Photo by Col Nesty Delgado (CC BY-SA 4.0)
I recently caught a glimpse of the headline “Heroes of Another Flag” posted on Latino Rebels’ website, and after seeing that it was authored by Dr. Harry Franqui-Rivera, I knew that it was a must-read. In the opinion piece, Dr. Franqui offers a critique of an opinion piece written by Javier Hernández about Puerto Ricans who served in the U.S. armed forces.
I have known the good doctor for several years. He and I have spent many a night saddled up at the bar with glasses in our hands discussing and debating a wide array of topics that fall under the purview of Puerto Rican studies: the legacy of Albizu Campos, the impact of Muñoz Marín’s governorship on the political trajectory of the island, and whether Ron de Barrilito makes a better rum than Don Q. (We decided that more research is needed to resolve that last one.)
Dr. Franqui is well-respected in the field and well-versed in his area of expertise. This is not an attack on him or a questioning about his area of expertise. This is a correction to something that the good doctor got wrong, and it is important that the record be corrected, and a clear understanding provided for those unsure of their standing. Puerto Ricans are most certainly second-class citizens.
It is understood that a second-class citizen is a person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society. The United States has a longstanding history of struggling with providing equal rights to its citizens. Separate but equal was a policy codified by law. Denying women the right to vote had to be rectified by legislation.
The problematic policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was the government’s response to a ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans serving in the military. Codification into law is one avenue through which second-class citizenship is brought to fruition. It is also done so by practices put into place which are then reinforced with a tacit agreement by the authorities. So, while Don’t Ask Don’t Tell provided an avenue for gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans to serve in the military, during the time the statute was in place, more than 12,000 officers had been dismissed for refusing to disguise their sexuality.
Where we find the mechanism for second-class citizenship is in the practices of a separate set of rights and privileges for one set of citizens while denying others those same rights. And the driver of that mechanism is the Supreme Court.
The Insular Cases are a series of Supreme Court decisions from the early part of the 20th century that outline the relationship of the United States with the island of Puerto Rico and with its citizens. Although those decisions were decided a century ago, they are very much still relied upon by judges, legal scholars and professors as the precedent by which policies should follow. In one of them, Balzac v Porto Rico, the defendant, an island resident who held U.S. citizenship, petitioned his case to the Supreme Court. citing a violation of his 6th Amendment rights.
Chief Justice Taft’s opinion was clear that not all constitutional rights were extended to Puerto Ricans. “The Constitution… contains grants of power, and limitations which… are not always and everywhere applicable and the real issue in the Insular cases was not whether the Constitution extended to the Philippines or Porto Rico… but which ones of its provisions were applicable.” Later in the same opinion is this, “It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution… and not the status of the people who live in it.”
The U.S. does not use heritage as a determinant of conferred constitutional rights where the question of Puerto Rico is concerned. You are categorized according to where you live. A person of Puerto Rican descent and living on the island, in the eyes of the government, is Puerto Rican. Once they uproot themselves from the island and transplant themselves in Orlando, or in Chicago, or in New York, they are no longer Puerto Rican. They are a Floridian, an Illinoisan, or a New Yorker. They cease to be Puerto Rican.
The reverse is also true. Any U.S. citizen who moves to Puerto Rico by default becomes Puerto Rican. Hern´åndez is absolutely correct when he states that Puerto Ricans do not have the right to vote for President. By Dr. Franqui’s own admission, once a citizen takes residence in Puerto Rico, (at which point they become Puerto Rican), they no longer have the right to vote. And when the full implications and historical legacies of this racialized policy that motivates Indigenous peoples to abandon their land and their culture and be absorbed and assimilated into the colonial power are realized, the imposition of second-class status on the citizenship of Puerto Ricans is fully achieved.
I expect that once the bars open for social activity again that the good doctor and I will have much to discuss. I hope that they have enough rum on hand.
***
Ivan Waldo identifies as a Black Puerto Rican who resides within the borders of the Bronx. He is a graduate of CUNY Lehman College, holding a Bachelor of Arts degree in Puerto Rican Studies, and is currently a student at the CUNY Graduate Center, where the focus of his studies centers around the political relationship and colonial realities of the island of Puerto Rico with the United States.
I think that some 5 million Puerto Ricans won’t agree with your assessment that if they live in Ilinois, NY, Florida, Texas… they ceased to be Puerto Ricans. The U.S. government does not see it that way either. That is a very traditional nationalistic view of puertoricaness, the same that tells you that the Coqui dies outside Puerto Rico unable to sing (wrong). You don’t need to live in Puerto Rico to be Puerto Rican. The only context in which state-based Puerto Ricans are second-class is in the same context as African-Americans, Indigenous and other Latino groups. And, that doesn’t even apply to many who pass. Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico do have a colonial citizenship because they don’t have representation. They become second class citizens when they move state-side. There is a huge literature on this. But we can discuss it when Covid permits in a more Bohemian space.
This is not about pride for one’s culture or love for one’s island. When discussing the conferring of constitutional rights, it is referring to political distinction and legal standing within the U.S. judicial system, which is determined by locality, as cited above. My personal methods of cultural identification or any views on Puertoricaness are separate issues that are not addressed in my piece.
With this comment you make my point. Again, for legal and political purposes, the residents of Puerto Rico are not “Puerto Ricans”. They are residents of the territory of Puerto Rico. Their residence in an non-incorporated territory is what impedes any resident of the archipelago- from voting for congressional representatives and senators and the president- and what makes them colonial citizens. Puerto Rican is a national identity not a legal one. Thus saying that Puerto Ricans can’t vote for SCOTUS is completely wrong. Moreover, it has been used for decades as part of purely ideological misinformation campaign and has caused tremendous damage to state-based Puerto Ricans who think that because they are Puerto Ricans they can’t vote. I have participated in several campaigns to get out the Puerto Rican state-based vote an that is the case- Puerto Ricans thinking they can’t vote. Moreover, that idea comes from nationalist narratives that dismiss the state-side Puerto Rican communities as non-Boricua enough or at all. And I did not make any reference to how you identify.
*pours a glass of Don Q Gran Anejo to the rim
We are in agreement that stateside citizens have full access to all constitutional rights regardless of how they cultural/nationally identify. And we are in agreement that it should be clarified that residents of the island do not enjoy equal access in the manner that stateside citizens do.
Where we diverge is in the usage of Puerto Rican and how it should be applied.
*drops a single ice cube into the glass
It is commonplace to claim wherever it is that you reside. I am a Bronxite. And I am a New Yorker. But neither of those aren’t how I culturally/nationally identify. They are indicative of where I live. And it is what I claim as my own. I’ve done this wherever I have lived. And so do many others. There are transplants all around me in New York City that do exactly that. Just last week there were advertisements posted in Harlem with the headline “Looking for a neighborhood that looks like home? We know the way” with pictures of people that not too long ago, wouldn’t have dared to step foot in that area on the threat of their mother’s life. There are people that just arrived from the quiet suburbs of Omaha, Nebraska only three months ago that cannot name any one of the Ten Crack Commandments, that are standing on street corners in Brooklyn, posing in front of murals of deceased rappers for pictures to post to the Gram, claiming that they’re from Bed-Stuy Do or Die.
The reality, hermano, is that people claim where they live all the time. Its usage is a common colloquialism. It is not only used as a claim of national identity. We cannot, and should not, impose your rigid definition and usage of the term into everyone’s vocabulary because to engage in such antics, to say who is eligible to use or not to use Puerto Rican or to claim it as their own despite their dwelling there, is to engage in the same traditional, nationalistic identity views that preoccupy you so much. And depending on the context of a question, one can answer with where they live or with how they culturally/nationally identify.
It’s all in the context.
The context for any question or conversation by the Courts regarding the conferring of full constitutional rights centers on locality because that is their determining factor, not national identity. The context of my article was written as such and should be read as such (which is what is outlined in the article as the context that I was using Puerto Rican in). Since locality is the relevant factor, it should be the only context that features in, or should be extrapolated from, any discussion surrounding the conferring of constitutional rights.
No one should be interjecting national identity into the discussion. Not anyone using ideological propaganda to cause confusion in voters like you experienced during your voting drive efforts. And certainly not when the author of a piece is clearly referring to Puerto Rican as the defining of locality.
*raises glass of Don Q
Here’s to more Bohemian settings.
You continue to miss the point- by a mile, and to engage in some mental gymnastics that make no sense; just like in the original article I responded to.