The Beto Podcast chatted about a televised interview with Palo Jose Hernandez, the resident commissioner for Puerto Rico, and concluded that “Pablo José Lives in the Land of Unicorns.”
Hernandez brought up the unicorns, actually, saying that some Puerto Rico leaders present status change for Puerto Rico in an unrealistically optimistic light. “I believe that public debate often becomes disconnected from the political reality of the United States.” he said, “and creates expectations that simply don’t exist.”
Beto asked whether some politicians were presenting scenarios that just aren’t real, Hernandez responded, “What I’m saying is that some proposals ignore how the U.S. Congress works. When certain status changes are discussed as if they were inevitable or imminent, that doesn’t reflect political reality.”
Certain status changes?
While decolonization and a change to a permanent, non-territorial status is a goal for Puerto Rican leaders as well as some members of Congress, “certain status changes” seems to offer more various options than actually exist. Yes, statehood is a status change, and it is the only status change that seems inevitable. The people of Puerto Rico have voted for statehood four times.
The other possible status change is independence. Independence is less popular in Puerto Rico than in any of the states, so it is neither inevitable nor imminent.
But Hernandez seems to have something else in mind: not an actual change of status but a renegotiation of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States…to be more like the Northern Mariana Islands.
The Northern Marianas have a negotiated relationship with the United States
The Northern Marianas were among the Trust Territories administered by the United States. At the end of World War II, these territories were occupied by Japan. The United Nations placed them in trust, under the administration of the United States. About 40 years later, the trust was dissolved and each of the four regions chose its future: Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia became sovereign states in free association with the U.S., while the Northern Mariana Islands became a U.S. territory.
The Northern Marianas negotiated a relationship with the United States largely based on that of Guam. This took place in the 1970s.
Like Puerto Rico, the Northern Americans are an unincorporated territory of the United States whose citizens are U.S. citizens. Neither territory can vote in U.S. presidential races and neither has any voting members in Congress.
Since unincorporated territories are not covered by the U.S. Constitution, the Northern Marianas — like American Samoa — have traditional rules that limit land ownership to “native” individuals — that is, people of a specific ethnic and historical background. This is not possible under the U.S. Constitution, and that makes it unlikely that either of these territories would choose to become a state.
Reading the covenant between the Marianas and the United States shows that there is little else that is different from Puerto Rico. Since Puerto Rico does not have the traditional customs of the Pacific territories, there has never been a request to allow unconstitutional limits on land ownership. Still, Hernandez seems to feel that the fact that the Northern Marianas negotiated their territorial status in the 1970s should mean that Puerto Rico ought to be able to renegotiate the relationship with the United States.
“Imaginary political scenarios are constructed where everything is easily resolved,” said Hernandez, not speaking of the idea of renegotiating the territorial relationship but of gaining statehood or independence. “But when one looks at the history of Congress and federal priorities, the situation is much more complicated.” In fact, comparing Puerto Rico with the Northern Mariana Islands makes it clear that the 1970s negotiations from a very small population in the Pacific is quite different from an attempt by Puerto Rico to change the terms of the relationship after more than a century.
Are the Marianas better off?
Beto says no. He describes the idea that the Marianas were able to negotiate something unique and Puerto Rico could do the same as childish.
That may be overstating the case, but moving from a territory to a state is a normal process. The “enhanced commonwealth” concept is not possible under the U.S. Constitution. It’s really not just a matter of political will, as “Commonwealth” supporters like to phrase it. Statehood is not the unicorn land here.
No responses yet