Why The Government Won't Let Puerto Rico Become A State..... (house, income)

[Hellion1999]

LMAO!!!!! I just laugh how people on both sides say simplistic things and forget that there is a U.S. Constitution that Congress has to follow.

I had the same discussion with a Professor at the University of Puerto Rico who is an independentista and after telling him about Jus sanguinis in the 14th amendment (Latin: right of blood) and he researching it, he came to the same conclusion that the only way Puerto Rico can be fully independent is that the citizens of P.R. file a formal oath of renunciation and take an oath of the NEW Republic of Puerto Rico constitution that only accepts and recognizes the Puerto Rican citizenship ONLY. Just like the islands in the Pacific did.

The 3 islands in the Pacific: Palau, Marshall Islands, and Federated States of Micronesia who were possessions of the U.S.A after WW 2 and now those islands are an independent Republic under a Free Associated pact with the U.S.A.......In their constitution, the only citizenship they recognize is their own.

The key here is those islands NEVER were given U.S. CITIZENSHIP so it was an easier process for them to go from a possession of the U.S. to an independent Republic and then make a Free Association Pact with the U.S. while they keep their full sovereignty.


The Palau Constitution on Citizenship is:

- 3 -
ARTICLE III
CITIZENSHIP
Section 1.
A person who is a citizen of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands immediately prior to the
effective date of this Constitution and who has at least one
parent of recognized Palauan ancestry is a citizen of Palau.
Section 2.
A person born of parents, one or both of whom are
citizens of Palau is a citizen of Palau by birth, and shall remain a citizen of Palau so long as the person in not or does not become a citizen of any other nation.
Section 3.
A citizen of Palau who is a citizen of another nation
shall, within three (3) years after his eighteenth
(18) birthday, or within three (3) years after the effective date of this Constitution,
whichever is later, renounce his citizenship of the other nation and register his intent to
remain a citizen of Palau. If he fails to comply with this requirement, he shall be deprived of Palauan citizenship.

Section 4.
A person born of parents, one or both of whom are
recognized Palauan ancestry shall have the right
to enter and reside in Palau and to enjoy other rights and privileges as provided by
law, which shall include the right to petition to become a naturalized citizen of Pala
u; provided, that prior to becoming a naturalized citizen,
a person must renounce his citizenship of another nation. There shall be no
citizenship by naturalization except pursuant to this section.
Section 5.
The Olbiil Era Kelulau shall adopt uniform laws
for admission and exclusion of noncitizens of Palau

Let me repeat

A citizen of Palau who is a citizen of another nation
shall, within three (3) years after his eighteenth
(18) birthday, or within three (3) years after the effective date of this Constitution,
whichever is later, renounce his citizenship of the other nation and register his intent to
remain a citizen of Palau. If he fails to comply with this requirement, he shall be deprived of Palauan citizenship.

the Independentista Professor admitted that is what Puerto Rico has to do to be fully independent like PALAU..........it's unpopular with the Puerto Rican people that's why they hardly mention it in public but he admitted that an independent P.R. had to adopt a similar constitution like Palau to be fully independent. You can't be a truly sovereign country with the citizenship of another country, that defeats the main purpose of being sovereign.

[deb100]

There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution about Jus Sanguinis, that is a legislative creation and Congress could revoke it whenever it wants, although not retroactively.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by deb100

There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution about Jus Sanguinis, that is a legislative creation and Congress could revoke it whenever it wants, although not retroactively.

The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the definition of Natural Born Citizen on multiple occasions and various context. That is how Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada from an American born Mother (U.S. CITIZEN) could run for President as a Natural Born Citizen as required under the Constitution. The same with John Mccain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone from American parents.......remember George Romney? born in Mexico by American Parents, ran for President in 1968 as a natural Born citizen......remember Barry Goldwater? born in the Arizona territory.


All U.S. Citizenship once you have it is protected by the Constitution including the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th amendment and the Due Process Clause in the 5th amendment regardless if citizenship was by an act of Congress or by the U.S. Constitution and once you have it Congress can't take it away involuntarily. U.S. Supreme Court already ruled on this.

The Constitution is not specific to lots of things. That's why it gave Congress the power to enact laws and be explicit. Under the power of Article I, section 8, clause of the United States Constitution (also referred to the Nationality Clause) reads: Congress shall have Power "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ACT sets forth the legal requirements for the acquisition of, and divestiture from, American nationality. The requirements have become more explicit since the ratification of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.


It expanded the definition of the "United States" for nationality purposes, which already included Puerto Rico and the Virgin islands , to add Guam. Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States.






There are over 9 million Americans living abroad. If Congress eliminates Jus Sanguinis (it will never happen) all they are doing is forcing ALL American pregnant women living abroad to have their babies on U.S. Soil regardless of circumstances of medical, job, financial , humanitarian services or personal reasons or their babies won't be U.S. Citizens and won't be allowed entry to the U.S. with their mothers...... keeping American mothers from entry back to the U.S. because their child is not a U.S Citizen is a violation of so many things and NO court will allow that.


.......that would be a burden only on the women, not MEN and that would be a violation of the Equal Protection laws. The ACLU would have a field day in the courts with this.


So NO, the President or Congress can't do whatever it wants.....we have the Courts to keep them in check.

[deb100]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the definition of Natural Born Citizen on multiple occasions and various context. That is how Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada from an American born Mother (U.S. CITIZEN) could run for President as a Natural Born Citizen as required under the Constitution. The same with John Mccain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone from American parents.......remember George Romney? born in Mexico by American Parents, ran for President in 1968 as a natural Born citizen......remember Barry Goldwater? born in the Arizona territory.


All U.S. Citizenship once you have it is protected by the Constitution including the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th amendment and the Due Process Clause in the 5th amendment regardless if citizenship was by an act of Congress or by the U.S. Constitution and once you have it Congress can't take it away involuntarily. U.S. Supreme Court already ruled on this.

The Constitution is not specific to lots of things. That's why it gave Congress the power to enact laws and be explicit. Under the power of Article I, section 8, clause of the United States Constitution (also referred to the Nationality Clause) reads: Congress shall have Power "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ACT sets forth the legal requirements for the acquisition of, and divestiture from, American nationality. The requirements have become more explicit since the ratification of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.


It expanded the definition of the "United States" for nationality purposes, which already included Puerto Rico and the Virgin islands , to add Guam. Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States.






There are over 9 million Americans living abroad. If Congress eliminates Jus Sanguinis (it will never happen) all they are doing is forcing ALL American pregnant women living abroad to have their babies on U.S. Soil regardless of circumstances of medical, job, financial , humanitarian services or personal reasons or their babies won't be U.S. Citizens and won't be allowed entry to the U.S. with their mothers...... keeping American mothers from entry back to the U.S. because their child is not a U.S Citizen is a violation of so many things and NO court will allow that.


.......that would be a burden only on the women, not MEN and that would be a violation of the Equal Protection laws. The ACLU would have a field day in the courts with this.


So NO, the President or Congress can't do whatever it wants.....we have the Courts to keep them in check.

All the people you cite as examples were natural born citizens under the law in force at the time, if the law had been different they might not have been.

Romney derived citizenship due to the fact that both his parents were U. S. citizens (he would have derived if only one had been, since both had the required previous residence in the U. S.)

The same was true of McCain, although under the most technical reading of the law it could be argued that he was born stateless since the Canal Zone was, by treaty, under the jurisdiction of the U. S. at the time of his birth but not part of it, and he did not derive citizenship since by definition that only applies to people born outside both the U. S. and its jurisdiction. Congress remedied this oversight by a blanket naturalization a few years after his birth and nearly everyone else chose to ignore it.

U. S. territories like Arizona always fell under the definition of the United States as far as citizenship was concerned.

Jus sanguinis has been altered by statute numerous times and could be eliminated by Congress as you say yourself. There is no constitutional question involved, just practical and political ones.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by deb100

Jus sanguinis has been altered by statute numerous times and could be eliminated by Congress as you say yourself. There is no constitutional question involved, just practical and political ones.

I'm sure Congress can bring back slavery also, just amend the 13th amendment, what is your point?

Jus sanguinis has been applied since the foundation of the Republic.


again, if Congress eliminates Jus sanguinis, all they are doing is forcing American pregnant women abroad to have their babies in American Soil. Take a plane and have the baby here which includes Puerto Ricans regardless if Puerto Rico is an independent Republic.


You can NEVER lose your citizenship involuntarily, you can always pass it to your children.....that's the whole point!

[deb100]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

I'm sure Congress can bring back slavery also, just amend the 13th amendment, what is your point?

Jus sanguinis has been applied since the foundation of the Republic.


again, if Congress eliminates Jus sanguinis, all they are doing is forcing American pregnant women abroad to have their babies in American Soil. Take a plane and have the baby here which includes Puerto Ricans regardless if Puerto Rico is an independent Republic.


You can NEVER lose your citizenship involuntarily, you can always pass it to your children.....that's the whole point!

You referred to "jus sanguinis in the 14th Amendment" and that amendment makes no reference to any such thing, nor does any other part of the Constitution. You clearly want to believe that a child born outside the United States somehow has a constitutional right to derive citizenship from a U. S. citizen parent but that is just an idea you have conjured up. Even under existing law you can't "always pass it to your children". Certain conditions have to be met, and there is no constitutional impediment to eliminating jus sanguinis altogether. I don't understand why you are going on about amending the 13th Amendment, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by deb100

You referred to "jus sanguinis in the 14th Amendment" and that amendment makes no reference to any such thing, nor does any other part of the Constitution. You clearly want to believe that a child born outside the United States somehow has a constitutional right to derive citizenship from a U. S. citizen parent but that is just an idea you have conjured up. Even under existing law you can't "always pass it to your children". Certain conditions have to be met, and there is no constitutional impediment from eliminating jus sanguinis altogether. I don't understand why you are going on about amending the 13th Amendment, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Automatic Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship for Children Born Outside of the United States and Residing Permanently in the United States

The child must meet the following requirements:

• Have at least one U.S. citizen parent by birth or naturalization;
• Be under 18 years of age;
• Live in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent;
• Be admitted as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence; and

If the child is an orphan, the adoption must be final. If the adoption must be finalized in the United States, citizenship is acquired when the adoption is finalized


yeah I just made that up.....all Citizenship is protected by the U.S CONSTITUTION regardles if its an ACT of Congress or by the Constitution.

Puerto Rico is not mention in the 14th amendment, by your argument that means they are not protected by the U.S. Constitution which is a false argument.

You saying Congress can change laws and the constitution has nothing to do with REALITY.

[deb100]

Did you get the idea from somewhere that someone was denying that Congress has made provisions for derivative citizenship? I clearly stated more than once that it had.

If you want to continue this increasingly tiresome subject, why don't you post the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and explain how that guarantees U. S. citizenship to a child born outside the United States, or how anything else in the Constitution does.

[Hellion1999]

I said Citizenship by jus sanguinis like jus soli is protected by the 14th amendment as the same.

Ted Cruz U.S. Citizenship (born in Canada) doesn't have fewer rights under the 14th amendment as a person born in Utah. They all have the equal protection just as a naturalized citizen.


Your argument is Congress can change the laws and also amend the 14th amendment is a moot point....could have and if's is no argument to what is current a constitutional law as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.


If you think this subject is tiresome that is very important to Puerto Ricans (are you?) why you keep posting?

[TMKSarah]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

I said Citizenship by jus sanguinis like jus soli is protected by the 14th amendment as the same.

Ted Cruz U.S. Citizenship (born in Canada) doesn't have fewer rights under the 14th amendment as a person born in Utah. They all have the equal protection just as a naturalized citizen.


Your argument is Congress can change the laws and also amend the 14th amendment is a moot point....could have and if's is no argument to what is current a constitutional law as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.


If you think this subject is tiresome that is very important to Puerto Ricans (are you?) why you keep posting?

Hellion,

I agree

The territory of Puerto should be a state.

Once this territory becomes a true money maker for the mainland then it will have the power to become a state.

I just ask...are you sure that this is what you want.

Yes, you are a citizen.

Can you compete with the mainland, cultural acclimation is paramount.

I am in immigrant from Britain from parents with nothing but borrowed passage. My parents did not have a country, they were forced here by circumstance and we have done well. Do I feel that this is my country. NO. Is Scotland my country NO. So I have no country.

I hear Puerto Rico is rife with corruption. So is Brazil. Their economy is in the pits.

I was and in my heart still married to an immigrant Brazilian, we are divorced, but still talk each weekend.
Does he feel he is a countryman of Brazil. NO. Is he a countryman of the US. NO.

Right now he feels he is a countryman of Germany. He is a doctor and has decided he is treated better there. Well he is blue eyed blonde haired....****

My point.

I know this is a stretch....The Virgin Islands, Hawaii found a way to get to be better than the main land at least by so many people's standards....is there a similarity or I just digging a hole Can Puerto Rico become a go to destination

I am sure I have no idea the true issues. It is just good to discuss them.

Both of us are about to have a huge reality check when they come to PR. Pray for them to endure.