Note: Who should decide Puerto Rico’s future political status? As all Latinos know, and some non-Latinos, the term “Latino” or “Hispanic” is merely an umbrella term to lump all Spanish-speakers together. Unfortunately, in lumping Latinos all together, there is an assumption that Latinos are all the same.

Not true. There is one sub-group of Latinos that actually has US citizenship, though they’re born in their own country. They are the only “Latinos” who have this privilege — Puerto Ricans. For years, there has been an ongoing debate on the island of whether or not Puerto Rico gains its independence or becomes a U.S. state. Until now, the debate has primarily taken place either on the island or among Puerto Ricans.

On September 13, 2011, the debate was finally taken to Congress. For the first time ever a political forum regarding the status of the island was organized in Congress by the community group, The University of Puerto Rico Alumni and Friends Abroad Association (UPRAA). The forum was a discussion and not a political hearing. The event, held on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, featured representatives of the three parties’ ideologies of the island: those in favor of statehood; those in favor of the current status and those wanting independence.

Setting the stage for the discussion was Dr. Edwin Meléndez, director of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College (CUNY), New York. Dr. Meléndez explained the island’s evolving history and the unique situation it finds itself in these days that has the potential to impact any debate on the future political status of Puerto Rico.

The following is Dr. Meléndez’s opening presentation for the Sept. 13 forum “Puerto Rico at its Political Crossroads: A forum to discuss the political future of the island.”

— Latina Lista

The Puerto Rican Diaspora and the Political Status of Puerto Rico
By Edwin Melendez
Latina Lista (September 23, 2011)

There is no topic that incites as much passion among Puerto Ricans as the political status of the island. However, very rarely do stateside Puerto Ricans get an opportunity to discuss this topic with Puerto Rican leaders from the island.

Today I will examine the political status of Puerto Rico from a perspective acknowledging the role and rights of the Puerto Rican people in diaspora.

The origins of the Puerto Rican migration to the United States can be traced to the Latin American wars for independence and to the development of trade networks in the Northeast cities of New York, Hartford, and Boston during the early nineteenth century.

Shortly after the Spanish government lost Puerto Rico to the United States, the American government actively promoted migration as a solution to unemployment and poverty on the island.

By the end of the Second World War, advances in air transportation and economic policies induced the first of several significant exoduses from the island. It is estimated that over 400,000 Puerto Ricans migrated to the United States in the late 1940s and 1950s. Even larger waves were estimated for the 1980s and over the last decade.

All in all, today the majority of Puerto Ricans reside in the United States, not on the island of Puerto Rico. According to the 2010 Census, there are 4.6 million Puerto Ricans in the U.S., with only 3.5 million on the island, excluding foreigners. About one-third of those currently residing in the United States were born in Puerto Rico.

Puerto Ricans are dispersed across all states, with concentrations in New York, Florida, and New Jersey. Though the majority of Puerto Ricans still reside in New York, demographic projections suggest that by the end of this decade the number of Puerto Ricans in Florida will surpass those in New York.

The Political Status and the Diaspora

The question for consideration today is what role, if any, stateside Puerto Ricans should or could play in the determination of the future political status of Puerto Rico?

For the first time in history, the question of the future status of Puerto Rico is being discussed when a majority of the Puerto Ricans do not reside in the territory. In other words, I will examine whether 57 percent of the Puerto Rican people will have a voice and vote in the determination of their destiny.

Stateside Puerto Ricans play a critical role in the political process for any congressional action. Excluding the Resident Commissioner, who is elected to that body by the island population, there are currently four members of the United States House of Representatives of Puerto Rican descent.

Besides the direct connection of the congressional delegation to Puerto Ricans in their districts, there is a vast network of elected local officials and other civic leaders who greatly influence Congress and public opinion on this matter.

Stateside Puerto Ricans, whether they are born in Puerto Rico or not, are critical stakeholders because they influence the political process in the United States well beyond the congressional legislative process. Puerto Ricans have been elected to city, county, and state offices and they are active leaders in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Then there is the potential participation of stateside Puerto Ricans in a referendum. To date, the House of Representatives has undertaken the question of Puerto Rico’s status and approved legislation on two occasions; the Senate has considered but never passed legislation on this matter.

The prevailing view as stated in the most recently approved legislation in the House of Representatives supports that all United States citizens born in Puerto Rico but residing in the 50 states would have a vote in the plebiscite, but not those who were not born in Puerto Rico.

Stateside Puerto Ricans also are critical stakeholders because they maintain economic and social ties with the island, which are critical to its economy and social fabric. Using tourism as an indicator of the constant flow of Puerto Ricans to the island, about two-thirds [63.4 percent in 2010] of visitors to the island stay in other places than hotels. [This number excludes visitors to the island who are not simply in a cruise ship stop or transient military personnel].

Even when we do not consider those Puerto Ricans who stay in hotels, it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of the island’s tourism is from stateside Puerto Ricans who are visiting family, on vacation, or conducting business. We go on vacations, we purchase merchandise, and we visit restaurants. We are renting former primary homes, we have second homes or other real estate property, or we invest in businesses.

Some of our children take advantage of the island’s educational system. And after retirement, some of us plan to live or spend a significant portion of our time on the island. In short, we are a significant group of consumers and investors in the island economy.

Given recent trends in migration, the economic impact of stateside Puerto Ricans on the island’s economy is likely to grow over the next decades. All things considered, it is in the best interest of Puerto Rico’s residents to strengthen the ties that bind us to our homeland.

In this context, one can make the argument that the active, broad engagement of stateside Puerto Ricans, whether island born or descendants, is critical for a resolution to the question of the status of Puerto Rico.

Stateside Puerto Ricans should be encouraged to become involved in the decision- making process of the status of Puerto Rico question. Consequently, all U.S. citizens of Puerto Rican descent should also participate in any referendum.

Referendums on the Status Questions

So what is the historical record of stateside Puerto Ricans’ participation in Puerto Rico status referendums?

Since the creation of the Commonwealth in 1952, there have been three local referendums on the political status of Puerto Rico [in 1967, 1993, and 1998], and a referendum held in 1991 seeking to amend the Puerto Rican constitution to ensure certain rights or principles when deciding Puerto Rico’s political status.

Stateside Puerto Ricans did not participate in any of these local initiatives. However, Congress has examined the status question on several occasions, and these processes have opened the door for the consideration of the role and participation of Puerto Ricans who do not reside in Puerto Rico.

In 1989, Senators Johnston and McClure introduced the Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act (S.712) which called for a referendum to be held in 1991. Though this bill died in congressional committee and never reached a vote, it served as the foundation for subsequent local efforts in 1991 and 1993, and more significantly it ignited the engagement of the stateside Puerto Rican community on the question of the status of Puerto Rico.

In 1998, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act (H.R. 856) passed in the House but not in the Senate. It stated that Puerto Ricans would not be allowed to vote in the election.

Congressman Serrano presented an amendment to allow U.S. citizens of Puerto Rican descent residing in the 50 states to vote in the plebiscite, but it also was defeated, by a vote of 356 to 57.

In 2007, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of (H.R. 900), a successor of H.R 856, never had enough votes to carry a debate.

In 2009, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499, a successor to H.R. 900 from 2007), was passed by the House with bi-partisan support. Under this act, all United States citizens born in Puerto Rico would have been eligible to participate in the plebiscite, but not those of Puerto Rican descent.

An unsuccessful referendum bill that was proposed by Senators Johnston and McClure in 1991 (S.712) provides a case study for the potential role of the stateside Puerto Rican community in future plebiscites on the status of Puerto Rico. With the active endorsement and participation of the Puerto Rican political leadership, the Committee Pro-Puerto Rican Participation (CPPRP hereafter) was created to insure the right of the Puerto Rican people “to vote in the Puerto Rican plebiscite.”

In addition to advocating for the participation of all Puerto Rican people born on the island, the committee advocated a key principle in the resolution of Puerto Rico’s political status: that the results of the plebiscite would be binding to the U.S Congress. The campaign was nonpartisan with respect to the status options and a broad range of civic and political leaders actively participated in it.

The reasons for advocating the right of the stateside Puerto Rican people to vote in the plebiscite were simple yet powerful. Foremost, the committee advocated for a clear defense of the right to self-determination, as understood by the international community.

The Puerto Rican people are one, whether they reside in the island or elsewhere. The referendum was considered an important event that transcended local elections because it provided a framework for the future of the country, and by implication of all the Puerto Rican people.

The results of the referendum were likely to have a significant impact on the social and cultural conditions of all Puerto Ricans, including those residing in the United States (whether they were born there or in Puerto Rico). The committee issued several reports and was able to score several important political victories, including the holding of congressional hearings in East Harlem, New York.

The political leadership in Puerto Rico was ambivalent, to say the least, about the participation of stateside Puerto Ricans. Early on in the process, Governor Hernandez-Colon declared his support, but a few months later he opposed an agreement reached by the sponsors of the bill in the House of Representatives.

The agreement was crafted by emissaries from Puerto Rico’s three political parties (including the Governor’s own party), and the CPPRP leadership. Despite opposition from the island politicians, the efforts of the CPPRP were successful in establishing expectations for future negotiations on the status of Puerto Rico in Congress. The most recent bill – the 2009 Puerto Rico Democracy Act recently mentioned, recognizes the right of all Puerto Rico-born citizens to participate.

Latino Diasporas and Transnational Politics

Before providing some concluding thoughts, I would like to address an important element in the new political environment that directly affects transnational politics between Puerto Rico and the United States.

I am referring to the growing Latino population and how the CPPRP efforts opened pathways for other populations in diaspora to engage in local politics in their countries of origin.

The fact that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens is well known, certainly among the audience in this forum. However, the concept of dual citizenship is relevant to the question under examination.

Immigrants who become naturalized American citizens, for example, have dual citizenship. They can carry two passports and travel freely within their native and naturalized countries. Like Puerto Ricans, they can go back and forth to their country of origin to work or live as they see fit.

Dual citizenship is becoming more popular in many countries, for good reasons. Citizens with dual citizenship strengthen the economy of both countries by promoting trade and investment, transferring technology and knowledge, and facilitating access to a broader pool of human resources.

Countries like India, the Philippines, and Mexico are liberalizing their citizenship laws to take advantage of the benefits of dual citizenship.

Dual citizenship is a common practice among U.S. Latinos. Some examples of countries that encourage and take advantage of dual citizenship include Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, México, and Peru.

An important component of dual citizenship among U.S. Latinos is that it enables them to participate in their country of origin politics. Two recent examples are:

In May of 2004, for the first time in history, Dominicans in the U.S. voted in the presidential elections of the Dominican Republic. Roughly 52,000 throughout the United States registered to vote in the elections.

In 2006, for the first time, Mexicans in the U.S. were allowed to vote by absentee ballot in the Mexican presidential election. About 4 million of the 10 million Mexican residents in the U.S. were eligible to participate.

The importance of these processes to the Puerto Rican case is evident. For one, they dismiss the idea that the logistics of the electoral process are too complicated or costly. Like Puerto Ricans, these Latino communities are dispersed all over the U.S., but they have the political infrastructure and have been able to get the cooperation of stateside governments to implement electoral processes for transnational politics.

But perhaps more important, the growing political presence of Latinos in Congress will add support to initiatives of concern to Puerto Ricans and boost a more powerful coalition to resolve the status of Puerto Rico than in the past.

The Latino leadership in Congress understands perfectly the implications of the rights of the Puerto Rican people to participate in deciding the future political status of the island.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the environment is becoming more conducive for stateside Puerto Ricans to play a larger role in the status question.

The fact that the majority of Puerto Ricans now live in the United States is a game changer: How can the future of the island be decided by a minority of our people? How can the rights of the people be denied when the political influence of the stateside Puerto Rican community is broader, more diverse than ever, and growing?

The fact that Latinos have a growing influence in the political process is a game changer as well. A broad Latino political coalition can finally induce Congress to recognize the rights of all Puerto Rican people and to make a commitment, prior to any plebiscite, to enact a bill which will be binding to the U.S Congress.

Finally, it is very important that stateside Puerto Ricans become part of the dialogue and political process about the future of Puerto Rico.

We are at a historical juncture when more and more of our families are divided, when our extended families have bilingual children and are becoming more culturally diverse, and when we seek greater connections to those living afar.

It is well known to all of us participating in this forum that there is a general lack of understanding of the stateside Puerto Ricans among the Puerto Ricans residing on the island.

I am hopeful that our participation in any referendum on the status of Puerto Rico will help strengthen social and cultural bridges between the two communities: Para los de aqui y para los de allá.

I am also hopeful that today we will engage in a civic dialogue that will mark a turning point towards the goal and aspiration of UN SOLO PUEBLO.

I leave the panelists with this question:

Do you support the right of all Puerto Ricans to vote in a status referendum?

Dr. Edwin Meléndez is director of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College (CUNY), New York. He has authored or edited ten books and has managed over thirty-five research, outreach, or demonstration projects. Dr. Meléndez was the director of the Mauricio Gastón Institute for Latino Community Development and Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts Boston as well as a faculty member in the Economics Department and the Ph.D. Program in Public Policy. He also served on the faculties of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Fordham University.

By Ricardo Arduengo/Associated Press

The Puerto Rican police were criticized for their treatment of nonviolent demonstrators.

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and LIZETTE ALVAREZ

Published: September 08, 2011

WASHINGTON – In a blistering condemnation of the second-largest police force in the United States, the Justice Department is accusing the Puerto Rico Police Department of a “profound” and “longstanding” pattern of civil rights violations and other illegal practices that have left it “broken in a number of critical and fundamental respects.”

In a 116-page report that officials intend to make public Thursday, the civil rights division of the Justice Department accused the Puerto Rico Police Department of systematically “using force, including deadly force, when no force or lesser force was called for,” unnecessarily injuring hundreds of people and killing “numerous others.”

The report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, says the 17,000-officer force routinely conducts illegal searches and seizures without warrants. It accuses the force of a pattern of attacking nonviolent protesters and journalists in a manner “designed to suppress the exercise of protected First Amendment rights.”

And it says investigators “uncovered troubling evidence” that law enforcement officers in Puerto Rico appear to routinely discriminate against people of Dominican descent and “fail to adequately police sex assault and domestic violence” cases – including spousal abuse by fellow officers.

“Unfortunately,” the report found, “far too many P.R.P.D. officers have broken their oath to uphold the rule of law, as they have been responsible for acts of crime and corruption and have routinely violated the constitutional rights of the residents of Puerto Rico.”

The report is likely to intensify a sense of distress among the nearly four million American citizens who live on Puerto Rico, where violent crime has spilled into well-to-do areas. While violent crime has plummeted in most of the mainland United States, the murder rate in Puerto Rico is soaring. In 2011, there have been 786 homicides – 117 more than at this point last year.

Rather than helping to solve the crime wave, the Puerto Rico Police Department is part of the problem, the report contends. In October, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested 61 officers from the department in the largest police-corruption operation in bureau history. And the arrest of Puerto Rican police officers, the report says, is hardly rare. From January 2005 to November 2010, it said, there were more than 1,709 such arrests for offenses “ranging from simple assault and theft to domestic violence, drug trafficking and murder.” During a comparable period, the New York Police Department, with a force about twice the size, had about 607 such arrests.”

The degree of police corruption and criminal misconduct in Puerto Rico is high and contributes to the public safety and civil rights crisis,” the report said. “More P.R.P.D. officers are involved in criminal activity than in any other major law enforcement agency in the country.”

A “finding” by the civil rights division of a pattern or practice of constitutional violations by a police department is a precursor to a lawsuit, which either goes to trial or, if the local authorities agree to changes, may be settled on the day it is filed. The division has 17 such investigations open, including in New Orleans, Newark and Seattle.Its investigation of the Puerto Rico police, which began in July 2008, resulted in one of the most extensive such critiques the department has ever produced. It condemns nearly every aspect of the force – its hiring and training practices, the way it assigns and promotes officers, and its policies governing officer behavior and accountability for misconduct.

The report recommends 133 remedial measures that would amount to a sweeping intervention. It is likely to create a political headache for Puerto Rico’s governor, Luis G. Fortuño, a Republican who took office in 2009 and, as chief executive, oversees the department. Mr. Fortuño has been criticized for his administration’s handling of a series of mostly nonviolent demonstrations by students and workers to protest higher university fees and government layoffs. Riot police hit protesters, bystanders and journalists with batons and used pepper spray and choke holds, in incidents that were videotaped and are discussed in the report. Two months ago, Mr. Fortuño named a new police superintendent, Emilio Díaz Colón, a former National Guard adjutant general. During his confirmation, Mr. Díaz said he would not shy away from doing what was necessary to “convert the Puerto Rican police into an example of a disciplined, effective” force, but also said he did not plan any immediate major changes.

“We all recognize that there have been challenges at the Police Department that pre-date the governor’s administration,” Edward Zayas, a spokesman for Mr. Fortuño, said on Wednesday. “The governor has always acknowledged that the Puerto Rico Police Department needs reforms.

However, he did not wait for any report from the D.O.J. in order to act.

“The Justice Department began the investigation in part due to complaints by the American Civil Liberties Union. In June, when President Obama visited the island, the A.C.L.U. sent him a letter contending that the police had “engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens” with a degree of impunity that “would not be tolerated in the 50 states.”

While the report said Puerto Rican officials cooperated with the investigation, it was hindered by poor record-keeping. For example, the Puerto Rico Police Department reported 39 rapes last year – a figure the report portrays as unbelievable because nearly every other jurisdiction has far more rapes than murders.

The report focused on the “rampant” use of “unnecessary or gratuitous” force, a problem made worse by the use of tactical units – heavily armed officers who are poorly trained and steeped in “violent subcultures” – for ordinary police work. It says such units frequently “rely on intimidation, fear and extreme use of force to manage crowds and are often deployed to low-income and minority communities on routine patrols.”

The report also recounts many “illustrative incidents” and includes a nine-page appendix listing dozens more. One example it said exemplified “many of the deep-rooted deficiencies that continue to plague P.R.P.D.” was the killing of Cáceres Cruz in August 2007 by a tactical unit officer.

Mr. Cruz was directing traffic near a birthday party when three officers drove by and thought he had insulted them. They told Mr. Cruz he was under arrest and wrestled him to the ground, during which time one officer shot himself in the leg.

The officer then repeatedly shot Mr. Cruz, who was lying on the ground, in his head and body before they drove off. An internal investigation cleared them of misconduct. But after a video of the incident surfaced in the news media, one officer was convicted of murder. It emerged that seven complaints had been filed against him, but had been largely ignored.

“The tragic events surrounding the Cáceres Cruz shooting served as a stark reminder of P.R.P.D.’s institutional dysfunction,” the report said.

Charlie Savage reported from Washington, and Lizette Alvarez from Mia

Por: Manuel Ernesto Rivera 03/08/2011 9:57 am

En un mundo globalizado, Puerto Rico debe posicionarse y darse a conocer por su cultura y su arte y no por figuras efímeras como las reinas de belleza y los deportistas.
Así lo afirmó en entrevista con NotiCel la productora, directora y guionista puertorriqueña Caridad Sorondo Flores, quien celebra que el canal 34 de México compró dos temporadas de su laureada serie “En la punta de la lengua”.

“Estamos haciendo historia pues es la primera vez que una serie televisiva puertorriqueña es adquirida por Latinoamérica. El canal 34 de México tiene una audiencia de más de tres millones de telespectadores y han acogido la serie con mucho entusiasmo y admiración”, indicó Sorondo Flores.

La serie televisiva puertorriqueña, ganadora de cinco premios Emmy, fue cancelada por el presidente del canal del gobierno PRTV, Israel Ray Cruz.

El Canal 34 de México comenzó a transmitir en junio las dos temporadas de la serie _cada una de 12 capítulos_ los jueves a las 7:00 pm.

“Estamos muy contentos, ya que el arte, la cultura y la literatura es el mejor rostro que tiene nuestro país. Lo más importante es que estamos abriendo un espacio y que nos están mirando porque les interesa ver nuestro talento artístico y cultural. Están viendo nuestra literatura, nuestros artistas y quiénes somos”, destacó Sorondo Flores.

La realizadora se mostró complacida, además, de que el canal educativo mexicano le ofreciera realizar una coproducción, de la que no ofreció muchos detalles por encontrarse en etapa de negociación.

“Dada la buena aceptación de la serie televisiva ‘En la punta de la lengua’, el Canal 34 le ha propuesto a mi compañía Producciones Entre Nos, una co-producción, de la cual no te puedo dar mucha información, porque estamos en la finalización de los contratos, pero que será de una gran proyección para Puerto Rico”, sostuvo.

Entre los programas adquiridos por el canal 34 de México, se encuentran “Gabriela Mistral: la voz de la palabra”, ganadora del premio Emmy 2006; y “Las rutas del Quijote”, premio Emmy 2005.

Sorondo Flores lamentó que, bajo este gobierno, se haya cancelado su serie en el canal educativo local, pero evitó entrar en dimes y diretes con el presidente de la Corporación de Puerto Rico para la Difusión Pública.

Indicó, incluso, que le comunicó varias veces por escrito a Cruz que el canal mexicano está interesado en adquirir otros programas documentales y educativos de la isla como “Geoambiente”, de María Falcón, pero el funcionario no le contestó nada definitivo.

“Ray Cruz siempre ha sido muy amable, bien respetuoso y cortés, pero ahí se queda todo. Nunca me contestó la razón para la cancelación del programa, ni tampoco los correos que le envié sobre los otros programas”, expresó.

Según Sorondo Flores, los rumores de pasillo apuntan a que su programa fue cancelado porque supuestamente el pintor Antonio Martorell, quien realiza entrevistas para el programa, “estaba muy en contra del gobierno”.

Martorell ha criticado a la presente administración por no escuchar los reclamos del pueblo e, incluso, retiró una de sus obras del Tribunal Supremo cuando el gobierno de Luis Fortuño aumentó sin necesidad de 7 a 9 el número de jueces asociados del máximo foro judicial, pese a que ya tenía una mayoría de 4 a 3.

Congressman José E. Serrano
Representing the Sixteenth District of New York
PRESS RELEASE

Washington, DC – Congressman José E. Serrano today voted against the debt ceiling package because it cuts core government investments and does nothing to increase revenue from the wealthy.

“For weeks I had hoped that the final package to increase the debt ceiling would be balanced, and would not strike at the services and investments that our nation must continue to make in order to prosper. I had hoped that the package would cause billionaires to share more of the revenue burden and would close special interest tax loopholes. But the final package did not contain either of these provisions.

“I appreciate the difficult situation that President Obama and other negotiators were put in by the intransigence of the Republican Party. The other party would not accept any reasonable compromise and caused this crisis merely to satisfy their political goal of shrinking government. I am sadly disappointed that no Republicans would take responsibility for crafting a fair package and forced a ‘my way or the highway’ approach. They have done a disservice to our nation.

“My constituents will not benefit in the slightest from this package—and in fact will suffer from its effects. They work hard, and pay their taxes, and should not see the social safety net that they rely on slashed solely to preserve low tax rates for billionaires. On their behalf I voted ‘no’ on this senseless package, which will do nothing to create jobs or help the economy grow.

“I hope that the bipartisan committee charged with finding further deficit reductions will take into account the real human consequences of their actions—and will close special interest tax loopholes and end needlessly low tax rates for the ultra-wealthy rather than cutting further into programs that average Americans depend on.

“I am very disappointed by the whole process and the legislative product that has resulted. Our nation was made great by our investments in our people and country, not by preserving wealth for the very few. We seem to have forgotten how our nation became great—through shared sacrifice.”

###

Congressman José E. Serrano has represented the Bronx in Congress since 1990.