By Gregorio Igartúa
Special to The Star
A few years ago, Rafael Cox Alomar wrote in a local newspaper comments opposing my then political views about statehood, to which I replied some days later (El Vocero, Aug. 24, 2009). After a few years he repeated his criticism about my political beliefs in his book “En la Encrucijada” (pages 197-199).
Although one expects respectful criticism, he refers to my views as nonsense, misreading, confused, ignorant, and/or demagogy. He added: “A new annexationist message has been taking shape based on revisionist and distorting interpretations of the historical and legal reality of Puerto Rico, an apocryphal and unfounded discourse that is necessary to dismantle.” Considering his comments as baseless and confusing, and coming from an analyst who has been shown to have many contradictory political beliefs, I take some time to reply to clarify his inconsistent analysis with what I really said.
Cox Alomar exposes the following comments as a criticism of mine: a) that there was no political tribalism during the Spanish Period in Puerto Rico. For these purposes, he adds that autonomism has been the vital ideological current of Puerto Ricans in their political aspirations; b) that the Supreme Court of the United States did not resolve to keep the unincorporated territories in political limbo until they were qualified to be part of the American family. That if this were so, the Philippines would never have achieved its independence; c) that neither the Treaty of Paris, nor the Foraker Law (1900), nor the Insular Cases declared Puerto Ricans Americans, nor did the Supreme Court do so in the Case of Isabella González v. Williams 192US1 (1904); d) that in 1917 we Puerto Ricans did not gain American citizenship and that we were never consulted for such purposes; e) that it is not correct that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case Boumediene v. Bush (128 SCT 2229 (2008)), established that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory; that the Supreme Court did not revoke Balzac (1922), which is still the applicable law -- «It is Congress that can expressly incorporate.» That there is no such thing as incorporation by judicial fiat. This criticism was also made against Hon. Judge Gelpí who decided the case of Consejo Playa de Ponce v. Rullán, concluding that Puerto Rico is a U.S. incorporated territory (586 FS 2nd 22 (2008)).
I very respectfully understand that the previous statements of criticism and opposition to mine are not correct for the following reasons: a) Tribalism is “a strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to” the group of people to whom one belongs. In political terms we refer to the different groups of citizens organized among themselves with ideas that differ from others.
Within this context there was political tribalism at the end of the 19th century in Puerto Rico. In fact, by 1870 there were two factions: the «Traditionalists» known as the Conservative Liberal Party led by José F. Fernández and Francisco Paula, who sought assimilation into the Spanish political system. On the other hand, the Autonomists emerged within the Liberal Reformist Party led by Ramón Baldorioty de Castro, José Julián Acosta, Pedro Gerónimo Goyco and others.
Then they changed to the Federal Reformist Party and the Spanish Unconditional. The Reformist Party was reorganized as the Puerto Rican Autonomist Party led by José Barbosa and Luis Muñoz Rivera. Those were the tribes of that time that favored assimilation with, versus separation from, Spain. Later, and with Puerto Rico being part of the United States, another similar tribalism arose between the pro-statehood and pro-independence factions. Considering the reality that since 1917 the interest of the people in maintaining their American citizenship and that since 1948 the belief in permanent union with the United States has prevailed, plus that of the five million Puerto Ricans who live in the continental U.S., including attorney Cox Alomar, trying to revive a defunct autonomist sentiment is a futile exercise. In Downes v. Bidwell (182 US 1088, 1089 (1901)), the Supreme Court itself established that the incorporation of a territory into the United States will not take place until Congress itself determines that it has reached a state in which it is proper that its inhabitants are part of the American family. International law specialists in the U.S. propose that Puerto Rico has been an incorporated U.S. territory since American citizenship was granted to us. To oppose that assertion is to oppose not what I said, but what the Supreme Court itself said. Furthermore, the truth is that Congress has gradually incorporated Puerto Rico since 1898, bringing us closer to statehood.
Although neither the Treaty of Paris (1898), nor the Foraker Law (1900), nor the insular cases, nor the case of González v. Williams (1904) declared us American citizens, we did begin to be legally under the jurisdiction of the United States with the signing of the Treaty of Paris and began to assimilate as a republican form of government just like the states. From that same date we began to be under the custody and parental authority of the United States, with Congress having the power to dispose of our political rights. In that sense they began to treat us as United States nationals. In 1917, by the Jones Act, Congress provided: «All citizens, as defined in Sec. 7 of the Act of April 12, 1900 … are hereby declared citizens of the United States, and will be considered and held as such; Provided, that any person described above may retain their present political status, making a statement, under oath, of his resolution to that effect: I ____________, having been duly sworn, do hereby declare my intention not to be a citizen of the United States as provided in the Act of Congress conferring citizenship of the United States on the citizens of Puerto Rico …» The law itself demonstrates the opportunity given to consult us, to be able to choose freely and voluntarily between the alternative of American citizenship and the rejection of it. The above cannot be opposed by proposing that we never were consulted about our American citizenship, as Cox Alomar proposes. More than 99.5% of the inhabitants accepted it.
Then in 1950 legislation was passed to make us American citizens by birth retroactive to 1941.
In any case, the truth is that in 1917 we were made American citizens by individual choice of each inhabitant, and then by birth (1940).
Mr. Cox Alomar needs to reevaluate first his political stance and/or internal political tribalism with himself on issues related politically and or legally to Puerto Rico. He first has to get rid of his personal misconceptions (revolú de espíritu -- as Muñoz stated) on such issues before criticizing others. The most recent being that he should clarify why he supported commonwealth (the Popular Democratic Party stance), ran for resident commissioner (as the PDP candidate) and then moved lastly to support pro-independence socialist leader Juan Dalmau (of the Puerto Rican Independence Party) and simultaneously while residing in the center of the American empire, in Washington, D.C. (statehood for him, independence for Puerto Rico). As he once said, Puerto Rican or American? (El Dia, Aug. 17, 2009). (Also see J. Garriga, “Cox Alomar is not American,” El Vocero, Nov. 7, 2011).
________________________________________________________
Gregorio Igartúa is an attorney and longtime advocate of statehood for Puerto Rico.
Comments