Sup Ct to Determine Constitutionality of “Assault Weapons” Ban

Public Shooting Range
21

That got me curious about how Puerto Ricans get citizenship, so I read the Foraker Act of 1900 and the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917, and the mentions of citizens in the current PR Constitution.

It appears that their rules for citizenship refer back to the Foraker Act. Anybody who was previously a subject of Spain, and did not make an oath to retain their Spanish allegiance, became a US citizen.

The Jones-Shafroth Act additionally provided that anybody not owing allegiance to any other nation and are permanently domiciled in PR would be US citizens. It also specified that anybody born to an alien parent and was permanently residing in PR would have a window of opportunity to gain US citizenship when the Act took force (6 months after the Act for adults; for minors, 1 year after reaching majority).

These and their children were granted birthright US citizenship.

It seems to me that most current PRs would have nothing to fear if children of illegal migrants or visa holders were ruled to be non-citizens. As long as their parents were here lawfully and permanently, the children would continue to have US citizenship.

The US Congress would be Contitutionally barred from writing an ex-post-facto (i.e. retroactive) law stripping citizenship from those already explicitly granted citizenship. That’s covered under the Due Process clause (another part of 14A) and Constitution Art. I sec. 9 regarding ex post facto laws.

The conservative push is only to exclude children of those unlawfully here and children of those in the country on a temporary visitor basis. From my reading, neither of those situations were ever included explicitly in the Foraker Act, the Jones-Shaffroth Act, or the current PR Constitution.

2 Likes
22

Awesome how that works, no?

23

Yeah — Puerto Rico citizenship is a weird little history stack. Congress handed it out by statute, not from birthright in the same way the 14th Amendment gets argued on the states.

Kilroy was here

1 Like
24

Thanks, Musashiaharon. You always give very thoughtful and articulate responses. Puerto Rico is its own unique US Territory. I’m guessing it’s the same as Guam, the US Virgin Islands, but still unlike the old New Mexico and Oklahoma territories before they became states as explained in the “insular cases.” Here’s one such “insular case” opinion from way back in 1901:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/244/?__cf_chl_f_tk=5OfCeZfedEKCNq0G4aFzSykmwr_rhBt6tJfQabl0riU-1783386396-1.0.1.1-TNZnXlnWcm.hUYcmuPp7jrTuOjTTOZRExFbCOnXLRlk

Here’s an excerpt from Justice Brown in the opinion above:

"Upon the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’

"Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States which is not extended to persons born in any place “subject to their jurisdiction.”

The following case notes that the legal concept of the insular cases has not been overturned:

Despite the above, here’s another interesting Supreme Court case from way back in 1904, a few years after the US acquired PR and before the 1917 law granting citizenship by Congress:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/192/1/

Basically, the court said that PR’s are not foreign aliens, but it also declined to say they are US citizens.

So taking all the above, what would happen if Congress revokes US citizenship to PR’s born in PR? And what would happen to those born in a US state from PR’s whose citizenship was revoked? And would revocation be considered retroactive? If so, what about PR’s who were drafted, like my Uncle Juan who fought in Guadalcanal and Okinawa? My Uncle Manolo and Step-Grandpa Guilo who fought in the frozen Chosin in Korea, my Uncle Billy who fought during the siege at Khe Sanh and my Dad who was drafted in '69 and treated injured and sick troops for 3 years at Tripler Army Base? That would be messed up, and some would argue unfair and possibly a violation of due process, but others could argue tough luck and so sad too bad. While the insular cases don’t help, it’s all admittedly speculative and hypothetical and unlikely to happen. But I’m sure the same has been said of other things that eventually and inexplicably came to pass.

1 Like
25

Is there any other case of Congress revoking citizenship en masse? I can’t think of one. If they did so, in my opinion, that would be unconstitutional, as in my previous post.

Citizenship is mostly a one-way ratchet. I don’t think citizenship was revoked even in the Civil War - the Union legally considered the Confederacy to be an illegitimate entity, not a separate nation.

In contrast, there are other instances where Congress just… gave citizenship. For example, Indians who were originally not citizens despite being born in the US were given statutory citizenship in the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. So being born on US land by itself was apparently not understood to grant citizenship. Like in the case of PR, Indians also needed an explicit statute granting them citizenship.

That said, looking at the long history of Jewish persecution throughout the world, and even the American treatment of, e.g., Japanese-Americans during WWII, and the confiscation of privately-owned gold under FDR, it shows that governments are fickle and should not be trusted. The law is one thing; what government actually does is frequently something else. And laws are not necessarily moral either.

So I’ll consider the idea.

If Congress did retroactively revoke citizenship, I think the courts (especially in blue states, though with a lot of emotional language in the rulings, a la the recent DEI SCOTUS appointees; and likely a bunch in red states too, but with actual rigorous, logic) would smack the law down, all the way from district courts through the circuit courts to SCOTUS, even without the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Whether the executive branch would be willing to follow through on the hypothetical law would depend on how supported they felt and how necessary they felt it would be to carry it out. Feds being feds, they’d play it fast and loose, which is scary to think about.

That said, I don’t think Puerto Ricans are anywhere close to public enemy no. 1. The voting masses and talking heads can only focus on so many enemies at once, and I think the list (based on crimes, “crimes,” and deportation stories) is topped by Trump, MAGA, ICE, Antifa, judges, police, “Nazis” “fascists,” “fundamentalist” Christians, child predators, anti-abortionists, big tech, rapists, cartels, LGBTQ indoctrinators and missionaries, Israelis, and Jews. On the reserve list are big oil/energy, big pharma, anti-zionists, Muslims, Haitians, Indians, Chinese, and Russians. Puerto Ricans seem pretty far down the list to me.

Unless Americans begin hating Puerto Ricans more than Israelis and Jews, those will be the practical canary. If we are arrested or deported based primarily on our heritage, you will have your warning.

1 Like
26

Where have you been?

You never heard Fred afraid of Jews moving in the neighborhood…but…Puerto Ricans… :person_gesturing_no:

Besides, people are afraid to upset Jews for fear of Israel

:face_with_hand_over_mouth:

27

That line is doing two different jobs at once: race bait on Puerto Ricans, and then the old “don’t cross the Jewish lobby / Israel” gripe. I’d keep it tighter and less cluttered if you want it to land.

Something like: “Unless Americans start hating Puerto Ricans more than they fear upsetting Jews, that theory doesn’t go anywhere. ”

Kilroy was here