Delegate Emanuel Provides Further Supporting Documentation
The following text and documents were received from 5th Constitutional Convention Delegate Gerard M. Emanuel:
Attached are two documents that provided U.S. Citizenship en masse to Native Virgin Islanders in 1927 and in 1940. They are being provided on this website because they served as the principal legal source and basis for the definitions of V.I. Natives that are found in the proposed V.I. Constitution.
1. The key phrases for the definition of Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders are the following which are found in both the 1927 and the 1940 U.S. Citizenship Acts:
“All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17,1917, resided in those islands,…and who are not citizens or subjects of any foreign country;”
2. The key phrase for the definition of Native Virgin Islanders is the following found in the 1940 Nationality Act:
“all persons born in those islands on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States at birth.”
We moved the year forward from 1927 to 1932 in our definition to include those persons who were away from the V.I. between 1927 and 1932, and to whom the U.S. eventually granted U.S. citizenship if they were born in the Virgin Islands during that five-year period alluded to before.
I included the Convention between the United States and Denmark to clearly show ARTICLE VI which provided citizenship privileges only to Danish Citizens and not to the V.I. Natives, and ARTICLE XII which indicates that any disputes should be taken to the Hague for resolution. Both articles are included below.
Article 6.
Danish citizens residing in said islands may remain therein or may remove therefrom at will, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or its proceeds; in case they remain in the Islands, they shall continue until otherwise provided, to enjoy all the private, municipal and religious rights and liberties secured to them by the laws now in force. If the present laws are altered, the said inhabitants shall not thereby be placed in a less favorable position in respect to the above-mentioned rights and liberties than they now enjoy. Those who remain in the islands may preserve their citizenship in Denmark by making before a court of record, within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this convention, a declaration of their decision to preserve such citizenship;… The civil rights and the political status of the inhabitants of the islands shall be determined by the Congress, subject to the stipulations contained in the present convention.
Danish citizens not residing in the islands but owning property therein at the time of the cession, shall retain their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property, being placed in this regard on the same basis as the Danish citizens residing in the islands and remaining therein or removing therefrom, to whom the first paragraph of this article relates.
Article 11.
In case of differences of opinion arising between the High Contracting Parties in regard to the interpretation or application of this convention, such differences, if they cannot be regulated through diplomatic negotiations, shall be submitted for arbitration to the permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague.
I also included a definition of indigenous peoples from the International Labor Organization (ILO), to indicate that Native Virgin Islanders do qualify as a group of Native People in international law.
Respectfully,
Gerard
The 1927 US Citizenship Act for VI Inhabitants & Natives
Convention between the United States and Denmark
International Labor Organization Definitions of Indigenous Peoples
Loading ...
Delegate Emanuel:
Thank you for educating the public about the proposed VI Constitution.
The information you’ve provided is valuable and factual(excluding your interpretations). However, I still believe that all citizens in the VI society should have the same political, social and economic rights & privileges. This principle is embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Do you agree or disagree?
I am defined as an Ancestral Native Virgin Islander, but I decline any special treatment and will not support a document that discriminates against any other groups. If you can not convince me that special treatment should be given to an elite class, how will you convince those who will be deprived? Further, you appear diplomatic and rational when defending your position, but another delegate is doing an outstanding job of alienating those who object to the divisive language.As Jimmy repeatedly asks, how effective is the strategy of denigrating all the opponents of the draft? See what happened with President Obama? White voters quietly supported him. Many will never reveal how they voted to their racists friends & relatives.
There is a vocal minority and each radio talk show has its regular callers.None of us has changed our positions & opinions, as far as I know. You have a difficult task winning the support of the Naturalized citizens and other people who are not defined as “Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders.”This mission is not accomplished by constantly bashing them. I know this is not your strategy. My suggestion, though,is to advise the other delegate to stop making personal attacks. He is not intimidating anyone;he is making himself appear out-of-control.Losing one’s cool shows immaturity.Do you listen to how emotional people are about the document.
As predicted by Jimmy the native issue is being used as the deciding factor in this drama.It’s war now. A battle is being fought and the draft has not even left the territory. How can any delegate feel good that the community is divided over the native issue?
Thank you for your response Ms. Petersen. Just like you have been maliciously criticized, I have been likewise attacked unfairly and way below the belt simply for being honest and standing up for my positions in the land of my birth principally but not always by persons who are not from here. I have been called a hater of Naturalized Citizens simply because I support native rights. I have stated that I support native rights for immigrants in their homeland. I do not mind living in a country where the natives get special privileges that I do not get. Nativity must mean something. YOU CAN BECOME A CITIZEN OF ANY LAND, BUT YOU CAN ONLY BE A TRUE NATURAL BORN NATIVE OF ONE PLACE!!!!!!! This must mean something special!!!!!!!
No one has put forward any cogent arguments to convince me why Natives must not be the ones to control their homeland. As we say in the V.I.
“PARSON CHRISTEN HE OWN CHILE FIRST!!! Should we abandon the cultural and philosophical wisdom of our ancestors?
Others have called me selfish, or have said that my statements are only my opinion in an attempt to lower the validity of what I have written. Still others in the newspapers, have indicated that I am seeking to create wealth for myself, etc., etc.
I had considered responding to the attacks directly, but I will not vilify anyone. That is not my nature. I will continue to take the high road and provide solid documentation for my positions, and argue squarely on the points and issues without becoming personal. Eventually, truth will prevail. It always does.
I am sure that you will agree that out of all of the persons who are in this debate on the constitution, all of them together have not even produced one-tenth of the valid documentation that I have. You have read mine. You may have provided a little along with Dr. E. Ryan. But that is the extent of it. You indicated that my documentation is fine, but you take issue with my interpretation of it. I would like to see your interpretation of the documentation and encourage you and others to read the enabling legislation and ACT NO. 6688 completely and carefully, to see the full scope of law that the delegates were to use. Also read the works of William Boyer, Dr. Paul Leary, Dr. Carlyle Corbin, Professor Stanley K. Laughlin, the insular cases, especially Downes v. Bidwell in 1901, the Ninth Circuit court case in another Unincorporated Territory, (i.e. the Northern Marianas), of Wabol v. Villacrusis, in 1992, my writings entitled the Native Papers, the universal declaration of Human Rights, the International Labor Organization’s definitions of indigenous, U.N. resolutions 1514, 35-118, 1541, the international covenant on civil and political rights, as well as the international covenant on social, economic and cultural rights, etc.
Verdel the section of the ACT that required us to adopt the “standard and non-controversial” parts of the Fourth Draft, was done by us. What most of you do not realize is that things have changed tremendously in the 29 years since the last constitution was drafted. We had to include many provisions to take these things into consideration.
Remember the delegates who wrote the U.S. Constitution were only originally authorized to amend the Articles of Confederation. When they sat to do this, they realized that this would not be in the best interest of the persons defined as Citizens of the U.S. at that time. Thus they drafted a completely new document. What is good for the goose, has to be good for the gander. We were told to follow their lead, and we most certainly did. They wrote a completely new document that incorporated native rights, and we did the same to be consistent with the U.S. Constitution as the enabling legislation mandates.
This is the kind of relevant knowledge that I possess. That is why I do not need to attack people personally. I am fully confident in my sources, reasoning, debating and critical thinking capability, my intelligence, and knowledge of the relevant facts, law, court cases and evidence. I am willing to debate anyone, any time and any place. They can bring their evidence and documents and I will bring mine. We will see whose evidence stands the light of scrutiny.
Others may attack me possibly because they have no solid evidence to support their contentions and are just parroting what others have said over the years, without studying the issues for themselves honestly.
When they produce legal or historical evidence for their points, I will analyze it and indicate whether I support it or not, and why. I will be honest. Even convention delegates who are lawyers could not produce any documents or compelling evidence refuting my points. They only had their opinions. That is one reason why 19 other delegates voted for the document. They were not brainwashed, coerced or intimidated as has been erroneously contended. These are smart people, who think victoriously, analytically and independently for themselves. They were elected by thousands of Virgin Islanders. They heard the arguments, saw the documentation and made up their minds based on a preponderance of the evidence, and on the validity and relevance of the arguments presented by both sides.
I support each person’s right to express an opinion. I will fight for this until I leave this life. Of course I disagree with the negative assertions about me. You know me better than most of the persons who are judging me solely on my writings. You know that my positions are not based on hate, vengeance or anything like that. They are based on the study of the history of the people of the V.I., the insular cases, international law, and my personal experiences. They are also based on the need for fairness and justice for the charter members of Virgin Islands society and their descendants, who have never been recognized as a distinct people, and respected as such. I think that some persons from the mainland U.S., are rightfully afraid that if V.I. natives are recognized legally as a culturally distinct people, they will be entitled to treatment and privileges that other U.S. Citizens cannot get, because they are not similarly situated.
Verdel, you must remember that natives do not control immigration and customs in their homeland. These two key functions are permitting the erosion of their demographic pattern and the Federal government is unwittingly destroying the right of natives to ever be able to fairly choose a constitution or a status on their own without the influence and vote of immigrants, the presence of whom the natives have never had a say in determining whether they could become U.S. Citizens here or not. This is a very important point. The quid pro quo for this lack of control over who lives here are provisions to protect the territorial integrity of the Virgin Islands, its natives and their culture from being eroded by the sheer numbers of immigrants in such small islands. Article 73 of The United Nations Charter, (which the U.S. Senate approved on July 28, 1945 is a valid treaty to which the U.S. must adhere as part of the supreme law of the U.S., pursuant to ARTICLE VI of the U.S. Constitution), very clearly states the following: You can interpret it how you wish, but that does not change the very clear language and obligations that the U.S. as a member of the U.N. and a signatory to the Charter, has toward the V.I.
Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories,
a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
I hope you read the part of the Charter itself, (not any U.N. Resolution) which says that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount. When the U.N. uses the word “inhabitants”, it does not mean the immigrants from the land of the colonizer, or other immigrants. It clearly means the native or colonized peoples – not the people who freely chose to migrate to a colony. If you think that this is only my interpretation, you are free to call the U.N. in New York, or contact Dr. Carlyle Corbin at ccorbinmon@att.net.
The U.N. documents require the U.S. to prioritize the interests of the V.I Natives, (who are the people of the V.I.), before those of any other citizens in the V.I.
Remember to be careful Verdel when you are supporting those who call for equal rights and fairness, because the status quo is not a fair situation, when those who have money are facilitated in their attempts to get more money, and receive plenty of tax breaks and other privileges that the rest of us do not get. They of course like things the way they are because their ability to exploit our innocence, ignorance of economics and finance, and lack of consciousness of the history of how persons of European descent move into tropical countries, convince the natives that they have their best interest at heart, yet years later, those same immigrants are in possession of the principal resources of the country including the government, like Hawaii, and the natives work for them in jobs where they will never truly benefit from the wealth they now generate for the former immigrants. When you read the true history of Hawaii, you will see that the Hawaiian Natives did not want to become a state, and they are still fighting to change their status.
Here in the V.I., the natives will soon have to move from their properties and try to sell them because they cannot afford to pay the taxes or meet the gentrification measures that will inevitably be put in place to prevent the natives from living next to the wealthy immigrants.
The real estate industry is one such industry, where outsiders make millions off of selling one of our most precious resources -LAND, over and over again. THIS IS SINFUL!!!! As far as I am concerned, no one except natives should own land in a colony that is undergoing processes toward greater self-determination, because by the time the natives become fully aware of what is occurring, it will be too late. The resources will all be fully controlled by non-natives, who clearly for the most part do not have the best interest of natives at heart. In a colony like the V.I. natives never owned or controlled the means of production and the principal resources. THEY MUST BE GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE TO CONTROL THEIR RESOURCES FOR THEIR BEST INTEREST FIRST.
As such, a constitution in a colony is a decolonization instrument and must begin the process of changing this untenable situation.
Verdel, what you and others who seem to be fighting a noble cause (which I respect), to achieve equal treatment for all must realize, is that phrases such as fairness for all, equal protection, etc., are what have historically been used to facilitate exploitation of native peoples by others. The immigrants from the north will not stop until they get every right and privilege that natives have, but we will not reciprocally get every right and privilege that they have – the most important being U.S. citizenship that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Yes Verdel. There is a clear discriminatory citizenship situation between natives of the V.I. U.S. citizens either born in a state, or naturalized anywhere in the U.S. The former can have their citizenship rights changed any day by Congress, while the latter two categories cannot since their U.S. Citizenship is constitutionally guaranteed by the first sentence of the very same 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that is commonly used to argue against Native Rights. Isn’t this ironic? My opponents can easily see when natives are getting something that non-natives are not, and you and they rail against this, but you and they seem to be blind to the discriminatory treatment of natives in the same amendment. Your silence here is deafening. It is like the story of the jackspaniard who promised to fly another animal across a river. The jackspaniard promised many times not to sting the animal; however half way across the river, the jackspaniard began to sting the animal unmercifully. Just before dying, the animal asked why? The jackspaniard smiled and calmly stated, “I CANNOT CHANGE MY NATURE.” This story is very instructive, and we must be careful about whose interests we are really supporting here in these small islands. Some people talk a good talk. Time is longer than twine, and we have history to show us what has happened in places like the V.I. before. Do you want what has happened to St. John to happen to St. Croix? do you want what has happened to Hawaii, or Hong Kong, or Tibet? I welcome you to join me to fight for what is truly right in the V.I. Fairness must include justice for the natives.
Respectfully,
Gerard M. Emanuel
Delegate Emanuel:
I am truly impressed with your vast knowledge of Virgin Islands History. I do not think that I could ever be bored of your historical prospectives of the VI. Your passion for the preservation of VI Culture & heritage is noble.I support the effort to develop a sense of pride being a Virgin Islander.
I have a choice to live or visit anyplace in the world, but I hardly ever feel like traveling out of St. Croix. My favorite off-island trip is taking a boat to Hotel on the Cay or Buck Island for the day. An occasionally trip to the other sister islands ( not counting VI Carnival)is not as exciting as dancing quadrille to the music of Ten Sleepless Knights at Time Square or eating a bowl of kalalloo & fungi at the Crucian Food Fair. I am proud of my Crucian heritage. Both of my parents were born on St.Croix prior to 1932.I respect your views regarding the proposed VI Constitution;however, I still have not changed mine.
I have reviewed the documents that you’ve provided and would like to give my interpretations and analysis.It is clear that all persons born in the VI after January 27, 1917 were declared citizens of the United States and subsequent to that date there was no country, islands, nation,colony,territory or land called the Danish West Indies. The land that we are presently occupying is called the Virgin Islands of the United States or USVI. All persons presently residing in the USVI are either naturalized U.S. citizens or natural-born U.S. citizens. These conclusions that I am making are based on my interpretation of the documents. We are both aware of the facts pertinent to the discussion.
Our opinions are different.It is a fact that a treaty is a formal agreement between two or more nations. You are using the United Nation Charters as a basis for how a VI constitution should be written. Unfortunately, you are ignoring the fact that the USVI is not an independent nation. Our civil rights and political status are determined by Congress. You call the USVI a colony, but I call it an unincorporated territory of the US. Who is correct? It does not matter. Everyone has an opinion, but no person is entitled to his own facts. Since the USVI lacks the authority to draft its own constitution without the approval of Congress, we are faced with a dilemma. Was the document crafted according to the guidelines set by Congress? You believe so, but I do not think so. The United Nation Charters, in my opinion is not a treaty applicable to drafting of a VI Constitution; the U.S. Constitution is not a treaty, but it is more applicable to the drafting of our constitution. Resolution 1541 is relevant to political status or self-determination of territories/colonies that are not sovereign nations. You have created a lot of confusion by dealing with two separate issues, political status and drafting a constitution.
I do not object to having a status referendum, since I am optimistic that most VI residents would not chose independence. Regardless of what status is chosen, i would never relinquish my U.S. citizenship. If you and the other nationalists were to overthrow the government and declare the VI an independent nation, I would leave and establish residency in the States.
The only task you were obligated to conduct was drafting a constitution. Your mission is now completed and we await the outcome of the process. In my opinion, you have won the battle, but time will tell if you have won the war. The goal should have been to get the electorate of the VI to ratify the document. Natives will not be the only voters going to the polls. All eligible U.S. citizens will get a chance to participate in this process. You can not change this fact. You have a difficult time winning the support of the Gov. and electorate who are not natives. The draft is in jeopardy. What are the chances that this document will be approved by the majority of voters? If only one item is offensive, a voter is likely to reject the entire document.
If you were offered a bowl of kalalloo and it contained one item that you disliked or were allergic to, would you eat the entire bowl without removing the offensive item?
Greetings,
Ms. Petersen and Mr. Emanuel I have enjoyed reading your inputs, and I must admit that I learned something new each time, form both of you, and I say thank you! Most of all, however, I thank you both for teaching our young people that one can agree to disagree peacefully. Your debates have always been clean and respectful to each other, which makes me welcome them even more.
Ms. Petersen, I am so impress with your stand for fairness that I have attempted to get in touch with you by phone a number of times. However unfortunately, I have not been successful. Understanding ones need to be careful,as well as ones need for privacy, I have decided to give you my telephone number instead and pray that you will be inspired to use it, (775-9928).
Nevertheless, I must thank you for your fight on behalf of non native citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands that would be disenfranchised and made to be second class citizens by this Draft of the Constitution. As a Naturalized Citizen, who came to the Virgin Islands at the tender age of 5, and have lived here for 45 years, whereby, it’s the only home I have. I thank you for caring, moreover, since you truly had nothing to loose by this, for you… … stood to benefit by this process. Yet you stood boldly on principle and defended the cause of many. Like Martin Luther King Jr. you showed that “injustice any where is a threat to justice every where”.
Although some among us have justify this Draft of the Constitution as a form of establishing “Native Pride” rather than being a method of discrimination. I see it as a strong dividing tool.
I am of the opinion that “Native Pride” is good… … and should be something that all Native’s of their prospective home land… … should have. But I also believe that “Native Pride” should unite people and not divide them. Ones pride should be strong enough that one can welcome in outsiders and still know who they are. No one should be able to take from anyone their pride in themselves and their people. Native Pride should be a state of mind that no one can challenge or remove. I do not think that this comes from any document of self determination. It is ones LOVE of SELF and a PEOPLE that define our PRIDE.
Now as we awaite the courts decision I pray that as a people we can come together to move on as one.
Blessings!
Sadler
Thank you for your kind words.
I consider myself a human-rights activist. My friends think I am insane to be so passionate. They fear that the extremists will attempt to silence me. I have no fear;however, I do not wish to be a martyr. My life is filled with love. Love is my driving force. Absence of it makes life meaningless.
People who love each other, do not harm each other. Let hate be the enemy. Injustice, envy, selfishness and greed are forms of hate.
I am dedicated to spreading love which is as infectious as hate.Call me at 340-513-8979.
Amen!
Thank You!
Blessing!
Sadler
Shirley M. Sadler-AKA Sweetness:
What in the WORLD are you trying to say? Are you the one that the Tomians rejected? THANK GOD.