|
|
|
|
|
|
by dontbenebby
1470 days ago
|
|
|
>In April the Supreme Court decided what seemed to be an abstruse case about federal benefits owed to Puerto Ricans. But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion began with a startling passage. He asserted that the United States has no business deciding anything for Puerto Rico because our ownership of that island — and by extension other US colonies — is unconstitutional. Great! They pay taxes, then look what happened during Hurricane Laura. This liminal space of "fuck you, pay me, but don't expect the same benefits as the 50 states" needs to end, one way or another[1]. (But I'll defer to people who live or own property there, I don't have any ties to the island beyond the general feeling all Americans should be equal. Something something taxation without representation - it's been a long day, I'm tired.) [1] https://www.npr.org/2018/05/06/608868104/federal-response-to... |
|
|
Thus, in American Samoa, there are restrictions on what non-Samoans can do with land. https://asbar.org/code-annotated/37-0204-restrictions-on-ali... .
This sort of discrimination is illegal in the rest of the US, and allowed because of the insular laws.
If the insular laws are found unconstitutional, then those restriction on alienation of land are illegal. Which means we'll be breaking (yet again) an agreement we made with indigenous people.
The article mentions the American nationals on American Samoa who want American citizenship. While (as I understand it), others in American Samoa want to preserve their traditional landownership practices, instead of letting wealth decide, and don't want this to change.