We asked Noel Quiñones, an AfroBoricua activist, writer, and poet from the Bronx, New York for his thoughts on the Puerto Rican debt crisis, independence, and the upcoming Presidential elections on the mainland. He responded with this poem and accompanying article. To read the German-language version of this piece on our US-Elections blog, "Route 16," click here.
Pride. This conjuring of present determination and heavy remembrance, a swelling of emotions for the years past and hope toward the future is at the center of Puerto Rican identity. And no one does pride better than us: our flag can be seen waving from Europe to China to Australia, in windows, on car doors, and around our very necks. Everywhere we inhabit, a stranger becomes a hermano and an inquirer, baffled by how these people from such a small Caribbean island could spread their roots so far, becomes intimately aware of our story. Or at least the parts we can recall.
Puerto Rican pride is uniquely tethered to our historic amnesia, best understood by its geographic manifestation. Over 500 years of colonial occupation by Spain and then the United States has rendered the Puerto Rican people wary of their own ability to defend and ultimately save themselves. In essence, Puerto Ricans suffer from one of the worst cases of Stockholm syndrome, and at no other time has this been made more apparent, than with the recent spotlight on the island’s tumultuous economic situation.
If true pride consists of equal parts, present-day community, and remembrance of history, then Puerto Ricans on the island and in the states must acknowledge our long and oppressive history to inevitably use our voices and our vote to take back our patria.
For many, the crisis in Puerto Rico has been viewed from only an economic standpoint, centered on the $72 billion the island owes. But in the words of Puerto Rican activist Esperanza Martell, “This is not a debt crisis but a colonial crisis.” For 117 years, the United States has owned Puerto Rico, monopolizing its resources at the expense of its residents, producing the climate for a staggering unemployment and health care rate to its residents, and denying basic sovereign rights to its government.
Puerto Rico is not allowed a voting representative in the United States Congress. Its residents cannot vote for the President of the U.S., and Congress must approve any substantial legislation it passes. In the past century, no amount of armed revolution, foreign diplomatic advocacy, or government-backed plebiscite has uprooted the colonial crisis in Puerto Rico.
To date, there have been four plebiscites to determine the status of Puerto Rico. A plebiscite is a direct vote by eligible voters to decide an important question. The three main choices generally presented to the Puerto Rican people on such a plebiscite have included full independence, maintenance or enhancement of the current “commonwealth” status, and full statehood into the United States. While it must be said that each plebiscite has suffered from its share of political party politics on the island, all plebiscites have shown little traction because their results are ultimately laid at the doorstep of Congress.
In the most recent plebiscite in 2012, a confounding distinction in tallying allowed Congress to determine its results unreliable, with Obama putting funds aside for the island to hold their 5th plebiscite in 2016. This plebiscite holds more weight than any held before considering the economic fate brought to light in recent months.
At the center of Puerto Rico’s economic turmoil we can find the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act. This act states that every product that enters or leaves Puerto Rico must be carried on a United States ship. A foreign flagged vessel may enter Puerto Rico, but only after paying taxes, customs, and import fees that almost always double the price of the products onboard. If the foreign flagged vessel does not wish to pay these fees, it must be taken to an American shipping yard, off loaded, reloaded onto a U.S. ship, and then taken back to Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican people are the only ones who then pay for these excessive hurdles.
Yet the math speaks for itself. Puerto Rico currently owes 73 billion dollars in debt, yet the Jones Act, between its instatement in 1920 to 2015 has cost Puerto Rico roughly 75.8 billion dollars. Many economists identify the Jones Act as a central blockade to allowing the island to escape from its current debt spiral, yet dismantling the Jones Act has gained far less backing than the movement for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.
Some might say a solution could come from how the United States handled a major city’s debt following the 2008 financial crisis. The city of Detroit, Michigan found itself in around 18 billion dollars of debt, and as a city of one of the 50 American states, it was able to file for bankruptcy in 2013, allowing the federal government to restructure its debt.
However, this is not an option for Puerto Rico because it is not considered an incorporated part of the United States. The Governor of Puerto Rico, Governor Padilla, has pleaded with Congress and the Obama administration to allow the island to file for bankruptcy. While a handful of Democrats in the Senate put forward a bill for bankruptcy, Republicans shot it down. In addition, the Obama administration’s response to the crisis has been slow at best, taking over 6 months to even consider pressuring Congress.
In 2015, Juan Agustín Márquez, two-time Emmy winning Puerto Rican filmmaker, released his documentary entitled “The Last Colony”. The film explored each of the choices on the 4th plebiscite ballot in 2012 and their various supporters.
His film could not have come at a better time. In the three years between the plebiscite and the film’s release, the arguments for both the current “commonwealth” status and statehood are flimsy to say the least. While the current “commonwealth” model is called into question as more sovereign rights become denied to the island, statehood is simply unrealistic with a Republican dominated Congress that won’t even allow it to file for bankruptcy. As Governor Padilla begins to outright blame Congress for Puerto Rico’s current situation, 2016 offers a rare and direly needed opportunity for Puerto Rican voters in the states and on the island to work together.
As a result of the economic turmoil, thousands of Puerto Ricans have left the island, moving predominantly to Florida. In the months since Governor Padilla’s statement on the crisis, Puerto Rican populations in the state have surpassed that of New York City, the previous haven for Puerto Rican immigration. Florida played a critical role in Obama’s last election, brandishing a remarkable Latino electorate before this recent upsurge. With this new wave of immigration, Florida is in its most influential electoral position to date. It comes as no surprise that many Puerto Ricans in the state are looking to support a Presidential candidate that supports their island’s needs.
While Democratic Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton support bankruptcy for the island, Republican candidate Marco Rubio believes the island should deal with their debt on their own, refusing to support a bankruptcy bill. Even more, he is the only leading Republican candidate who has commented on the crisis with Ted Cruz and Donald Trump remaining silent. With the Puerto Rican voting population wary of the families they have left on the island, candidates cannot ignore the crisis of Puerto Rico entering the Presidential primaries. Simultaneously, Puerto Ricans on the island must pressure their delegates to present a plebiscite that not only provides clear explanations of the status options but also a tallying system that cannot be misconstrued by Congress.
Only together can Puerto Ricans in the states and on the island fully realize a true Puerto Rican pride, one that uplifts its community as well as releases its patria from the shackles of colonialism. Yet regardless of our future, it can no longer be denied that Puerto Rico is the Last Colony.
Acknowledging this truth is the first step in accepting bankruptcy as a short-term solution, and independence as a long term one.
Please note that the views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.