

American history is an overplayed monologue; we have an injustice in our society, and then we correct the injustice. Even our origins were built on this cycle of oppression and liberation. As Americans we saw that it was unfair to be governed and ruled by a nation four thousand miles away, so we corrected the injustice. This, as well as all of the other injustices we've corrected over the years, have referred back to one simple idea- equality. We thought we were equal to the citizens of Great Britain so we fought for independence. The same cycle repeated itself for African Americans, women, and the LGBT community; they were denied basic democratic rights and had to fight to be seen as equals. 

Yet with all of these triumphs over injustices we've had as a society, we still face adversity when it comes to equality. What if I told you there were over four million U.S. citizens who still, to this day, do not have equal rights as the rest of us? I'm guessing that would surprise you. Yet that is exactly the situation we are in right now. I am talking about the fact that the four million citizens residing in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the other 13 territories of the United States are not currently allowed to vote in any federal election. Now before you go off about 'these aren't true U.S. citizens', let me assure you that they are. They were all granted statutory citizenship by congress when they were signed in as territories which should have given them full citizenship rights. There are many arguments and technicalities that show specifically what the legislation is that restricts these citizens, but the fact of the matter is that the citizens of the territories of the United States should have full federal voting rights because of their military contributions to our country. In addition to their contributions, the fact that they lack simple voting rights challenges our classification as a democracy while also challenging everything that the United States stands for. 

To start off with, I think that it's impossible to talk about an issue of the law without first talking about its origin. For the sake of this argumentative essay, I am going to focus on Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands to symbolize all of the 16 U.S. territories simply because these are the largest and most well-known areas. These three territories were acquired in different ways and at different times, but they were all granted statutory citizenship in the year 1917 (U.S. Territorial Acquisitions). If you're not familiar with what this means, statutory citizenship is basically a fancy way of saying you're a citizen, but not really. Statutory citizenship requires a law, or multiple laws, to identify it. The law that applies to these territories as to why they do not have the right to vote actually came from the 1901 Insular Cases in which the Supreme Court decided that these 'possessions' were territories "belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States," as they were "inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought" (CounterPunch). If this legislation seems just the slightest bit unfair to you, that's because it is. Saying that these citizens differ in their 'modes of thought' is a fancy way of saying that they're stupid because they're not white. 

Even before the legislation was passed, these citizens were already set up for failure. The judge who was appointed to make this decision was a man named Henry Billings Brown. You may be thinking that name might sound slightly familiar to you, and it should. Henry Billings Brown was the same judge who made the lead decision in the Plessy vs. Ferguson 'Separate but Equal' case that set the civil rights movement back in their fight for equality (Oliver). This decision was made by a proven white supremacist, yet long after the Plessy vs. Ferguson case was overturned, the U.S. territory's decision still stands firm in the eyes of the law. We are relying on a racist's point of view to uphold a decision that was always meant to be temporary. Every other ruling that classified another person as a lesser individual has been overturned one way or another over the past century, yet with these citizens we continue to judge and profile them without giving them the slightest chance to prove us wrong. 

To continue, I do not believe that these territories should have to prove their worth and contribution to be entitled to basic American rights, but even if they did, they could make a strong case. One of the reasons these territories were acquired by the United States is because of what they can provide militarily. These territories were granted statutory citizenship in 1917 which, as we know, is the year that the United States entered World War I. Only a month before we officially went to war was when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth act that granted them this citizenship. Primarily this decision was made to try and recruit the three and a half million citizens living in Puerto Rico to help with the war effort because for one to join a country's army they need to be a citizen. Initially, not many Puerto Ricans decided to help in the war effort because, honestly, why fight for a country that's only reason for granting you 'half-citizenship' was so that you can fight and die for them? Yet, of course, a couple months later Wilson issued a compulsory military service act and 20,000 Puerto Rican citizens were sent to fight in World War I (Puerto Ricans Become U.S. Citizens). This is just another example of these citizens proving their contribution to our nation through their military involvement- one of the most honorable displays of citizenship there is.

Puerto Ricans were taken advantage of and looked at as only soldiers during that time, but they weren't, and aren't, the only territory being exploited. Guam may not have as many citizens to contribute as Puerto Rico, but the island of Guam is located in an extremely advantageous position militarily. In fact, the United States armed forces takes advantage of their position so much that 27% of their entire island is occupied by Navy and Air Force bases (Oliver). This in and of its own is a shocking number, but that's not even all that Guam contributes. According to Guam's office of Veteran Affairs, at least one in every eight Guamanian adults is a veteran of the U.S. armed forces; this is among the highest percentage of any U.S. state or territory. Obviously, the reason the United States restricts these voting rights cannot be that these citizens can't contribute to our society because they've proven time and time again that they can, and they are, more than willing to. To quote John Oliver, "Guam gives a quarter of their land and as much as an eighth of their people to the U.S. military and yet they have no say in who their commander in chief is" (Oliver). Furthermore, beyond their lack of voting rights, the veterans of this territory are shamefully forgotten. In 2012, Guam ranked dead last out of any U.S. state or territory in per capita spending on medical care by the U.S. department of veteran affairs. If a veteran of Guam wanted to go to a PTSD clinic one would have to travel almost 4,000 miles to Hawaii (Oliver). The very fact that these citizens continue to help our government and military at all, who denounces them in almost every sense, is a huge testament to how dedicated they really are to being a part of our great country. That being said, don't take it from me. The citizens of this territory, as well as the other territories, are as outraged as you should be. The United States government should be ashamed of the disenfranchisement they're putting these people through, and these people are doing everything they can to make them aware. Michael Lujan Bevacqua, a professor at the University of Guam, puts it simply when he says, "In a casual way, Guam is considered "domestic" one moment, and "foreign" the next" and that "Guam is like a distant outpost, not really part of the foreign or the domestic" (Bevacqua 59), which is simplistically very accurate. It's as if the United States government is deciding on a case-by-case basis when these territories are important and when they are not.

Furthermore, just because these territories can't vote doesn't mean that they don't. For instance, Guam holds a straw poll every single presidential election and their voter turnout is roughly 67% as compared to the rest of America which turns out to vote 61.8% of the time (Oliver). Citizens are turning out to vote more in an election that means absolutely nothing to the rest of America than the citizens whose votes actually do count. This is especially important because turning out to vote is one of core principles of our democracy. We try to emulate the perfect democracy, and a large role in a perfect democracy comes from citizen participation. Our citizens are the ones who get to decide the direction of our country and that all comes down to showing up to the polls. 

When I initially learned about the status of these citizens and the legislation that binds them, admittedly I was confused. Don't they have rights as citizens? Aren't there amendments to our constitution that directly contradict the ignorance of these rights? The answer is no. The amendments I was referring to are the 14th amendment, which denied states the right to deny basic rights to any citizen, and the 19th amendment, which gave women equal voting rights (U.S. Constitutional Amendments). Yet when it comes to these constitutional amendments, the key word is 'constitutional'. Since the United States constitution is classified as a document that only applies to the states of the United States, territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands aren't cast under that net and therefore do not enjoy the same promises written in the Constitution (Voting Rights in US Territories and Commonwealths). This simple exclusion goes back to the root of the problem- whether full constitutional rights should be given to all citizens of our country or only the citizens that live in our geographically sound fifty states. 

From the arguments I've already made about unfair legislation, military contribution, and voter turnout it's probably pretty obvious what side I support in this fight, but that does not make me oblivious to the argument at hand. For all of the hardcore nationalists out there, yes, it is true that growing up in our fifty states and growing up in a territory such as Puerto Rico is not the same thing. There's just a whole new culture living over here as opposed to these far away islands and lands. Also, I understand that these territories willingly came to us and agreed to become part of the United States knowing the limitations they would have as citizens at the time. That being said, when you look back at the early 1900's would the first words that come to your head to describe that time period be 'equal' or 'fair'? Most likely they would not be; most would say that time period was known for its inequality because of strong beliefs in white supremacy. There are social norms of each period in American history and they are always changing for the most part. This was just a product of the times back in the day, but our times have changed and we can't continue to enforce laws born from racism. It would be one thing if we acquired these territories, didn't give them our full rights, but still let them establish their own set of rules and only act as an advisor to their establishment, but these people are being fully taken advantage of. The United States of America is doing the very thing that goes against everything a democracy stands for; they are forcing laws on citizens without providing them rights.

This argument brings me to my next point- the United States as a democracy. As Americans we always love to think that we are the status quo to the rest of the world. Our 'Better than you and we know it' attitude sometimes clouds our judgement of what the actual realities might be. Specifically, we love to think we're the model for democracy. We think of America as the hub of equality in the world; we didn't just adopt democracy, we made it. Unfortunately, that's not really the case. Democracy has been formed and reformed a hundred times over, but there is a well-known, established idea of what democracy is in the world of political science. One man who is overwhelmingly more familiar with the ideas of democracy than almost anyone else to study the topic is Robert A. Dahl. Dahl has been pegged "the dean of American political scientists" and "the premiere democratic theorist of our time" (Robert Dahl, 1915-2014).  Dahl has studied and restudied everything there is to know about democracy, and specifically, American democracy. Time and time again the same problem arises. America does tend to follow almost all principles of democracy except for a few; one of which is the overarching idea of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is the simple rule of democracy that people should rule themselves. In America democracy this is one of our most defining principles. We get to vote for whoever we think best represents our thoughts and beliefs. Sarah Song, a political science professor at Cal Berkley says that, "the boundaries of the demos must be expanded beyond the boundaries of citizenship and territory to include all people who are either affected by or subject to the coercion of a state's policies" (Song 610). Consider first the all affected interests principle by which popular sovereignty is based on. The all affected interests principle states that all persons whose interests are affected by a state's laws or policies should have a say in the making of them (Song 609). If you are affected by a decision, you get to help make that decision. Sounds logical, right? Yet we're still stuck with the same problem when it comes to these citizens. By these principles and everything else we come to associate with democracy, I believe it is fair to say that the United States of America cannot be considered a legitimate democracy because of our inability to represent every citizen being subjected to our set of laws without giving them any say whatsoever in what those laws are or who enforces them. 

Through my research into the relationship between U.S. territories and the U.S. government I find it evident that U.S. territories are being exploited. Beyond that, our restrictions of their rights lead us to admit that we cannot be considered a democracy if these citizens are to be restricted while still being subject to our federal laws. These are the reasons that I find it 100% evident that we should allow these citizens the right to vote for their commander-in-chief. Continuing down this path and following this set of rules established over a century ago is one of the most selfish things we can do as a society. In a country where it seems like privatized corporations run everything from sports to politics, we do not need to be privatizing democratic rights. We will not see rioting in the streets or protests in government buildings for the sole reason that the poor people being negatively affected by this are hundreds of miles away in their respective lands. Not only do they not have a say, but they also don't have a platform to voice their concerns. As participating citizens in our country's government it is our job to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves. That is why I call out to each of you to stand up against this injustice and fight for equal rights for all citizens, because without any change we're no better than the authoritative governments we so often bash for the mistreatment of their citizens. 

