|
Para ver este documento en español,
oprima aquí.
THE WASHINGTON POST
Defining Moment for Puerto Rico
by Dick Thornburgh
November 19, 1998
©Copyright 1998, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved
Apparently tired of waiting for clear direction from Congress,
the people of Puerto Rico have used the tools provided by their
own local constitution to schedule a vote for Dec. 13 on the status
of the island.
A robust debate now is taking place in Puerto Rico , and the
supporters of each status option -- commonwealth, statehood or
independence -- are right to make their best case to the voters.
But despite a clear record that has been created over the years
in exhaustive congressional hearings, a great many misconceptions
persist about what would happen under each of these options. As
I told Congress in 1991, when I testified as U.S. attorney general
on this subject, the choices must be clearly and realistically
defined if there is to be informed self - determination in Puerto
Rico, the home of 3.8 million U.S. citizens.
For example, some argue that Congress has "redefined"
the current commonwealth status of the island by failing to recognize
that Puerto Rico has a separate national identity apart from that
of the United States. In fact, as a commonwealth Puerto Rico is
at present subject exclusively to the national sovereignty of
the United States and has no separate nationality in any legal
or constitutional sense.
It is quite understandable that Puerto Ricans seek to preserve
a cultural sense of identity without separating politically from
U.S. national sovereignty. It should be noted, though, that under
commonwealth status Congress has greater discretion to regulate
Puerto Rico 's affairs by federal law (e.g., current or additional
English language requirements) than if Puerto Rico was a state.
If U.S. national sovereignty continues, it is only as a state
that Puerto Rico will have permanent 10th Amendment powers over
its non-federal affairs, as well as voting power in Congress.
Certain advocates of commonwealth status also make the misleading
argument that the commonwealth model for a political economy is
based on "fiscal autonomy." This term has no constitutional
basis and serves only to conceal the presumption that American
taxpayers will continue to subsidize Puerto Rico 's current tax-haven
status . Yet no one can say how long Congress will continue to
spend $10 billion annually in Puerto Rico before phasing in federal
taxation and the IRS.
The bipartisan decision by Washington in 1996 to eliminate
the Puerto Rico corporate tax exemption -- a pillar of this so-called
"fiscal autonomy" demonstrated that Congress can
unilaterally alter federal tax policy affecting the commonwealth.
Because commonwealth status is defined by federal statutes rather
than the Constitution, any autonomy -- fiscal or political --
is at the pleasure of Congress.
Finally, commonwealth supporters still assert that U.S. citizenship
for those in the territory is a "constitutional right,"
which Congress has no power to terminate. Clarifying this emotional
issue is difficult but essential to an informed vote.
First, the current citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico
is granted by statute and is not fully protected by the U.S. Constitution
itself, in contrast to the citizenship of people born in the states.
That which Congress granted by statute to some it canwithhold
by statute from others in the future.
While the statutory U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico enjoy some
fundamental federal legal rights (e.g., due process of law), other
rights are denied (e.g., equal voting rights, federal jury trials).
Conferral of citizenship by statute is a matter of policy, not
a legally protected right, and Congress has the discretion to
alter or terminate any such statutory policy.
For example, should Puerto Ricans democratically express a
clear desire for a separate nationality, Congress could end U.S.
citizenship and define a separate citizenship of the territory
as part of the transition from the current status . Indeed, Congress
imposed such a separate territorial citizenship in Puerto Rico
from 1900 to 1917. Congress did the same in the Philippines while
it was still a U.S. commonwealth prior to its independence in
1946.
As long as Puerto Rico remains a commonwealth, Congress remains
sovereign over Puerto Rico, and no policy is permanent because
no Congress can bind a future Congress. That is one reason statehood
supporters seek full representation in Congress and sovereignty
under the 10th Amendment.
Supporters of separate national sovereignty argue that relations
with the United States should be by treaty between two separate
sovereigns. Advocates of each of these two status options seek
to avoid the imposition of laws made by a Congress in which Puerto
Ricans have no voting representation.
If voters in Puerto Rico are to make an informed choice as
to whether they should move to statehood or independence, they
need to have an honest picture of their current status . Unfortunately,
those who for years have touted the nation-within-a-nation concept
decry any realistic definition of commonwealth status as "pro-
statehood ." They define commonwealth as a mythical "super-
status " with the benefits of both statehood and independence
but the full burdens of neither.
The Dec. 13 vote will be just a first step for Puerto Rico . No
matter what the results are, one thing will be clear to Congress
when it reconvenes: that the problem of Puerto Rico 's uncertain
and unresolved status will not go away.
The writer, a former U.S. attorney general, is a constitutional
consultant for the Citizen's Educational Foundation, a Puerto
- Rico based civic group dedicated to self - determination for
island residents.
| 
