« Assorted links | Main | Construction in Haiti »
Why is Haiti so poor?
I'm not interested in talking about Greg Clark or making comparisons to the West; if need be compare it to other black Caribbean nations, such as Jamaica or Barbados. It's much worse and in terms of social indicators it is also worse than many places in Africa. Why? Here a few hypotheses (NB: I don't endorse all of them):
1. Haiti cut its colonial ties too early, rebelling against the French in the early 19th century and achieving complete independence. Guadaloupe and Martinique are still riding the gravy train and French aid is a huge chunk of their gdps.
2. Haiti was a French colony in the first place and French colonies do less well.
3. Sugar cane gave Haiti some early characteristics of "the resource curse," dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries.
4. Haiti was doing OK until the Duvaliers destroyed civil society, thus putting the country on a path toward destruction. It is a more or less random one-time event which wrecked the place.
5. Hegel was correct that the "voodoo religion," with its intransitive power relations among the gods, was prone to producing political intransitivity as well. (Isn't that a startling insight for a guy who didn't travel the broader world much?)
6. For reasons peculiar to the history of the slave trade, Haitian slaves came from many different parts of Africa and thus Haitian internal culture has long had lower levels of cohesion and cooperation. (The former point about the mix is true, but the cultural point is speculation.)
7. Haiti has higher than average levels of polygamy (but is this cause or effect?)
8. In the early to mid twentieth century, Haiti was poorly situated to attract Chinese and other immigrants, unlike say Jamaica or Trinidad. It is interesting that many of the wealthiest families in Haiti are Lebanese, such as the Naders.
Overall I don't find this set of possible factors very satisfactory. Is it asking too much to wish for an economics profession that is obsessed with such a question?
If you are looking for some cross-sectional variation to ponder, consider the fate of Haitians in Suriname (they make up a big chunk of the population there), Haiti vs. Santiago, Cuba, pre-Castro of course, or why early Haitian migrants to Montreal have done better than later migrants to Miami and Brooklyn.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 13, 2010 at 01:16 PM in History, Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Haiti also suffered from a great deal of discrimination in its earlier history. European nations constantly tried to take it over (to end the bad precedent of a successful slave revolt) and to take over the rich sugar.
The US and Europe also refused to trade with Haiti for a long while for similar reasons (though US recognition and trade flip-flopped with administrations).
Sugar also wasn't quite as easy to grow profitably without slavery, but especially without regular and steady markets to ship to (and hence allow specialization in sugar, since food shipments are relatively guaranteed).
Posted by: James Farrand at Jan 13, 2010 1:25:31 PM
From my understanding, part of Haiti's agreement with France for independence involved them transferring a great amount of their wealth in exchange for France's promise not to invade again. It was essentially a giant tax on all production.
Haiti also never had much in the way of agriculture outside of cash crop plantations. Without anyone to run the plantations, and without knowledge about how to cultivate much else efficiently, their agricultural production suffered greatly after the French left.
Posted by: Jon at Jan 13, 2010 1:32:52 PM
I was also going to say that Haiti was isolated by its revolution. Western nations were very frightened of black slave revolts, and so they minimized interaction with Haiti. The isolation probably caused a lot of economic and cultural problems.
Posted by: Arnold Kling at Jan 13, 2010 1:33:54 PM
There is also the important factor of the 90 million franc indemnity that France forced Haiti to pay beginning in 1825. It pretty much bankrupted the nation.
Posted by: Sebastian Franks at Jan 13, 2010 1:35:19 PM
By way of contrast, Noel Maurer on why Barbados turned out pretty well, relatively speaking.
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero at Jan 13, 2010 1:35:48 PM
I'd chalk much of the systemic poverty in Haiti down to the US-led destruction of the Haitian black swine in the late '70s, which was the backbone of the peasantry's economy, ecology, diet, culture and religion. Has a single species ever meant so much to nation's livelihood?
Posted by: Douglas Haddow at Jan 13, 2010 1:44:28 PM
Regarding point 6, I wasn't aware that the Haitian slave population was measurably different from that of other Caribbean islands. It is interesting that the less cohesive group managed a successful slave revolt.
Posted by: y81 at Jan 13, 2010 1:53:44 PM
Well, in terms of Natural Experiments, you can't get much better than Haiti vs. the Dominican Republic.
Posted by: tomharvey at Jan 13, 2010 1:59:42 PM
So, this is kind of embarrassing, but I can't figure out what point 5 means:
5. Hegel was correct that the "voodoo religion," with its intransitive power relations among the gods, was prone to producing political intransitivity as well. (Isn't that a startling insight for a guy who didn't travel the broader world much?)
What is the meaning of the word "intransitive" in this context?
Posted by: Matt at Jan 13, 2010 2:05:03 PM
Haiti wasn't originally poor.
I seem to recall Weill's book on Economic Growth noting that at one point in the colonial era Haiti was the richest place in the Americas. May try to provide a more specific reference later.
There's this less elaborate claim in Wikipedia: "By about 1790, [Haiti] had greatly overshadowed [what now is the Dominican Republic] in terms of wealth and population. It quickly became the richest French colony in the New World due to the immense profits from the sugar, coffee and indigo industries.
Posted by: zbicyclist at Jan 13, 2010 2:08:18 PM
Funny. I googled the exact title of this blog post no more than an hour ago.
Posted by: Alex at Jan 13, 2010 2:08:32 PM
Re: #2, there is research (Andrei Shleifer?) showing that common law (British ex-colonies) was more conducive to prosperity than the Napoleonic code (French ex-colonies).
Posted by: Jack at Jan 13, 2010 2:09:38 PM
As for why Haitians migrants in Montreal did better than in the US, well, Quebec has better social policies than the US, we speak the same language, and we are not racists against black people as in the US.
Posted by: Pierre-Louis at Jan 13, 2010 2:12:02 PM
In thinking about point 1, you are getting close to defending colonialism as a good for the colonized. I think there is some merit in this line of thought, but it's dangerous to say that colonizing is better than giving aid.
Zakaria has done work on how high the average income needs to be for a liberal democracy to function. Is it possible that, for example, British colonies too poor/illiterate to have a functioning democracy benefited from the British democracy, because the British electorate demanded low levels of corruption in the British civil service both at home and abroad?
Posted by: dolo at Jan 13, 2010 2:12:36 PM
What about detrimental US interventions in Haiti? Does not that fact have something to do with Haiti's struggles?
Posted by: John at Jan 13, 2010 2:24:22 PM
"Political intransitivity" = "checks and balances"? Or something else? I certainly think a fuzzy hierarchy is a good thing most of the time.
Posted by: dWj at Jan 13, 2010 2:27:00 PM
Going back more than one or two generations isn't all that instructive for finding causes of their present destitution. Nations just as poor have turned themselves around in mere decades.
As per Hazlitt in The Conquest of Poverty, it is most likely a problem of too little fixed capital. This obviously stems from a lack of property rights. That, in turn, can be seen as a consequence of:
- poor education
- poor health/malnutrition
Starving people obviously don't care if food belongs to someone else. Survival instincts supersede the social conscience. And even if there are educational resources provided, gathering food/clean water is of greater importance.
So what's the solution? Giving food and medicine obviously helps in the immediate term. But it does nothing to improve the nation's long term prospects. And it may even disincentivize locals from accumulating the necessary capital goods to produce their own. Giving capital goods doesn't help much either, because villagers don't have the wherewithal to maintain them (or protect them from scavengers).
The Darwinian side of me suggests that crisis must deepen before society unites itself enough to provide a legal framework conducive to private property rights. I wish there were easier answers.
Posted by: Matt Stiles at Jan 13, 2010 2:27:32 PM
On #2, I'm reminded of Samuel Huntington's "Who Are We?": if we had been a colony of France we'd be Quebec, if Spain then Mexico, if Portugal then Brazil. A lot of other people have also written about the "Anglosphere". This is relevant to tomharvey's point because the Dominican Republic was a colony of Spain. Some D.R governments looked down on Haitians as inferiors and massacred them.
dolo: Are there any cases of aid having effects anywhere near the level of the colonization of South Africa or Hong Kong?
Posted by: TGGP at Jan 13, 2010 2:34:19 PM
Jared Diamond has a good discussion of this in Collapse. His theory is that it's because they cut down all their trees and destroyed their environment. He compares Haiti to the Dominican Republic, just on the other side of the same island. He says that Haitian loggers regularly cross over into DR to do illegal logging.
Posted by: f at Jan 13, 2010 2:35:52 PM
napoleon's first real love, JdBonheurais was a haitian. so presumably once upon a time it churned out talent that would catch the eye of the world's most eligible bachelor. Surely can't say the same for it now
Posted by: farmer at Jan 13, 2010 2:36:02 PM
There's a fascinating chapter (11) in Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" which compares Haiti and the Dominican Republic, specifically the way in which each country has utilized it's natural resources in the past, mainly forests, and the impact that has had on its current economic situation. A few relevant points taken from the book:
- 28% of the Dominican Republic is covered by forest. Only 1% of Haiti has trees.
- Deforestation in Haiti has resulted in loss of timber (for both building and for cooking), soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, sediment loads in rivers (resulting in poor drinking water quality), loss of watershed protection and decreased rainfall.
- Haiti is the poorest country in the New World, and one of the poorest outside of Africa
- Dominican Republic is also poor, but per-capita income there is 5 times that of Haiti. Population density and growth rate are lower than in Haiti.
Diamond looks at colonial background of both countries, and many of the issues you discuss above Tyler. The "Natural Experiments" book linked above by tomharvey looks really interesting, as it is also edited by Diamond. Perhaps there's more detail there.
Posted by: James Davies at Jan 13, 2010 2:36:30 PM
I know his Malthusian, environmental determinism has some big flaws, but Diamond's "Collapse" has an entire section on Haiti which is probably a reasonable place to start.
Posted by: Mike at Jan 13, 2010 2:38:19 PM
from my time on both sides of Hispaniola, I can safely say that I have never seen a more racist place in my life. The prevailing Dominican view of the Haitians is appalling. I can only fear the strife that will be caused in the DR by the upcoming Haitian influx.
Posted by: wow at Jan 13, 2010 2:47:19 PM
How could you leave out the fact that Haiti was occupied by the US Marines from 1915-1934?
Posted by: Judy Cross at Jan 13, 2010 2:50:49 PM
At least in biological systems, polygamy tends to follow unequal distribution of resources, not lead it. I doubt it's a relevant factor in Haiti's economic state.
Posted by: TwoYaks at Jan 13, 2010 2:51:21 PM
It is my recollection that Josephine was from Martinique, not Haiti. As for Haitian poverty, the successful revolution was mounted in the name of the goals of the French Revolution, liberty, equality and brotherhood. These were the same ideals carried by the armies of Napoleon across Europe. But, in Haiti, it was counter-revolutionary. The cycle of governmental failure never stopped after the French were paid off.
Posted by: Nancy Charak at Jan 13, 2010 3:07:30 PM
via Rachel Maddow's Facebook page: Evangelist Pat Robertson says Haiti is cursed because of a deal it made
with the devil to get freedom from the French (at the six-minute mark).
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/January/Powerful-Quake-Hits-Impoverished-Haiti/
"True story!" he says.
Posted by: Paul R. at Jan 13, 2010 3:17:54 PM
The culture that allowed the slaves to rebel and become the first free nation in the region was one that was based on dishonesty, deceit, and corruption.
To be a slave and to be ethical required on to either embrace oneself as genetically inferior, or to die rather than violate ones sense of value and morality.
And if one had the cultural basis for survival as an individual, then one would have escaped to another land and passed as a free man.
Thus Haiti's cultural heritage is cultural evolution from the struggles that Africans had from being enslaved and brought to Haiti where they conspired secretly to violently rid themselves of their oppressors, showing no regard for relative guilt or innocence. Most if not all the leaders who had a sense of justice in Africa were killed by the slavers, or died in protest to their enslavement by committing suicide or refusing to comply and being starved or beaten to death.
Haiti doesn't have the game changing mythology of the US indoctrination of its youth in the cold war to justify the US killing innocent people as a unique American virtue. The US was sold as the iconic defender of the weak, helpless, and oppressed minorities of the world, defender of liberty and justice for all the world's oppressed masses so how could one not support the civil rights movement, women's liberation, and other injustices and do so using the US democracy which saved the world from evil.
I think the conservative objection to Avatar is it presents a mythology in which the oppressed win against the corporations by embracing a common cultural mythology. The US and others have done well by creating the required mythology to united the critical mass. Haiti, on the other hand, has a culture of justice through violent revolution against their oppressor.
Perhaps Haiti needs a Mao to destroy all culture and past to create the blank slate of morality needed for a market economy as the core cultural value (not capitalism - that requires property rights which don't exist in China, and which were freely violated in the history of the US).
Posted by: mulp at Jan 13, 2010 3:19:23 PM
Your first 5 points are correct in its assessment. A week ago, my family (we are Haitian btw) went to a friend's house for dinner and of course, the issue of Haiti came about. We basically came up with the exact same hypotheses as you did. However, you need to also include the whole issue of caste system which is prevalent in most Caribbean and Latin states and the problem of colorism which is intertwined with the former. The more the economic power stays in the hand of the light skinned population, which is a minority, the greater the inequality will deepened. Believe me, Tyler, I have pondered on the question of Haiti's poverty for a long time and still haven't found the answer
Posted by: Valentine Joseph at Jan 13, 2010 3:42:35 PM
Mr. Kling, you are absolutely right. The fact that Haiti was isolated and not allowed to trade with other nations in the region in fear they would influence those who were still practicing slavery was a great impediment to the nation
Posted by: Valentine Joseph at Jan 13, 2010 3:45:32 PM
I'd like to 2nd the powerful argument in Collapse. The general argument is that civilizations who cut down all their trees in environments where regrowth is slow tend to collapse. It can even explain the movement of the center of western civilization from Iraq to Greece to Italy... and then up to Europe where rainfall was plentiful enough to survive the mistake of deforestation.
Posted by: Bakabon at Jan 13, 2010 3:50:55 PM
I have to check my sources on this, but I'm fairly sure that much of the foreign and charitable aid Haiti has received has encouraged a dependency on imported food rather than developing local agriculture.
Posted by: MW at Jan 13, 2010 4:02:34 PM
The Diamond thesis is available at this site: http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4776
And you can use Google Maps to see the comparison.
Posted by: Bill Harshaw at Jan 13, 2010 4:03:52 PM
Farmer: Michaëlle Jean, the current canadian head of state, was born in Haïti. Your point is?
* * *
The Duvaliers basically stripped the country of wealth for themselves (and their cronies). The impoverished population was left in strict survival mode, hence the disastrous deforestation (so they could cook their food).
Needless to say, the Duvaliers did not exactly encourage the education of the little people either.
Large scale public ignorance is the prime reason of Haïti's current woes, and no amount of charity band-aiding from other countries will turn that around until a serious program of public education is implanted, along with serious reforestering efforts.
And sadly, this will most probably need that Haïti be put under external administrative supervision by the UN, given the terminal mess it is right now.
Or Haïti could be merged with a developped country with good social safeguards (that would rule out the USA who would plunder it like ten thousands Duvalliers - and also there is the question of racism, too. Even more than a century after being conquered by the US, puerto-ricans still are not considered as americans); perhaps Canada could be a good choice given the common language, relative proximity (compared to France) and the very large number of haïtians living in Canada.
Posted by: jean naimard at Jan 13, 2010 4:12:34 PM
Pat Robertson thinks it's because the Haitians sold themselves to the devil:
http://bit.ly/5UMGws.
Just a quick laugh. Notice he doesn't cite his source for the "true story."
Posted by: madeline at Jan 13, 2010 4:20:15 PM
Sorry, Joséphine de Beauharnais was a French creole (French colonial) from Martinique, not Haiti.
Posted by: Mitchell Owens at Jan 13, 2010 4:21:28 PM
So Haiti's poverty seem to be entirely blamed on evil westerners. At some point doesn't a failed society have to take some responsibility for itself?
This is a joke. Many nations have been treated much worse than Haiti by war, fate, and other nations -- and yet have risen to provide a decent standard of living to their people.
Haiti is Haiti primarily due to poor choices by Haitians.
Posted by: igloo at Jan 13, 2010 4:41:03 PM
we are not racists against black people as in the US.
HAHAHAHA!!!!
I suppose some of your best friends are.......?????
Euro snobbery/Canadian snobbery........two sides of the same coin!
Posted by: Wade Nichols at Jan 13, 2010 4:50:29 PM
I don't have a deep knowledge of the place, but at least this item from the Wikipedia page is striking:
"In July 1825, the king of France Charles X sent a fleet of fourteen vessels and troops to reconquer the island. To maintain independence, President Boyer agreed to a treaty by which France recognized the independence of the country in exchange for a payment of 150 million francs (the sum was reduced in 1838 to 90 million francs) - an indemnity for profits lost from the slave trade."
also, one can count how many foreign interventions/attempts to invade and coups the country had, besides the Duvaliers.
also, i find your number 1 argument repulsive. The fact that Guadaloupe and Martinique survive on Frech aid is not an argument for colonialism - but rather a sad consequnce that they did not manage to develop by themselves and still depend on France for their survival.
Posted by: lb at Jan 13, 2010 4:56:19 PM
Why is [That set including all sub-Saharan nations] and Haiti poor. Think of the common denominator, rather than trying to pick apart ancient history for some more polite reason.
Posted by: onetwothree at Jan 13, 2010 5:03:56 PM
I'm sure the Tonton Macoute helped with development.
Posted by: von Pepe at Jan 13, 2010 5:06:48 PM
I'm sure the Tonton Macoute helped with development.
Posted by: von Pepe at Jan 13, 2010 5:07:05 PM
Haiti was not just any sugar-producing slave island. It was the biggest sugar producing slave island. As a result, Haiti had a least three different strikes against it from the beginning:
1. Haiti had the largest and wealthiest free-black/mulatto population among the islands.
2. Independence came about as part of a three-way struggle (White/French vs. free-black/mulatto vs. slave).
3. It depended on sugar production over the last 199 years (199 years in which northern hemsiphere countries have subsidized local production of sugar and pseudo-substitutes for sugar).
Number one and number two are obviously connected. When the slave uprising first began, free-blacks and mulattos joined the colonials is opposing it. They only switched sides when Napoleon's forces stopped differentiating between free-blacks and slaves. Their swich turned the tide of the war and brought independence, but the former slave population never trusted the mulatto and free-black elite and this division undermined governance for decades (if not longer).
As for subsidies, just look at what happened to commodity prices in the first great age of globalization (1870 to 1914). In that period, many Latin American countries saw commodity prices increase (cotton, hides, tobacco) or at least stay steady (rice, coffee, cocoa). But sugar prices dropped in half in those years as many European countries and the United States saw the need to create a sugar beet industry. So Haiti lost out on their first chance to join the developing economies of the region. And they haven't been given another shot. In fact, I think that sugar-beets and corn syrup protection was one of the main factors that helped kill Doha. Sugar has just been the worst ticket in the world-commodity lottery.
So why is Haiti poor? Partly its their fault, and partly its the fault of the rich world.
Posted by: JPab at Jan 13, 2010 5:24:44 PM
Underdevelopment Is a State of Mind by Lawrence Harrison. compares Haiti and Dominican Republic. I read the first edition written in 1985. Dont know about the updated edition. For him the slave mentality and vudu put Haiti in disadvantage even against the catholic DR.
Here he compares Barbados with Haiti:
http://www.hoy.com.do/el-pais/2009/3/14/270196/Laurence-Harrison
Posted by: k at Jan 13, 2010 5:42:37 PM
GDP per capita of ex British colonies is higher than catholic spanish , portuguese ex colonies.
Trinidad ( $23600). An spanish colony until 1795. It was part of Venezuela (GDP per capita $12,800 )
Barbados $18,977-Mexico: $14,932
Honduras 1842- Belize: $4310( one beside the other)
Brazil $10551-Antigua $ $14,929
But Jamaica$5,335. A socialist government by a pro castrist politician in the 70s
And the Neth. Antilles $17,837
Posted by: k at Jan 13, 2010 5:59:27 PM
Judy Cross the Dominican Republic was invaded by US Marines at least twice and its situation is not as drastic as Haiti's.
I think that James Davies presents very important points about the use of natural resources and the protection of said resources. The French set a precedent of destruction on a side of the island that was already more prone to desert type environment. Land usable for agriculture as a percentage of total land mass was much smaller than the Dominican side. Unfortunately sugar cane fields destroyed Haiti's limited forests and later investments in cattle ranching continued the assault. There is a reason why Haiti was one of the largest sugar producers in the world given that every inch available was planted without regard to the effects on the environment by French authorities.
In the 1980s while living in the Dominican Republic I remember President Balaguer instituting two programs that I believe saved the country from a similar fate. He forbade the cutting down of ANY TREE in any place by anyone without approval from local authorities. I remember that the Department of Natural Resources was headed by military colonels who were extremely inflexible and feared by city people and peasant alike. When fumigating their crops people actually feared a nearby tree accidentally being killed and the authorities assuming they had done it on purpose.
A second measure he took was the subsidizing of propane gas and the government actually gave away millions of small stoves and tanks to citizens of rural areas so that they would stop chopping down trees in order to cook their meals.
These simple steps as well as continuous reforestation projects in the DR have had significant effects on the environment. It seems that when France finally left Haiti the damage to their environment was either irreversible or the attitude of the people and the government was indifferent to the problem.
I think it is also important to note that Haiti's ratio of slave to free man was about 20 to 1 whereas other countries had more balanced populations and more mixing among them. I would not be surprised if most of the educated people in the country (as slaves received no education) simply picked up and left after the country gained independence, causing a massive brain drain.
Posted by: Marcos D at Jan 13, 2010 6:05:22 PM
Judy Cross the Dominican Republic was invaded by US Marines at least twice and its situation is not as drastic as Haiti's.
I think that James Davies presents very important points about the use of natural resources and the protection of said resources. The French set a precedent of destruction on a side of the island that was already more prone to desert type environment. Land usable for agriculture as a percentage of total land mass was much smaller than the Dominican side. Unfortunately sugar cane fields destroyed Haiti's limited forests and later investments in cattle ranching continued the assault. There is a reason why Haiti was one of the largest sugar producers in the world given that every inch available was planted without regard to the effects on the environment by French authorities.
In the 1980s while living in the Dominican Republic I remember President Balaguer instituting two programs that I believe saved the country from a similar fate. He forbade the cutting down of ANY TREE in any place by anyone without approval from local authorities. I remember that the Department of Natural Resources was headed by military colonels who were extremely inflexible and feared by city people and peasant alike. When fumigating their crops people actually feared a nearby tree accidentally being killed and the authorities assuming they had done it on purpose.
A second measure he took was the subsidizing of propane gas and the government actually gave away millions of small stoves and tanks to citizens of rural areas so that they would stop chopping down trees in order to cook their meals.
These simple steps as well as continuous reforestation projects in the DR have had significant effects on the environment. It seems that when France finally left Haiti the damage to their environment was either irreversible or the attitude of the people and the government was indifferent to the problem.
I think it is also important to note that Haiti's ratio of slave to free man was about 20 to 1 whereas other countries had more balanced populations and more mixing among them. I would not be surprised if most of the educated people in the country (as slaves received no education) simply picked up and left after the country gained independence, causing a massive brain drain.
Posted by: Marcos D at Jan 13, 2010 6:05:44 PM
Their revolution was at least four-sided--natives, British and Spanish troops, vs the French for control of the island--with a many-leveled racial/class mix: black, white, and creole, which eventually devolved into an all-out race war, the only one in this hemisphere. (A race war which served to terrify American planters, btw, increasing racial paranoia in the young US)
Hati's civic founding was based on chaos and nightmarish cruelty. Hard to build on something like that.
Posted by: Will Divide at Jan 13, 2010 6:24:26 PM
"and we are not racists against black people as in the US."
It's really cute that you believe both of these things on a broad scale.
It's also good to see that Maddow continues to be on top of the really important facets of this disaster, as always.
My take on conservative objections to Avatar is that those objections primarily revolve around the blatant anti-American/American military caricatures, and the director's own admissions about same.
"perhaps Canada could be a good choice given the common language, relative proximity (compared to France) and the very large number of haïtians living in Canada."
The mythology Canadians have constructed for themselves is sometimes astonishing. Yes, Canada is surely free of a racist, plundering past - and present. Very different from bad old America.
Moving past that neverending conceit and on to the issue, to me the question is not "why is Haiti so poor" but, in the context of its history, "why wouldn't it be?"
Posted by: BKarm at Jan 13, 2010 6:27:35 PM
also there is the question of racism, too. Even more than a century after being conquered by the US, puerto-ricans still are not considered as americans
That is a lie. Puerto Ricans have held American citizenship and right of abode since 1917. There are as many Puerto Ricans in New York as there are at home.
The territory of Puerto Rico has been free for decades to leave the embrace of the United States any time its people so choose. There have been a number of plebiscites on this issue since the 1960's, and full independence always comes in a VERY distant third place, with full US statehood in second place, and the commonwealth status quo always winning the vote.
This confers the vast majority of the benefits of US citizenship (including American passports, duty-free trade and generous financial support) with none of the pesky Federal income taxes. I would be tempted to convert my own state to the same territorial status if I could get the same deal.
If you weren't an anti-American bigot, you might have bothered to check this out before opening your mouth.
Posted by: John Skookum at Jan 13, 2010 6:54:53 PM
