Video Tribute to Puerto Rico's Struggle

Music by Fiel a la Vega
Produced by Latino Insurgent.

Testimony: Ruben Berrios and Fernando Martin at Congressional Hearings

[Production Note: I was able to put this together using the audio file available on independencia.net, the official website of the Puerto Rican Independence Party]

Here is Rubén Berríos Martínez, President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party providing testinmony to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the Congressional Committee on Natural Resources on April 25, 2007.




Here is Fernando Martín, Executive President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party providing testinmony to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the Congressional Committee on Natural Resources on April 25, 2007.

Video: Jose Serrano's position of the status of Puerto Rico Hearings

Jose Serrano (D-NY) Opening Statement


See also Video of Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) Addressing the co-chair of the President's task force on Puerto Rico.

Video: Velazquez slams Kevin Marshall at Puerto Rico Congressional Hearing

Watch Nydia Velazquez(D-NY) tell it like it is and slam Mr. Marshall for his ineptness. Watch Marshall not know if there were any Puerto Ricans in the Task Force he Co-chaired. Marshall was obviously the sacrificial lamb for the administration.


Issues raised by Ms. Velazquez:

1. Lack of transparency
2. Political interference
3. Improper presentation of facts as included in the report.
4. Lack of research
5. Lack of public input
6. An overall trivialization of the issue.
   

US Congress hearing on status of Puerto Rico

American Troops entering Puerto Rico, 1898

[UPDATE 1:Click Here for VIDEO excerpt of Congresswoman Velazquez at the hearing ]

[UPDATE 2: Click Here for VIDEO excerpt of Congressman Serrano at the hearing]

[UPDATE 3: Click Here for Audio in vid excerpt of Ruben Berrios and Fernando Martin at the hearing]

The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, led by Del. Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), holds second legislative hearing to review legislation to address the future political status of Puerto Rico. The hearing focuses on two legislative proposals introduced in the 110th Congress:

· H.R. 900 (Serrano), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007: To provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico

· H.R. 1230 (Velázquez), the Puerto Rico Self Determination Act of 2007: To recognize the right of the People of Puerto Rico to call a Constitutional Convention through which the people would exercise their natural right to self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for congressional consideration of such decision.

NOTE: This hearing will serve as a continuation of the March 22, 2007 legislative hearing, and will provide further insight into H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230.

Subject:
House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 900 (Serrano) and H.R. 1230 (Velázquez)

When:
Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 3:00 p.m.

Where:
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building

Witnesses:
Panel 1

1. Honorable C. Kevin Marshall, Co-Chair of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Political Status;
   
2. Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice

Panel 2

1. Honorable Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Former Member of U.S. Congress; President, Popular Democratic Party
2. Rubén Berríos Martinez, President, Puerto Rican Independence Party
3. Honorable Pedro Rosselló, Former Governor and current Senator, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; President, New Progressive Party
   

Panel 3

1. Honorable Kenneth D. McClintock, President of the Puerto Rican Senate
2. Honorable José Aponte-Hernández, Speaker of the Puerto Rican House of Representatives
3. Honorable José L. Dalmau-Santiago, Senate Minority Leader, Popular Democratic Party
4. Honorable Héctor Ferrer-Ríos, House Minority Leader, Popular Democratic Party
   

Panel 4

1. Mr. Fernando Martín, Executive President, Puerto Rican Independence Party
2. Mr. Nestor Duprey, Spokesman, Puerto Ricans for Free Association and Social Justice (MAS)
3. Honorable Rafael Hernández Colón, Former Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
4. Honorable Carlos Romero Barceló, Former Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Former Member of U.S. Congress
5. Mr. Juan Manuel García Passalacqua, Lawyer, Writer, Political Analyst
   

Will the U.S. be forced to return 'Gitmo' to Cuba?

Detainees held at Guantanamo Bay

Report by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs:

“The grant of the foregoing Article [regarding the leasing of Guantanamo] shall include the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water, and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.” Article II of the Agreement Between the United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval stations; February 23, 1903.

Washington may be Losing its Right, let Alone its Political Ability to Maintain its Control over Guantanamo
The Bush administration has made several declarations expressing its willingness to help Cuba make a smooth transition to a Washington-approved “democracy,” achieved through a “soft landing.” This transition would take effect upon Fidel Castro’s death or complete incapacitation (taking note of the Cuba leader’s botched operation and subsequent reports of his fragile health). However, one complex issue that is only now being raised is the judicial basis for the U.S.-occupied naval base at Guantanamo.

The facility, which fell under a U.S. leasehold for more than a century has again returned to the headlines with the confession made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that he was the Al-Qaeda operative in command of the September 11 2001 operations. He admitted to the 9/11 terror attacks during a U.S. military hearing on Saturday, according to an edited transcript of the hearing released by the Pentagon on Wednesday. But even more ominous is the concern being voiced by at least one analyst close to the Bush White House that as result of several statements by relatively pro-U.S. Latin American leaders who stressed to President Bush their insistence that the U.S. should recognize the full sovereignty of Latin America nations, Washington could be faced with mounting demands throughout the hemisphere that Guantanamo – the symbol of 19th century gunboat diplomacy practiced by the Washington during the period– be returned to Cuba.

The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, located on the southeastern tip of Cuba, reached a peak of notoriety after it was discovered that, in the post-September 11 world, it was being used as a detention center and torture facility. Individuals suspected of being terrorists were detained at Guantanamo, and were subjected to various forms of harsh treatment. Many detainees were imprisoned for years and were denied the protection granted by habeas corpu, if their alleged crimes had been committed in the U.S. In the beginning of 2007, with a change of regime in Cuba seemingly at least possible in the next year or so, it would be useful to question the continued presence of the American military on the island, and whether or not it would be wiser for Washington to systematically consider the orderly reversion of Guantanamo Bay to the present – or successor – government in Havana. It is important to keep in mind that the U.S. has never questioned that residual sovereignty over the bay always has rested with Cuba. In fact, State Department legal experts are reviewing their international law books in the now almost certainty that a serious movement arises throughout the hemisphere questioning the U.S.’s legitimacy in occupying Guantanamo under the present arrangement and whether or not it has been exhausted by the passage of time and the dramatic change of circumstances. At the very least, now we have a sharply anomalous situation where Cuba is “paid” a trifling annual rent from its most lethal enemy to occupy the facility in the Cuban nation.

Attention also should be given to the controversial speech given at the recent 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy, by Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.” This was a barely concealed –if not a nominally indirect – message targeted at the Bush administration. A similar statement could be made about Washington’s self-glorification of its respect of freedom, sovereignty and international law, while it, ahistorically, holds on to a colonial relic like Guantanamo instead of returning it to Cuba. Around the globe, in the aftermath of World War II, there has been a steady devolution of former colonies and other dependencies to local control – the decolonization of Africa in the 1950s and 1960s; Britain’s return of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China in 1997; even the reversion of authority over the Panama Canal to Panama in 1977. Guantanamo is one of those few territories that continue to exist in the world from a time when imperial societies imposed their will on weaker states.

The Invalidity of the Cuban-American Treaty on Guantanamo Bay
The Cuban government could use the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (specifically articles 60 and 62) and the section dealing with the rebus sic stantibus clause (which is used in reference on Article 62 of the Vienna Convention) to make a cogent case for the devolution of its territory back to the Cuban nation. The fundamental change of circumstances, otherwise known as the clausula rebus sic stantibus, can be invoked to challenge the validity of treaties and lead to their termination. A 2003 lecture given by Dr. Alfred de Zayas, a professor of international law at the Geneva School for Diplomacy, explains that it could be argued that the lease of a military base in a foreign country is conditioned on the friendly relations between those states, and that such pacts are terminated when a new sovereign government takes office that is fundamentally opposed to the alliance. Similarly the physical presence by treaty right of a hostile nation on Cuban territory is contrary to modern conceptions of sovereignty and of the sovereign equality of States. Indeed, as Dr. de Zayas argues in his lecture, it is an anomaly that the country that has imposed an embargo on Cuba for more than 40 years insists that it has a right to remain on its sovereign territory.

Moreover, the Guantanamo lease is right now 104 years old, which makes it only logical that it should be due for reconsideration by both governments. A 1967 article entitled “International Law and Guantanamo” (by Gary L. Maris in The Journal of Politics, Vol.29, No. 2, pp.263) declared that the legal term “lease” was not a disguise for the actual cession of Guantanamo to the U.S., but a relinquishing of jurisdiction over the area with the legal possibility of eventual recovery if the parties so desired or if conditions of the lease were not met. This makes it all the more necessary for Washington and Havana to discuss the Bay’s future.

Dr. de Zayas also explained that according to article 60 of the Vienna Convention, a treaty is voidable by virtue of a material breach of its provisions. According to the terms of articles 1 and 2 of the 1903 Lease Agreement, the use of the Guantánamo Bay territory was limited to coaling and naval purposes only, “and for no other purpose.” Hence, the repeated use of the territory as an internment camp for Haitian and Cuban refugees or as a detention and interrogation centre and prisoner of war camp and torture center is incompatible with the purpose of the treaty. Such actions by the U.S. would arguably bring about a material breach of the agreement justifying unilateral termination by Cuba in accordance with article 60 of the Vienna Convention.

The U.S. has also broken the agreement through another, though perhaps a less forceful, issue: the presence of commercial enterprises at Guantánamo, including a McDonalds. This constitutes a breach of the terms of article III of the supplemental July 1903 agreement between Washington and Havana over Guantanamo, which stipulates that “the United States of America agrees that no person, partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to establish or maintain a commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas.”

Read the full Report

Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs

THERE IS NO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM

For the past few years Americans have risen up in arms against what they perceive to be a threat to their way of life, Latin American illegal immigration. However the truth is there is no illegal immigration problem. There are about 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants, yes, but they are not a problem. In order to prove this we will look specifically at Mexican illegal immigration and we'll do this for two reason; one they constitute the majority of illegal immigrants (57% of the total) and two they are the most noticeable group of immigrant (which makes them the most targeted).

So lets take the high number of 12 million and multiply that by .57 (57% who are Mexican), so there are 6.84 million Mexicans residing in the United States illegally.
These 6.84 million Mexicans sent $16 billion dollars back to Mexico last year to support their families, that means on average each sent back $2339.18 from their earnings here, after paying their personal expenses here.

That $16 billion helps to maintain many families in Mexico where 40% live under Mexico's own poverty line. Mexico is a country of 108 million people, which means that there are close to 43 million Mexican in dire poverty. These Mexicans work (only 3.5% unemployment in Mexico) and mostly work for American corporations who are allowed to pay their workers low wages even by Mexican standards. These workers buy most of their goods from American companies, from shoes and clothes to food.

Mexico imported 253.1 billion dollars in goods in 2006, 53.4% of that from the United States which means that Mexico spent $135.2 billion buying American products. The majority of the $16 billion sent back home to Mexico therefore comes back to the United States.

In other words, those 6.84 million Mexicans, not only help to maintain 43 million more from wanting to come to the U.S. but much of their expendable incomes after paying for their own living expenses, returns to the US by way of goods purchased in Mexico.

In terms of jobs Mexicans do take many labor intensive/low skilled positions from American citizens, mostly in agriculture and construction. But there is only 6.84 million of them, in a country like the U.S. of 300 million people that's 2.2% of the population. And that 2.2% is spread out mostly across the United States. In most states barely registering as a percentage. Even if we at this point used the entire illegal community of 12 million, that would only equal about 4% of the population.

Even if we took the often-repeated myth that illegals lower the wages of citizens, which is impossible for 4% to affect the other 96% so drastically as it is claimed, but even if it were true, then we should thank illegal immigrants for helping to maintain jobs in this country from moving away. After all it is the high labor costs that have sent America's manufacturing plants abroad. So if you believe these illegals are actually lowering your paycheck then be thankful for the fact that your labor cost is low enough to keep your job in this country.

So what about the statistics pushed by anti-immigrant groups, don't they have any validity? Those statistics are derived from a set of assumptions that are at the very least misleading.

1) The first assumption is that illegals don't pay taxes. That is false. Over 90% of illegal workers are paid by paycheck, using fake social security numbers. From which taxes are deducted, both income and social security taxes. They however cannot claim any refunds for those and will never be able to claim what they paid into social security even if they all became legal today, because they would be assigned new social security numbers. Essentially, a case could be made that the solvency of the social security system is protected by illegal immigrants, this is one reason why the Federal Government is so reluctant to stop illegal immigration.

2) The second assumption is that illegal immigration is a drain in social services. Most state budgets derive their funds by taxing property and retail sales. While most illegal are denied the ability to buy real property, they contribute through the rent paid to their landlords, who in turn pay property taxes. In addition, due to the inability of many to place their money in banks, use credit, or take loans, most illegal immigrants spend most of their money in consumer goods, often saving to buy a car or truck, but largely spend on personal consumption goods, through which they pay sales taxes, like everyone else does. And their use of social services is often lower than most citizens as they only use what they need like emergency medical help. More often than not however even in cases of emergencies, like pregnancies or accidents, most do not go to hospitals for fear of being turned into immigration authorities. And in most cases due to their illegal status they pay for services in cash and up front. Millions of small businesses rely on these illegal consumers, just as many others rely on their labor.

3) The third assumption is that illegals commit crimes (beyond entering the country) which endanger citizens. Actually illegals are far more conscious of not committing crimes for fear of deportation and are in fact less likely than citizens to commit a crime. They are however more likely to be the victims of crime and less likely to report it, again due to fear of deportation.

In all the statistics used to demean illegal immigrants are loaded with estimates that take numbers pertaining to the whole population of the United States, like the costs of a regular citizen to the government, add the cost of immigration enforcement and then fail to take into consideration the taxes paid by illegals and the fewer services that they consume.

In all, illegal immigrants are an asset not a liability to the United States as their return on investment always yeilds a positive balance. Unfortunately for the U.S., it looks like the only way this lesson will be learned is after all illegals are deported, and the true value comes to bear upon the American economy and society. Many who see illegals as a burden just don't get it, many just don't know, but they are all being led by those who know and just don't care for the consequences, and those are the ones who are pushing you to believe their dribble in exchange for your vote or for TV ratings.