The Initial Colonization
1902-1922
The period between 1902 and 1922 can be studied as a sort of transitionary period where the U.S. government continues to flesh out its insular laws and policies. In the case of Puerto Rico, this period is framed by significant modifications of the doctrine of territorial incorporation, the collective naturalization of Puerto Rican citizens and other eligible residents of Puerto Rico, and some ephemeral debates over the possible sovereignty or independence of Puerto Rico.
Citizenship and the Question of Political Status
During this period, the residents of Puerto Rico could acquire one of two U.S. citizenship statuses. Congress invented a Puerto Rican citizenship conferring, initially under the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 and subsequently affirmed by the Foraker Act of 1900, a non-U.S. citizen-national status on eligible persons born in Puerto Rico. Persons born in Puerto Rico between 11 April 1899 and 1934 could acquire a Puerto Rican citizenship. Simultaneously, some Puerto Ricans could acquire a U.S. citizenship via various naturalization processes. Until 1934, Puerto Rican women who married U.S. citizens were automatically naturalized under the terms of the doctrine of Coverture. In 1906, Congress began enacting legislation authorizing individual Puerto Ricans to undergo an individual process of naturalization. And in 1917, Congress enacted the Jones Act providing for the collective naturalization of Puerto Rican citizens and other residents of Puerto Rico. What is important to emphasize is that whereas prior to the enactment of the Jones Act of 1917, Puerto Rico was primarily inhabited by non-citizen nationals, after 1917 the archipelago was primarily inhabited by U.S. citizens. For status purposes, this meant that the initial laws developed to rule Puerto Rico were designed for an archipelago inhabited by non-citizen nationals, not U.S. citizens. However, while Congress now ruled Puerto Rico as a territory inhabited by U.S. citizens, Congress did not enact any legislation explicitly incorporating or changing Puerto Rico’s territorial status.
The Jones Act of 1917 also amended the Foraker Act of 1900 in three additional ways that affirmed a more permanent status quo with increased local autonomy. For example, rather than simply extending the Constitution’s bill of rights to Puerto Rico, the Foraker Act merely affirmed the application of civil and political rights under local Puerto Rican law. The Jones Act included a statutory bill of rights that echoed the rights and privileges available to U.S. citizens in the states and territories. Moreover, the Foraker Act originally created an appointed Executive Council, with the legislative powers of a Senate or upper house, and a popularly elected House or assembly of legislators. The Jones Act modified the Executive Council in two ways. First, it redefined it as a “junta consultiva del Gobernador” or an advisory board for the governor, which gave Puerto Ricans a greater power to participate in the appointment of local department or agency leaders. Second, the new amendment eliminated the Executive Council’s legislative powers and created a popularly elected Senate. Again, the Jones Act’s amendments increased some of Puerto Rico’s autonomic powers of local governance without changing Puerto Rico’s political or territorial status.
A Note on the Insular Cases
As I noted previously, the doctrine of territorial incorporation, also known as the doctrine of “separate and unequal” was first introduced in the Supreme Court in 1901. A majority of the Court embraced it in 1904 and expanded its contours between 1905 and 1922. Following the collective naturalization of Puerto Ricans under the terms of the Jones Act of 1917, the Court in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico (1922) the Court affirmed the application of the doctrine of territorial incorporation to a territory now primarily inhabited by U.S. citizens. Central to the second period were two debates. The first, addressed how the Court affirmed various congressional policies for different territories, essentially creating an array of discriminatory laws and policies for each insular area. Second, in Rassmussen v. United States (1905) the Court established that the collective naturalization of the inhabitants of Alaska incorporated or implicitly changed Alaska’s territorial status. However, in Balzac, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected this interpretation and declared that Congress needed to enact legislation that explicitly incorporated or changed Puerto Rico’s territorial status before any change in the islands’ political status could take place. Congress has neglected to do so in more than a century because, in part, there is no general agreement on the constitutional or political options is willing to offer.
Political Parties and Ideologies in Puerto Rico
Partisan debates in Puerto Rico were dominated by two traditional political ideologies. Autonomists argued for a self-government relationship with the United States, but with more control over local affairs and institutions. Notwithstanding, there were instances where advocates of sovereignty or independence blossomed out of the ranks of the autonomist party, or Partido Unión de Puerto Rico. In contrast, advocates for statehood were initially organized under the conservative Partido Republicano Puertorriqueño and were later joined by socialists or rather the Partido Socialista. Suffice it to say that partisan politics between 1904 and 1922 were typically driven by these two ideologies.
Congress and the Question of Puerto Rico’s Political Status
Four congresses, namely the 63rd , 64th , 66th , and 67th , debated legislation seeking to change Puerto
Rico’s territorial status. Six different types of bills were introduced in these congresses. With the
exception of two bills introduced during the 67th Congress, which focused on more granting Puerto
Rico more territorial autonomy, the main focus of all bills debated during this period was the
territorial incorporation of Puerto Rico. None of these bills became law.
63rd Congress (1913-1914)
Only one bill, S.5845, was introduced in the Senate during the 63rd Congress. This organic act treated Puerto Rico as a territory for purposes of the legislation.
See 63rd Bills64th Congress (1915-1916)
Only one bill, S.26, was introduced in the Senate during the 64th Congress. This organic act also treated Puerto Rico as a territory for purposes of the legislation.
See 64th Bills66th Congress (1919-1920)
One resolution, namely H.J.Res. 144, was introduced in the House during the 66th Congress. Interestingly, this was the earliest plebiscitary legislation introduced in Congress. H.J.Res. 144 gave Puerto Ricans the option to choose among three status options, namely 1) Independence, 2) Territorial Incorporation and/or 3) the status quo. It is interesting to note that while this legislation did not provide for statehood as an option, it opened the door for this status alternative via territorial incorporation. This legislation did not pass a house vote, nor did it become law.
See 66th Bills67th Congress (1921-1922)
Three bills status bills were introduced during the 67 th Congress. Unlike other type of legislation, status bills require Congress to make a determination on the application of one status to Puerto Rico. The first bill introduced in this Congress, H.R.9934, incorporated Puerto Rico as a territory. The latter companion status bills, H.R.9995, and S.3137, were simultaneously introduced in the House and Senate and provided for the creation of an Associate Free State status or a status that granted Puerto Rico an autonomous but subordinated territorial status. To be sure, both bills contained provisions reminiscent of the Platt Amendment provisions used to legitimate any U.S. intervention in an autonomous Puerto Rico.
See 67th Bills