I’m at a hearing of the immigration subcommittee, and the pseudo-congressman from Puerto Rico is going on about how “we” are a nation of immigrants. “We”? Puerto Rico is a foreign country that became a colony of the United States in 1898, no different from the French colony of Togo or the British colony of Uganda (or the U.S. colony of the Philippines). Congress granted residents of the island U.S. citizenship during World War I, but Puerto Ricans remain a distinct people, a distinct nation, with their own (foreign) language, their own history, their own culture. Like other remnants of late-colonialism (like Belize, Djibouti, Comoros, etc.), most Puerto Ricans don’t want independence at this point, because it would end the gravy train. But that’s not our problem — we need to end this unnatural situation and give the nation of Puerto Rico an independent state as soon as practicable.
The pseudo-congressman was right. "We" are a nation of immigrants, whether by "we" he means Puerto Rico, the U.S. mainland or both.
Where do you think Puerto Ricans came from?
From the Wikipedia entry for Puerto Rico:
"Continuous European immigration during the 19th century helped the population grow from 155,000 in 1800 to almost a million at the close of the century"
Puerto Rico is a nation of immigrants, the U.S.A. is a nation of immigrants. What are you confused about?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn addition, there are plenty of Gov't issued head stones to the PRs who believed that "we" had to fight Ho Chi Minh. Perhaps Mr. K is unaware that the draft operates in PR and that they have a pretty strong National Guard presence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHomework problem: Artfully arrange 51 stars in a blue canton having a hoist-to-fly ratio of 7/13 to 76/100.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no such thing as a "nation of immigrants'. The word nation itself refers to birth--as in people born in the same country. All my ancestors were here four generations ago, before 'Ellis Island'. Many of them arrived much earlier. I am not an immigrant.
And while it is nice that some Puerto Ricans served in the military (likely a way out of the poverty of their Island), that still doesn't justify us hanging on to distinct society -- one much poorer than our poorest state. Ireland was once a prime source of canon fodder for the Brits, but that situation changed. We need to wish PR godspeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sorry but I do not see a down side with giving Puerto Rico its independence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@SouthOC "All my ancestors were here four generations ago, before 'Ellis Island'. Many of them arrived much earlier. I am not an immigrant."
So you're saying five generations ago your family immigrated here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat ignorance! Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth. THe NRO is looking more and more xenophobic as the days go by.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Puerto Rico is a foreign country that became a colony of the United States in 1898, no different from the French colony of Togo...(or the U.S. colony of the Philippines)."
I certainly hope that Krikorian meant to write that Puerto Rico WAS a foreign country. Right now, Puerto Ricans are Americans, period. Puerto Rico is part of the United States, period. The situation of the Philippines is obviously different; they became independent in 1946. Puerto Rico has not, and Puerto Ricans have not shown any great interest in independence.
Krikorian's justification--that Puerto Ricans are a "distinct people...with their own (foreign) language, their own history, their own culture"--is transparently inadequate. If we rid ourselves of Puerto Rico on those grounds, we might as well expel Hawaii, Louisiana, the Gullah/Geechee area of South Carolina (and Justice Thomas with it), the French-speaking portions of Maine, the Pennsylvania Dutch, and every Chinatown in every major city in the country.
Somehow, I think it'd be easier just to expel Krikorian. Sure, he's a citizen, but if he doesn't care about the Puerto Ricans' citizenship, then why should we care about his own?
Perhaps some editors at NR can sit Krikorian down and explain all of this to him. As it stands, the post is an embarrassment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree entirely with Jason on this. The "we" is entirely appropriate given PR's status as a commonwealth. Puerto Ricans are Americans and have every right to refer to themselves as Americans.
While I agree that the current limbo status (not independent, not a state) should be resolved one way or the other sooner rather than later (and before we assume independence is the obvious option, let us remember that the Governor of Puerto Rico is a Republican), today's status is clear with respect to Puerto Ricans being part of the "we." As a bonus, the island of Puerto Rico is fact an island of immigrants (European, African, Caribbean and Asian, to name a few).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jason -- *some* of my family 'immigrated' here, although at that point it could probably still be called the settler era-- frontier still open, homesteads still given out, still a few 'territories'. But *I* am not an immigran. There is simply no such thing as a 'nation' of immigrants. It is an oxymoron-- or rather a bit of political propaganda cooked up by the Kennedy machine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"we need to end this unnatural situation and give the nation of Puerto Rico an independent state as soon as practicable."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed.
And I can say how happy I am that the "Puerto Rico Democracy Act" HR2499 died in the Senate. This bill was a loaded piece of legislation that probably would have ended in a vote of Statehood (even though that's not what the majority want.) Puerto Rico as a state would be an even worse situation than what we have now.
@SouthOC, you are pretending not to know what "nation of immigrants" means. In other words, you're trolling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Jason, I am just not accepting a meaningless, cliché put out to legitimate the Kennedy machine.
If you read American history from before the 1960s , you'll see that Americans did not think of themselves as 'a nation of immigrants'. The dominant narrative was of Anglo-Saxon civilization conquering and settling the continent. "Nation of Immigrants" was Kennedy propaganda. Also meaningless. Argentina is a 'Nation of Immigrants'. You said yourself Puerto Rico is. Yet there are very different societies.
As for Puerto Rico-- maybe you guys should do some reading up on Viecas, or that nation's GDP (half our poorest state's, last time I checked). Or my ultimate criteria--its separate Olympic teams.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe notion that we are a “nation of immigrants” is just a weary cliche, a thoughtless Madison-Avenue-style slogan.
As the grandson of immigrants (on one side -- the other side goes back to ~1700), I recognize that what has always made the U.S. an immigration magnet is the ordered liberty of the civil society created by the founding fathers, not the works of immigrants who later came to partake of that society. And even if immigration were the defining aspect of our national story, this wouldn’t provide guidance for the 21st century, now that our population exceeds the long-term carrying capacity of the land.
Note that the founding generations were colonists (or settlers), an entirely different category from "immigrant."
And Puerto Rico **is** a wholly different nation, incompatible with our own, a society of, on average, tax-eaters.
For the enthusiast who noted that they currently have a Republican governor, consider the fact that Puerto Rico, as a state, would have two U.S. senators and something like five representatives, and there's every reason to think that they'd all be Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo when a predominantly Hispanic people indicate pride in their separate cultural heritage, such as when immigration protesters display Mexican flags, Mark Krikorian is offended. When a predominantly Hispanic people indicate kinship with American culture, Mark Krikorian is offended.
How dare American citizens who reside in an American territory comment on what America means to them? How dare they suggest that they are more than a remnant of late colonialism?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely wrong. They are citizens. They must decide now whether to officially join the Union or walk alone. The gray area must end but it can end two ways.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, it sounds like some things have changed since the 1960s! Who knew?
So you know exactly what "nation of immigrants" means. You claim it's meaningless, then you claim it also applies to Argentina. That seems contradictory.
Maybe Puerto Rico should be independent. I would agree with Mr. Krikorian that they have their own history, language and culture. I don't think money is a good enough reason to maintain commonwealth status. If they're only in the U.S.A. for the money we should separate.
I don't think separate Olympic teams is dispositive. I would not want to make the International Olympic Committee the arbiter of such things. England, Scotland and Wales compete separately in the World Cup, is that proof of anything?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCalifornia and Texas were foreign nations before they became part of the US. As were the various Indian tribes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"They must decide now whether to officially join the Union or walk alone."
I agree the gray area should end, but why don't we *all* get a say in the matter? PR's GDP, last I looked, was half that of our poorest state.
@Pennsylvania-- the 'representative' wasn't indicating any sort of alliegance with our culture, he was asserting that we don't have any culture.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaving twice lived in heavily Puerto Rican neighborhoods, it is safe to say that it is a profoundly different culture. Not unlike the earlier influx of Southern Italians in a lot of ways. But they are US citizens by bith, so this post seems almost as strange as NRO enlisting a not particularly bright liberal as a moderator around here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse