The end of birthright citizenship could be an opportunity for Puerto Rican independence
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent captured the alarm: 'No right is safe.'
But beyond the continental United States, this decision reverberates in a unique and profound way in Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory caught in political limbo since 1898.
For more than a century, Puerto Ricans have held U.S. citizenship by statute, not by constitutional guarantee. That statute — the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917 — unilaterally imposed U.S. citizenship on Puerto Ricans (without their consent) not as a recognition of full inclusion, but as a tool of colonial control.
Today, that statutory citizenship is proving to be as vulnerable as its colonial origins. The Supreme Court's ruling now opens a wider conversation: If U.S. citizenship can be restricted or redefined by federal authorities, what future do Puerto Ricans really have within the U.S. system?
Not much.
The ruling has already been weaponized by the pro-statehood movement in Puerto Rico. Statehood advocates argue that only by becoming a state can Puerto Ricans ensure permanent, constitutionally protected birthright citizenship for future generations. But this narrow, fear-based response ignores both legal precedent and geopolitical logic.
There is a better way — one rooted in dignity, sovereignty and international norms. Puerto Rico can and should become a sovereign nation, either under independence or a Compact of Free Association. In fact, the ruling strengthens the case for independence as the most just and stable long-term solution for Puerto Rico and the U.S. alike.
Under the draft executive order recently proposed for Trump's consideration, Puerto Rico would become a sovereign nation. Upon independence, the statutory U.S. citizenship conferred by the Jones Act would cease to apply to new births in Puerto Rico.
All individuals born in Puerto Rico after independence would acquire Puerto Rican citizenship — a national identity of their own, defined by Puerto Rican law and values, not those of a distant foreign power.
However, this does not mean the complete severing of U.S. ties for individuals. Children born in Puerto Rico to U.S. citizen parents (as defined under the Immigration and Nationality Act) would remain eligible for U.S. citizenship through a Consular Report of Birth Abroad — a system already in place for U.S. citizens worldwide.
For example, if a U.S. citizen has a baby in Paris, that child can obtain U.S. citizenship. This preserves continuity for families with U.S. roots, while respecting the sovereignty of Puerto Rico to determine its own citizenship policy moving forward.
Moreover, Puerto Ricans who already possess U.S. citizenship at the moment of independence would retain it, and automatically acquire Puerto Rican citizenship as well, becoming dual citizens.
Those who no longer wish to hold U.S. citizenship would have the option to renounce it swiftly and without penalty through the new U.S. Embassy in San Juan, under a fast-track renunciation process that respects personal identity and freedom of choice.
Puerto Rico's pro-statehood movement seldom mentions the economic costs of statehood. Under current law, most Puerto Ricans do not pay U.S. federal income tax on locally sourced income. This tax exemption would end under statehood, and the consequences would be economically devastating.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office warned in a 2014 report that full application of federal tax laws could collapse Puerto Rico's fragile economy. Under independence, Puerto Rican citizens would remain exempt from U.S. federal taxes unless they reside in the U.S., as is standard for all foreign nationals.
Meanwhile, the new Republic of Puerto Rico would design and implement its own national tax system based on its unique economic needs and priorities.
A sovereign Puerto Rico should and would still remain interconnected with the U.S. A free-transit agreement — allowing visa-free travel between the two nations for both U.S. and Puerto Rican citizens — would enable family unity, tourism, trade and opportunities without requiring assimilation or dependence.
In fact, this clarity of status would help Puerto Ricans make informed decisions about their identity and future.
Those who feel primarily American and wish to maintain birthright U.S. citizenship for their children could relocate to any state in the U.S. Those who feel primarily Puerto Rican and seek to maintain their national culture, identity, and Spanish language — would finally live in a nation where their citizenship reflects their culture, language, and aspirations.
Importantly, independence would also halt the practice of foreigners giving birth in Puerto Rico solely to acquire U.S. citizenship for their children — often with no intention of integrating into Puerto Rican society.
Sovereignty would give Puerto Rico the authority to define and defend its own naturalization and immigration policies, protecting both its demographic and cultural integrity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has unwittingly accelerated a long-overdue reckoning.
If U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans is no longer secure, then neither is the colonial-style arrangement that produced it. Rather than cling to an uncertain future within a union that has never truly welcomed them, Puerto Ricans now face a historic opportunity to define themselves on their own terms.
Independence does not mean isolation, but unity with the global community of nations. It means liberty with dignity, citizenship with identity and a relationship with the United States based on respect, not colonial subordination.
The end of birthright U.S. citizenship in Puerto Rico could be, paradoxically, the beginning of Puerto Rican nationhood. The path forward is clear for those who believe in justice, democracy and decolonization.
Puerto Rico must become a sovereign nation — not just for legal reasons, but for the dignity of its people and the fulfillment of its historical destiny.
Javier A. Hernández is a former federal official and author of 'PREXIT: Forging Puerto Rico's Path to Sovereignty,' and 'Puerto Rico: The Economic Case for Sovereignty.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Appeals court scraps Boasberg's contempt order against Trump officials
A federal appeals court panel voted 2-1 Friday to scrap a judge's probable cause finding to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for disobeying his order to turn around deportation flights ultimately destined for El Salvador. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the administration was entitled to an intervention because U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's efforts to punish administration officials raised immediate concerns. 'The order forces a coequal branch to choose between capitulating to an unlawful judicial order and subjecting its officials to a dubious prosecution,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, who was in the majority. Rao was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katas, both Trump appointees. U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of former President Obama, dissented. She complimented Boasberg for his 'skill and wisdom' handling the case, which has sparked impeachment threats from Trump and a barrage of public criticism from his supporters. 'Even when faced with what reasonably appeared to him to be foot dragging, evasion, and outright disregard for his jurisdiction and his orders, he responded with unfailing composure,' Pillard wrote. 'The majority does an exemplary judge a grave disservice by overstepping its bounds to upend his effort to vindicate the judicial authority that is our shared trust,' she continued. Boasberg entered the national limelight for being assigned the first lawsuit when Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to a notorious Salvadoran megaprison. At a hastily convened Saturday hearing that weekend, Boasberg ordered the administration turn around any airborne planes deporting migrants under the rarely invoked statute. The order was later wiped by the Supreme Court, but the judge has accused the administration of willfully disregarding it and still sought to hold officials responsible. Boasberg is an Obama appointee. The D.C. Circuit halted the contempt proceedings as it considered the administration's appeal. It did so without explanation by issuing an 'administrative stay,' which normally last for only a short period until the court can hear from the parties. But it had been in effect since April. In that time, a Justice Department whistleblower stepped forward with allegations that Emil Bove, then in the No. 3 role at DOJ, floated defying any potential court orders blocking use of the Alien Enemies Act, saying they may need to tell the courts 'f–k you.' The complaint from Erez Reuveni detailed other instances of DOJ officials seeming to defy Boasberg's order once it was in place, including attorney Drew Ensign telling Boasberg that he was unaware whether flights would be taking off in the next 24 to 48 hours. 'He knows they are being removed,' Reuveni said of Ensign, texting a coworker during the hearing, specifying that he knows 'about the flights.' The co-worker agreed, saying, 'He knows there are plans for AEA removals within the next 24 hours.' 'It's a question if Drew gets out without a sanction,' the co-worker added. Bove, who was recently confirmed by the Senate for a judgeship on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, largely dodged questions about whether he used the expletive. 'I've certainly said things encouraging litigators at the department to fight hard for valid positions that we have to take,' Bove responded when asked about whether he endorsed defying a court order. 'I certainly conveyed the importance of the upcoming operation,' he added about the Alien Enemies Act flights. The long delay in reaching a decision was noted by members of Congress, who argued that the delay in a ruling from the appeals court helped shield inquiries into the actions of Bove, who declined to answer numerous questions about the matter while it was still before the court. The matter was pending before the three judges for more than three months. 'It is hard to see why an administrative stay of this length, imposed 'to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion' seeking a stay pending appeal, would ever be justified. As you know, administrative stays ordinarily last for 'hours or days,' not 'weeks and certainly not months,'' Sens. Seldom Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a letter last week to their chief judge before going on to raise the spectre of political considerations. 'Given the obvious relevance of the outcome of this contempt investigation to Mr. Bove's fitness for judicial office, and the timing, the extraordinary length of the administrative stay raises alarming questions about whether the stay was imposed for the purpose of fending off honest fact-finding while this confirmation proceeding went forward.'
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Putin Will ‘Take Advantage' Of Trump Meeting: Fmr. Nat'l. Security Adviser John Bolton
Former national security adviser John Bolton raised his eyebrows at the prospect of a meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, casting doubt at the chance of a ceasefire. 'I think Putin's going to try to take advantage of this one-on-one summit with Trump to advance his agenda, to put out a Russian peace plan, or ceasefire plan, in order to have Trump take it to [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] and see if Zelensky rejects it,' Bolton said in an appearance on NewsNation's 'On Balance.' 'It's posturing to see who can look like they're more interested in peace,' he told host Leland Vittert. 'I still think the parties are a long way apart.' READ MORE:
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Justice Department subpoenas New York AG James as it investigates whether she violated Trump rights
In a separate statement, James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, said 'if prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth, we are ready and waiting with the facts and the law.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Investigating the fraud case Attorney General James won against President Trump and his businesses has to be the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign,' Lowell said. 'Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration.' Advertisement James has sued Trump and his administration dozens of times over his policies as president and over how he conducted his private business empire. Trump is appealing the multimillion dollar judgment she won against him in a lawsuit alleging that he defrauded banks and other lenders by giving them financial statements that inflated the value of his properties, including his golf clubs and penthouse in Trump Tower. Advertisement Trump says his financial statements actually understated his wealth and that any mistakes in the documents were harmless errors that played no role in banks' lending decisions. He and his lawyers have repeatedly accused James of engaging in 'lawfare' for political purposes — a claim she has denied. The subpoenas were issued as part of an investigation into whether James violated Trump's civil rights, another person familiar with the matter told the AP. The person could not discuss details of the investigation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The subpoenas mark an escalation of the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to scrutinize perceived adversaries of the president, including those like James who had investigated Trump before his election win last November. News of the subpoena comes as the Justice Department advances an investigation into the Trump-Russia probe that shadowed Trump for much of his first term as president and as the administration has engaged in a widespread purge from the workforce of law enforcement officials who had been involved in examining the activities of Trump and his supporters.
