico an equal, sovereign status; instead, the Autonomista plan seeks to “enhance” the unequal “Commonwealth” status while simultaneously keeping the territorial (unequal) status quo.

While the intra-party war has remained low-key outside the Popular Democratic Party, there are some hints that a completely new Puerto Rican status political party may be in the works.

[It is important to note that Puerto Rico currently has four parties: three “status” parties and a (more recent) policy-only party. The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) is the party of the territorial “Commonwealth” status quo, the New Progressive Party (PNP) advocates for statehood, the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) advocates, of course, for independence, and the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party (PPP), the policy-only party, forgets about the status and delves into policy—mainly environmental policy. The PPP has been less successful than the PIP in getting the people’s vote.]

In a piece published in El Nuevo Dia, Nika Estrada Resto contends that a new Soberanista party is in the works. “We will have to wait,” states Resto in the opening line of her piece, “until later in the year to see if Puerto Rico will count with a Soberanista party. A real one.” The reason Resto talks about “a real one” is because for almost 60 years the PPD has campaigned for “sovereignty” and “autonomy” while achieving none. Their promises have been so forceful in the past that even some portions of the independence movement have formed ad hoc coalitions with said party, and this coalition has been instrumental to many island-wide PPD victories.

No more.

With the specter of a new status party forming out of the PPD’s own viscera, the Independentistas breaking the ad hoc coalitions of the past due to their dissatisfaction with broken promises, the Estadistas (statehooders) gaining more and more support as status politics reach critical mass, and Washington asking more detailed questions about the PPD’s status alternative, the PPD finds itself barraged from all sides.

The demise of the PPD and its notion of the territorial “Commonwealth” is always good news to supporters of self-determination, but the PNP better watch out!

Puerto Rico’s territorial status is different from all other past American territories (albeit those that became states) in one crucial way: Puerto Ricans have more than one option. In other words, when the territories of Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii (to name but a few) sought a change in their territorial status, all they had to do was vote, basically, “statehood: yes or no,” but in Puerto Rico there is also the possibility of independence and even though the party enjoys only marginal support, independence is a real option that offers Puerto Rican sovereignty—though it cannot guarantee American citizenship. Therefore, between statehood and independence Puerto Ricans have their future cut out for them; all they have to do now is make a choice.

However, and this is the reason the PNP must be careful, a plebiscite that counts three options (or more) will only help perpetuate the territorial “Commonwealth” status because it is very had to get a simple majority in support of one option; it is even harder to get the insanely high (75 percent plus) numbers that have been reached in the aforementioned territorial votes. For example, Hawaii voted 90 percent in favor of statehood, and Alaska was right up there too. Consequently, how does Puerto Rico get to those levels of support (not just for statehood) for any one option?

Simple. The plebiscite must be a two-option plebiscite: independence or statehood. But what about the Soberanistas who may want free association? Well, considering that free association is independence first with a pact later, they can vote for independence and later on (if their party were to win) they could ask the United States of America to sign a pact of free association with the Republic of Puerto Rico.

If, however, a plebiscite were to include three (or even four) options, then Puerto Rico can be guaranteed another one hundred years of colonial rule because the U.S. Congress will not accept any vote that predicts a potentially divided state of Puerto Rico with half of the population having vote against statehood. This would be good news for the PPD—whole or broken off. This was one of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act’s (H.R. 2499) most striking shortcomings. H.R. 2499 proposed a three-way race between statehood, independence, and free association. In other words, statehood was competing against two forms of independence!

In conclusion, whether a new status party is established in Puerto Rico or not, the demise of the PPD’s “Commonwealth” is inevitable because it cannot deliver what Americans in Puerto Rico want: perpetual and universal American citizenship. However, the party currently in control of all important levers of governance in Puerto Rico (the pro-statehood PNP) must make sure that the voters in Puerto Rico are aware of their choices. For example, do Puerto Ricans know that statehood is the only permanent status option that can protect their American citizenship? Do they understand that anything other than statehood is independence, which does not carry the rights, duties, and priviledges of American citizenship? Do they understand what "free association" means for their future?

No matter what happens within the PPD this year, the PNP must show leadership and determination in designing the right kind of plebiscite to settle the 112-year status question in Puerto Rico.

Parity versus Equality

Why Parity Cannot Achieve Citizenship Equality ... But Can Undermine It

“Parity” is a term well known to the American citizens of Puerto Rico. Simply put, parity is a principle by which politicians of both major parties in Puerto Rico (i.e. the pro-statehood New Progressive Party and the pro-status quo Popular Democratic Party) avoid pushing a solution to Puerto Rico’s status while simultaneously pushing for more “state-like” treatment of Puerto Rico in federally sanctioned programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--to name but a few--that are currently applied to Puerto Rico in an inequitable manner as compared to the states. Parity applies to just about any federal policy question, from education and healthcare to crime prevention and business ownership and everything in between.

On of the latest parity binges came on the hills of the Healthcare Reform debates in Congress.

In a public letter straightforwardly entitled “Parity for Puerto Rico: Memorandum of Agreement,” (MoA) Gov. Fortuño and a wide coalition of relevant leaders in the territory (the PPD’s irrelevant legislative leadership included) agreed to a “common position to present to policymakers in Washington as they debate national health care reform.”

The MoA starts from one “basic proposition[:] Puerto Rico must be brought into the healthcare system on an equal basis with every other American jurisdiction.” It further claims that “it makes no sense from a strictly policy perspective to have a system where the same U.S. citizens who receive healthcare impaired by lesser federal funding while residing in Puerto Rico can access better-funded care merely by moving to [one] of the states.” The MoA also points to an Obama “pledge” to include Puerto Rico without “inequalities in treatment,” and proceeds to highlight some of the most egregious disparities in Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP—with the added bonus of looking at what will happen in the area of Medicare Advantage, the so-called Part D.

Here are the charges, albeit quickly (look below in Must-Axxess Files for the complete MoA):

• Medicaid is flawed in two ways because Congress has capped not only its share of the costs in terms of percentage but also in terms of absolute dollars. In other words, based on per capita income, Puerto Rico would be entitled to a federal contribution of 83 percent toward the costs, but Congress has capped the federal share at 50 percent for Puerto Rico and capped the absolute dollar amount, which today represents only 17 percent of the total burden of the costs of Medicaid (basically flip-flopping federal-statal burdens).
• Medicare treats Americans in Puerto Rico and their healthcare providers differently in four ways: 1) no automatic enrollment in Part B; 2) unfair payments under the Disproportionate Share Hospital; 3) limited block grant funding of Part D, instead of need-based funding; and 4) lower reimbursement payments for in-patient hospital services.
• SCHIP for the Americans in Puerto Rico is based on a “limited set-aside basis” and not on the real number of low-income children.
• The Bonus: Part D. Because of the aforementioned inequalities, Puerto Ricans have enrolled in Part D plans in higher proportions, so anychanges by Congress to the plan will affect the Americans on the territory disproportionally.

Gov. Luis Fortuño’s pro-statehood PNP likes parity because it seems to seal the fate of Puerto Rico as the 51st state through the implementation of “state-like” treatment for the island territory; the Enemies of Equality like parity because it keeps the voters “happy” and they do not have to mess with the pesky details of having citizenship inequality or defining their status preference.

Both parties’ perspectives are wrong.

Nothing will keep the PPD's farce from being exposed. The very fact that we are having to pursue "parity" shatters their argument of an equal Puerto Rico. But they are not interested in hidding the inequality; they just want to stall the inevitable changes for as long as they may.

It is because of the stalling nature of parity that the PNP cannot continue to indulge in the parity scheme; it feeds every notion that the Enemies of Equality through the PPD seem to support—mainly the “Best of Both Worlds” notion is indeed possible--it isn't. In fact, there is no threat that the Congressional cow will give up all of its milk to Puerto Rico without full integration, which in and of itself points to the futility of "parity."

Let the rest of us, subsequently, not confuse “Parity” with “Equality,” for doing so amounts to an odd principle of “United but Unequal.”

This is not to ignore the very real inequalities spelled out above, in the MoA, and in many other sources, but parity is not the answer. As stated before, the idea of parity cuts across every policy area. So, are supporters of citizenship equality supposed to believe that piecemeal changes through parity in different policy areas over many years can achieve the universal parity we all know a vote on self-determination can achieve immediately?

The idea of universal parity includes within it essential aspects of Puerto Rico’s inequality that are not covered under the current vision of parity, which is the scaffolding of the MoA and many other issue-specific parity campaigns. Parity as we know it under those terms cannot provide for the democratic and civil injustices that occur outside of the year-to-year budget talks or the considerations of this or that federal programs on the territory because it ignores the underlying constitutional premise: Puerto Rico is not equal; therefore, Congress can treat it as such.

It is understandable why the PPD and the Enemies of Equality would love to continue on the parity binge, halving inequality perpetually without providing for a complete end to it. Nevertheless, for the PNP and all supporters of citizenship equality, the idea of parity ought to be anathema to their beliefs and goals of full citizenship equality.

Instead, said supporters should focus their energies on exposing all the inequalities that exist, not just the policy-related ones, which are simply products of Puerto Rico’s constitutional inequality. Facts are facts, but how we use those facts will have tremendously serious repercussions on the lives of four million American citizens in Puerto Rico. Let the Enemies of Equality pursue parity if they want to, but let us not fall into their trap.

Let us fight for Universal Parity through self-determination.

Independence Supporters in Puerto Rico

How a Virtuous Argument Ceded its Moral Authority

Any day of the week that Puerto Ricans get to hear the status arguments of Independentistas in the island, they know it is going to be a good day for supporters of equality. The Independentistas' attacks on the unequal "Commonwealth" status and the Enemies of Equality capture their long-held view of a sovereign Republic of Puerto Rico in a light consistent with other long struggles for equality.

Take, for example, Fufi Santori's latest piece in El Nuevo Dia entitled "Pactos sin futuro," (Pacts without a future). In it, Santori dismantles the Popular Democratic Party's entire argument that the current unequal status was entered into in "the nature of a compact" and that, as such, it is a bilateral "pact" between two politically equal entities (i.e. the U.S. and its territorial possession of Puerto Rico). It may seem to boil down to semantics, but if the PPD's version of what occurred with the establishment of the "Commonwealth" status stands unchallenged (as a "Compact"), it would validate the notion that a people can be cajoled into accepting perpetual colonialism through a democratic vote.

In quite the Socratic mode and with Independentista eloquence, Santori goes on to  note that a law--in this case Public Law 81-600, which established the "Commonwealth" with Congress's consent--"in the nature of a compact" does not necessarily translate to an actual compact. He points to the fact that the U.S. Congress, where Puerto Rico has no equal representation,  amended Puerto Rico’s democratically drafted constitution. Among other points, Santori questions how a nation (the U.S.) can establish a "pact" with that which it owns (Puerto Rico).

Independentistas use the words of patriots who happen to be poets and some have used the tactics of terrorists though they have called themselves freedom fighters, but theirs is a lost cause.

Puerto Ricans accept the movement as any other reality of status politics, but are very clearly not supportive of their final status solution. Subsequently, the romanticized version of the Independentista is beginning to give way to the realities of the modern independence movement of Puerto Rico.

Once upon a time, all forms of Puerto Rican nationalism rested upon the shoulders of an independence movement--whether against Spain or the U.S.; today, however, things are different because the statehood movement has inculcated in its supporters an equally powerful sentiment of nationalism, but simply for a different nation: the USA.

In addition, with the establishment of the "Commonwealth" of Puerto Rico, and over 100 years of American presence, the independence movement has been popularly--not governmentally--marginalized. Their philosophy might not have changed much, but their tactics have. Most obviously, and importantly, the vast majority of independence advocates has refrained from violence and has, instead, taken it to the ballot box. However, that very insistence on democratic venues for "conflict (status) resolution" has eroded all viability the independence movement once enjoyed. So the impending question is, then, through what means will they achieve their end?

Let us continue doing the math.

Regardless of past intimidation by some in the public and the government, and unfair treatment of the viable option of independence, the fact is that today the movement as embodied by the PIP (Puerto Rico Independence Party) cannot achieve any political support greater than 5 percent at the ballot box; in fact, the PIP has lost its electoral certification for failing meet the minimum percentage threshold of 5 percent.

Further, the PIP wields very little power at the local, statal, and national levels, which makes access and exposure just as difficult as it is for any American "third" party. In addition, although they (Independentistas) have a constitutionally valid status alternative that guarantees democratic sovereignty through political nationhood and will always be included as such, they find themselves placing third behind a status alternative that provides neither democratic- nor political‑ nor citizenship equality. Moreover, the movement has to argue against American statehood, which is the only legitimate option that delivers to Puerto Ricans what it is they want: perpetual and equal American citizenship and sovereignty (albeit through federalism).

So the question is, again, through what means will they achieve their end?

We at La Chuleta Congelá' have made it very clear that the only way to end the inequality of citizenship in Puerto Rico that the "Commonwealth" territorial status has engendered is through a straight statehood-versus-independence plebiscite.

The fact that a plebiscite offers voters "pre-determined" answers to the status problem does not make it any less democratic because, as it is, the status problem has constitutionally "pre-determined" solutions: statehood or independence. There is nothing in the solution to the status problem that is "unknown," "mysterious," or "incomprehensible."

Puerto Rico is not equal and the only way it will be equal is to join the American union of states and share in the benefits and the sacrifices, or to declare its independence from the United States. The only mechanism the Puerto Rican people have at their disposal is a direct, democratic, majority rules plebiscite with only those options that the U.S. Constitution recognizes.

The U.S. Constitution recognizes statehood, territorialism, and independence.

If the point of the plebiscite is to capture the sentiment of the Puerto Rican people on what it is it supports as a sovereign and equal form of government, and the premise for that "point" is that the current status is neither sovereign nor equal, then it does not follow that Puerto Ricans who support the "Commonwealth" status have a "right" to vote for it because they have no right to subordinate their fellow citizens to perpetual citizenship inequality.

As an Independentista once said, "You cannot ask Puerto Ricans to self-determine themselves out of self-determination" by placing the same unequal status that they are asked to change on equal footing with legitimate status options.

The two parties that have the two legitimate options for a free and equal Puerto Rico are the New Progressive Party (statehood) and the Puerto Rio Independence Party (PIP) and they both agree that what Puerto Ricans currently enjoy through the "Commonwealth" is but the crumbs off the Union's table. Nevertheless, because the Puerto Rican people in the island territory can recognize misery from a mile away, they refuse to accede to independence.

This is where the Independentistas' hope for a means to their end hits the wall and the answer to the overarching question posed here materializes.

They cannot achieve a majority for independence, so by following the process spelled out above, they would be, in essence, acceding to statehood because that choice would win by a landslide.

For these reasons, the Independentistas' only "solution" (their means) is to wait it out and convince the U.S. Congress that before anything is done with Puerto Rican self-determination it (Congress) must set Puerto Rico free so that, then, an independent Puerto Rico can make a decision on whether it wants to be an independent country or a state of the Union. In other words, an "attractive" package that makes Puerto Rico an independent republic through Congressional dictum and against the express wishes of the Puerto Rican people to retain American citizenship. The proposal also doubles as a ploy that makes Puerto Rican statehood more difficult, if not impossible. Bravo!

So has been the transformation of a once-romantic and -virtuous cause into one for which there is a body but no moral rectitude. The principles of self-determination are now under attack by their own progenitor. Instead of accepting that Puerto Ricans will choose their status preference democratically and that such a choice will stand as a political reality, Independentistas are now employing their own version of stall tactics.

Shame on them!