Congress Hears Both Sides Of Constitutional Debate
Delegates Make Strong Case For Native Rights, Self Determination; Opponents Say "Divisive" Provisions Violate Civil Rights And Assure Defeat
It was a powerful endorsement of the draft Virgin Islands Constitution that the Congress heard on Wednesday from those who spoke in support from the Fifth Constitutional Convention.
If you listened – and we did – twice – and whatever your opinion – you heard a sound, historically supported argument for the key point of contention in this draft – the question of native rights.
But those who oppose the draft are equally adamant that if the provisions addressing native rights are not amended, the document will not be ratified by the electorate of the Virgin Islands. And if it doesn’t happen now, will it be too late for it to ever happen?
Does the Congress bear the responsibility of amending the document or should it be returned to voters “as is” and let the electorate decide? And can any of these issues be suitably resolved before the question of status is addressed?
The panel in support was passionate, eloquent and assured and while there were numerous comments that brought their point home, perhaps the words of Delegate Lois Hassel Habtes summarized best the supporting view of the draft.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The battle lines were clearly drawn – those who believe that the provisions of the Constitution as written are divisive and violate the concepts of equal protection and civil rights; and those who believe that without the recognition of the historical and cultural platform of native rights in governance that self-determination is an unrealized dream.
And they were battle lines – from Governor John deJongh’s emphatic denunciation of the document:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
to Delegate Gerard Emmanuel’s cogent, eloquent and highly persuasive explanation of native rights recognition as the foundation for self-determination.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The members of the delegation appeared before the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, chaired by Madeline Bordallo, Guam. Other committee members present were VI US Delegate to Congress Donna Christensen, Don Young, Alaska, and Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico.
Virgin Islanders representing the Constitutional Convention in support of the draft were Convention President Gerard “Luz” James; Professor Lois Hassell Habtes, Adelbert M. Bryan and Gerard Emanuel; Douglas Brady and Eugene M. Petersen, convention delegates who spoke in opposition to the document. Sen. Usie Richards was also present in his capacity as Senate Minority Leader, and spoke to the previous Congressional actions that have addressed the issues of sovereignty and native rights provisions in other US possessions.
The hearing was one more step in the process of establishing a constitution for the Territory. The Congress is in the midst of a 60-day window during which it can modify, reject or return the document as-is to the Territory. Unless rejected, the returned document would then be subject to a vote to determine whether it would become the governing document of the land, replacing the Revised Organic Act of 1954.
And while the subject in the spotlight was the Constitution, Diageo deal made a cameo appearance and it was made clear to all present, in comments by Pierluisi and Young, that the “rum wars” are only in a temporary cease fire – that the battle will resume and that debate over the rum “cover over” revenues at the heart of that deal has not ended.
Those who oppose the native rights provisions believe their inclusion spells the demise of the document and delegates Petersen and Brady made that opposition the focus of their presentations.
Petersen said it would do “irreparable harm” to the “delicate social fabric” of the Virgin Islands, and Brady said that returning the document unchanged would sound the “death knell” for the constitutional initiative. Petersen said:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Petersen also warned that if the document is sent back in a form that is not ratified that time will work against another attempt to craft and adopt a Constitution.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Highlights of the testimony included Sen. Richards’ statement laying the historical foundation for Congress’ legislative participation in establishing other native rights initiatives; Bryan’s assertion that the Constitution is critical to the Territory’s “growth and development;” Emmanuel’s explanation of the rationale behind the native’s delayed participation in self-determination and Habtes insistence that action must be taken now to preserve the historic and cultural framework of the Territory.
The full text of James statement can be read at the link below. Selected clips from the testimony can be found by following the “Constitutional Congressional Hearing” link.
We don’t know what the Congress will decide. But we leave with a comment from Habtes that laid out her belief on why it is so critical to move forward with the document.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Fifth VI Constitution Convention: Attempt vs. Content
In defense of my feelings of disenfranchisement and to respond to the feedback I have received, I need to question and challenge those issues that I feel are at fault.
* Attempt
I agree and support those, whose family ties reach back into the history of the Virgin Islands, and that their best interest should be protected from Migrants, like myself. I can even support some cases of nepotism, when the person in question is qualified.
* Content
But the truth of the matter, until this territory establishes their on sovereignty, this is just an exercise in futility.
* Attempt
I have been told that I am narrow-minded, selfish and foolish because the fact that my children being born here makes them Native Virgin Islanders and I am destroying their opportunities.
* Content
This also means everyone else who was not born here or who has never lived here, but who has a parent that was born here are also considered to be Native Islanders.
Native means living in the area where one was born whether an animal, mineral, or plant. * person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
* Attempt
To me it is a stretch of the imagination for anyone to even consider anyone other than the Taino, Carib, and Arawak people to be Ancestral, for even they were Migrants. But, I can accept that the enslaved people, both black and white, who were brought here against their will are the true Ancestral Natives.
Ancestral is a parent or the parent of an ancestor (i.e., grandparent, a great-grandparent, a great-great-grandparent, and so forth).
* two individuals have a genetic relationship if one is the ancestor of the other, or if they share a common ancestor.
* Content
This ancestral label, without specifically tying it to the exploitation of the enslaved people of the Virgin Islands, opens the door for Danes and other descendants of the slave, plantation and company owners to come and claim ancestral rights, long after Transfer Day 1917. In addition to include and identify Domicile residents/laborers as ancestral is a serious misuse and interpretation of the word Ancestral.
* Attempt
Those exploited residents and workers of the Virgin Islands to be considered as Domicile Ancestral/Native, before 1932 and their descendants residing outside of the territory between Jan, 17, 1917 and June 28, 1932, would be include as privileged Virgin Islanders.
* Content
Since the length of Domicile is not clarified, our current law allows any US citizen residing in the territory for 60 days to be eligible to vote in our local elections; this would be allowing those short term residents who are identified in this constitutional draft to be considered to be privileged Virgin Islanders.
* Attempt
Since most Caribbean people and some Danes, most of them migrant workers were not considered to be citizens of any country, they were considered Subjects of the ruling nation, up until those islands claimed their independence; so for a domicile resident to be considered having citizenship or allegiance to a foreign country will be debatable.
* Content
What is the significance for the dates chosen?
Why not have had the cut-off date in 1965, at the time of the first constitutional convention and when the economy began changing from agriculture to tourism, petroleum and aluminum processing, or in 1970 with the first public election of our Governor, better yet in 1989 after Hurricane Hugo when the islands were laid waste. Rebuilt by Domicile Residents who remained, and by some of the many migrant workers, who stayed, started and raised their families here in the Virgin Islands.
* Attempt/Content
By picking such an arbitrary date to separate Ancestral from Native was to allow some of Them to just slip under the closing date, is an issue to me.
The real property tax exemption, does this or would this allow Ancestral natives to accumulate tax free property under this regulation?
The Ancestral lands are they protected from sale and acquisition by heirs, spouses and non born Virgin Islanders.
Domicile Law
A person may have many places of residence, but may only have one domicile. At birth a person acquires the domicile of their parents, and can change it by forsaking their former domicile and intending to reside indefinitely at a new place in which they are physically present.
My Domicile analogy :
Consider each country region as a house, the USA, the Caribbean, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Just like in any situation when you are a guest or visiting someone else’s home you are expected to live by and respect the rules of their House.
Now if you have been living for a long period of time contributing and caring for the upkeep of the House, by law it is no longer just Your House it is Our House. Technically you still may hold the title deed of ownership, but you are also obligated for the investment and the sweat equity put into the improvements and the upkeep of the House.
This is no different from what the constitutional delegates are attempting to achieve in the section defining who is a Virgin Islander.
I have many more questions, but my major concern is without defining a Domicile Resident, which I am by legal definition, how will this categorization be used in the future to disenfranchise non born Virgin Islanders?
The Line for Privilege and Opportunity
The draft as a document is generic in content.
My major issue with this 5th Constitutional Draft is it’s wording and classification for who is considered to be a Virgin Islander.
I feel that an analogy would better create the image, that this incomplete, disenfranchising classification represents to me.
My analogy for a more acceptable order of placement on the Line of Privileges and Opportunities: taxes, land, housing, health, education, voting, grants, loans, etc.
First in Line
Ancestral:
These are the proven direct descendants of the of the Taino, Carib and Arawak people and the direct and proven descendants of the unjustly enslaved people, before 1848.
Second in Line
Native / Domicile:
These are the direct and proven descendants of the Danish subjects born and remained domicile to the Virgin Islands, before Transfer Day, 1917.
Third in Line
Domicile / Native:
These are the direct and proven descendants of the migrant labors who were not born here but remained domicile to the Virgin Islands, from 1848 up to Transfer Day 1917.
Note: Domicile has to be defined and the length of residency has to be established.
Assuming whatever length of time is decided on will be uniform to standards of the US and other free nations; this too would probably mean that the adopted clarifications would be retroactively applied to everyones Virgin Islands status.
Forth in Line
Native / Domicile:
These are the direct and proven descendants of the migrant labors who were born here and remained domicile to the Virgin Islands, from 1917 to 1932 ( to make a compromise on this date)
Note: During this period, they were all US citizens and were subject to and governed by all the laws and protected under the constitution.
Fifth in Line
Domicile / Native:
These are the direct and proven descendants of the migrant labors who were not born here and remained domicile to the Virgin Islands, from 1917 to 1932 ( to make a compromise on this date)
Sixth in Line
Native / Domicile:
These are native born, to parents who were domicile but not native, and they themselves were domicile to the Virgin Islands, from 1932 to ?
(These groups are looking a Skip)
Eight in Line
Native / Non Domicile:
These are native born to parents who were domicile, and they themselves remained domicile to the Virgin Islands, from 1932 to ?
Ninth in Line
Native / Non Domicile:
These are native born to parents who were not domicile, and they themselves were not domicile to the Virgin Islands, from 1932 to ?
Tenth in Line
Native / Non Domicile:
These are the direct and proven descendants of the migrant labors who were born here but they themselves never lived here in the Virgin Islands, from 1932 to ?
Seventh in Line
Domicile Resident:
These are residents and their direct and proven descendants of the migrant labors who were not born here but remained domicile to the Virgin Islands, from 1932 – ?
Eleventh in Line
Domicile Resident:
These are residents and their direct and proven descendants of the migrant labors who were not born here but remained domicile to the Virgin Islands, from ? to 2010
Twelfth in Line
Resident:
Those who own property, migrant workers and their children who live here more than ? days, during any given year.
Thirteenth in Line
Guest Residents:
Those US citizens and their children who work, visit and vacation here on a regular bases.
If this section were to be signed into law, at this point privileges and opportunity has only been specific to taxes on property, what about future amendments to this constitution.
Without defining a Domicile/Resident, which I am by legal definition, how will this categorization be used in the future to disenfranchise non born Virgin Islanders?
Where do I fit in on this Line?
Can you see The Concern?
Ivan Butcher II
Domicile Resident
St.Croix US Virgin Islands
About free tuition for higher education:
This section of the draft constitution notes generally that graduates from a secondary high school who have met specified residency requirements may be subject to free tuition for higher education upon meeting certain underpinning and enumerated stipulations.
On its face, the provision is well-intentioned since it seeks not only to ensure that students in the Virgin Islands may have access to free higher education tuition, but that there is a reciprocal benefit when those students return to work for the government.
In light of the stated provision in the draft constitution, there are various factors which must be considered. Among them are:
How would the potential legal implications of disaffirmance and age of majority impact this provision?
What if upon graduation there aren’t any available vacancies in the predefined areas of need?