Guams Future Political Status: An Argument for Free Association with U.S. Citizenship I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

INTRODUCTION GUAMS HISTORY AS A U.S. COLONY AND ITS QUEST FOR U.S. CITIZENSHIP A. Guams Early Days as a U.S. Possession B. Guams Pursuit of a More Meaningful Status THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP A. U.S. Citizenship Generally B. U.S. Citizens of Guam THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO GUAM DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. LAW THE POLITICAL STATUS OF FREE ASSOCIATION A. Free Association Generally B. U.S. Examples of Free Association: The Former Trust Territory C. The Case of the U.S. Virgin Islands D. Non-U.S. Examples of Free Association-Type Arrangements 1. Cook Islands-New Zealand 2. Channel Islands-United Kingdom 3. Faroe Islands & Greenland-Denmark 4. Dutch Affiliated Islands in the Caribbean E. Possible Model of Guam-U.S. Free Association CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION

VII.

For more than three hundred years, the island of Guam has been subjected to colonial rule 1 and denied full self-governance. Spain claimed Guam in 1565, and established Spanish rule in 2 1668. After the Spanish-American War, Guams centuries-long colonizer formally ceded the 3 island to the United States with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris in 1899. With the exception of a three-year period during World War II, when Japanese forces occupied Guam 4 (1941 to 1944), the island has since remained under the control of the United States. At present,
Position Paper of the Task Force on Free Association, The Freely Associated State of Guam in Free Association with The United States of America 1 (Mar. 31, 2000) [hereinafter Position Paper] (unpublished position paper, on file with the Guam Commission on Decolonization and The Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal). STANLEY K. LAUGHLIN, JR., THE LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES AND AFFILIATED JURISDICTIONS 399 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing 1995) [hereinafter LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES]. Guam is the southernmost island in the Marianas chain of islands, in western Micronesia. Id.
3 2 1

Position Paper, supra note 1, at 1; LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 36-37, 400.

Position Paper, supra note 1, at 1; Jon M. Van Dyke et al., Self-Determination for Nonself-governing Peoples and for Indigenous Peoples: The Cases of Guam and Hawai'i, 18 U. HAW. L. REV. 623, 626 (1996) [hereinafter Van Dyke, Self-Determination].

Guams Future Political Status

5

123

this island of U.S. citizens is one of the oldest colonial dependencies in the world. Currently, 6 Guam is governed by an act of Congress, the Guam Organic Act of 1950. The powers given to Guam under the Organic Act, however, are merely delegated powers that can be changed or 7 taken away at the will of Congress. Guams current political status is that of an organized, unincorporated territory of the United Statesa territory that has a civil government established 8 by Congress but is not considered to be in transition to statehood. The United Sates granted its 9 citizenship to the native inhabitants of Guam with the signing of the Guam Organic Act; however, those who received their citizenship through this Act do not receive the full protections 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to Guams gubernatorial election of 1970, the President of the United States 11 appointed Guams Governors, without any direct input from the people of the island. In 1972, Guam was allowed to elect one non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives, whose function has been little more than to serve as an advocate for Guam with no real power to affect 12 legislation. Presently, the Department of Interior has oversight over Guams affairs, and the actions of the Governor of Guam are subject to veto by the . . . Secretary of the Interior, just as
5

Van Dyke, Self-Determination, supra note 4, at 625.

Guam Organic Act, Pub. L. No. 630, 64 Stat. 384 (codified as amended at 48 U.S.C. 1421-1425 (1950)) [hereinafter Guam Organic Act]; PENELOPE BORDALLO HOFSCHNEIDER, A CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS ON THE ISLAND OF GUAM, 1899-1950 155 (Scott Russell ed., 2001) [hereinafter CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS]. Article IV of the Constitution (the Territories Clause) empowers Congress to legislate for territories such as Guam. U.S. CONST. art. IV, 3, cl. 2; see also Charles H. Troutman, Partial Disposal Under the Territorial Clause: A More Permanent Status for Territories 4 (July 12, 1996) [hereinafter Troutman, Partial Disposal] (on file with the Guam Commission on Decolonization, the Office of the Compiler of Laws in Guam, and The Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal).
7

Troutman, Partial Disposal, supra note 6, at 4.

CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 155-56; Jon M. Van Dyke, The Evolving Legal Relationships Between The United States and Its Affiliated U.S.-Flag Islands, 14 U. HAW. L. REV. 445, 449-50 (1992) [hereinafter Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships]. Guam Organic Act, supra note 6. U.S. citizenship was granted to those people born in Guam and there residing on April 11, 1899, and their descendants. Id. While this group was predominantly Chamorro, to use the term Chamorro would be technically imprecise when discussing those whose citizenship stands to be affected should a status change occur. Additionally, the native inhabitants of the islands of Rota, Tinian, and Saipan are also called Chamorro. Interview with Leland Bettis, Former Executive Director, Guam Commission on Decolonization (Jan. 8, 2002). See discussion infra Part III. B; see also infra nn.20 & 25.
10 9

Van Dyke, Self-Determination, supra note 4, at 626. See discussion infra Part III.B. Id. at 626.

11

Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 469. Guams delegate is allowed to sit on certain committees, can chair these committees or their subcommittees, can introduce legislation, and can vote in the committees or their subcommittees. [The delegate] cannot, however vote when the House meets in plenary session to consider final passage of legislation and budgets. Id. (emphasis in original).

12

124

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

13

local legislation may be overridden by Congress. Hence, despite being ruled by a representative democracy, the people of Guam have no meaningful representation and participation in the process by which the U.S. government continually makes laws and decisions 14 that govern their lives. This small island in the western Pacific has been, and continues to be, of great strategic 15 military importance to the United States, which may explain why the United States has been reluctant to give up complete control of Guam. During World War II, Guam served as a logistical center for U.S. military operations against the Japanese homeland, thereby contributing 16 significantly to the end of the war in the Pacific. The U.S. military also used the island as the major staging area for heavy bombing during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as well as for 17 numerous subsequent military operations. 18 After decades of actively seeking a voice in how their island is governed, the people of 19 Guam are still pursuing their internationally recognized right to self-determination. Currently, the people of Guam continue their efforts to alter their colonial status; a plebiscite for self20 determination is expected to take place in Guam in the very near future.
13

TIDES OF HISTORY: THE PACIFIC ISLANDS 1994) [hereinafter TIDES OF HISTORY].

14

IN THE

TWENTIETH CENTURY 387 (K.R. Howe et al. eds.,

See Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 459.

Carl T.C. Gutierrez, An American Colony, WASH. POST, Oct. 9, 1996, at A19 [hereinafter Gutierrez, An American Colony]. Carl T.C. Gutierrez was Governor of Guam from 1995-2003, during which time he additionally served as Chairperson of the Commission on Decolonization. He was also the President of the Guam Constitutional Convention in 1977-79. National Governors Association, http://www.nga.org/governors (last visited Feb. 10, 2003).
16

15

Id.

Id. When B-52s left Guam for the 33-hour round trip to unleash cruise missiles on targets in southern Iraq on Sept. 6, they were demonstrating more than just the ability of the United States to project global force with little or no allied assistance. The Air Forces platform, Guam, was yet again legitimized as a vital national security asset, while better-placed allies created no-fly-zones of their own for American military aircraft. Id. For further reading on Guams now-defunct pursuit of Commonwealth status, see, for example, Paul Lansing & Peter Hipolito, Guams Quest for Commonwealth Status, 5 UCLA ASIAN PAC. AM. L.J. 1 [hereinafter Lansing & Hipolito, Guams Quest]. See also Van Dyke, Self-Determination, supra note 4, at 626-29. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, G.A. Res. 1514, U.N. GAOR, 15th Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 66, U.N. Doc. A/4684 (1960) [hereinafter Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples]. Interview with Leland Bettis, Former Executive Director, Guam Commission on Decolonization (Jan. 8, 2002). A plebiscite was anticipated for November 7, 2002, with the native inhabitants taking part in the vote. However, the compilation of the Chamorro Registry (certifying those who meet the requirements of native inhabitants) is not complete; additionally, some residents of Guam have raised questions as to the legality of having a native inhabitants vote (as opposed to a vote open to all residents of Guam). For some of the proffered arguments as to the difficulties of having an indigenous vote, see Lansing & Hipolito, Guams Quest, supra note 18 at 4-5.
20 19 18

17

Guams Future Political Status

125

One of Guams options for self-governance is the political status of free associationa status recognized by the United Nations as having the elements of decolonization and full 21 measure of self-government. The primary aspect of a freely associated state is that it is internally fully self-governing, while giving some degree of control over certain external matters 22 (such as defense) to another state. Unlike Guams current relationship with the United States, free association status would be a voluntary relationship between two sovereign nations, the 23 terms of which would be negotiated and agreed to by both parties. Because it is a consensual 24 relationship, either party could withdraw from the arrangement upon proper notice. One of the more significant terms to be negotiated is the question of what would happen to the U.S. citizenship extended by the United States to Guam's native inhabitants and their 25 descendants. The significance of retaining U.S. citizenship lies in the security and privileges that such citizenship provides. Without U.S. citizenship, the people of Guam have much to lose: their U.S. passports and ensuing privileges, freedom from U.S. immigration laws, as well as 26 access to certain federal services and opportunities. This article explores the historical evolution of Guams quest for U.S. citizenship, and examines the benefits and limitations of the citizenship and the political status eventually granted. Additionally, it will touch on the prospects of dual citizenship in U.S. law, the political status option of free association, and ways in which the United States and other colonial nations have addressed these issues with their dependencies and/or freely associated states. Although the citizens of the island nations that presently have free association with the United States do not have U.S. citizenship, their situation is distinguishable from Guams: they never had U.S. 27 citizenship to begin with. Several other states that now have a similar type of associationthe Cook Islands with New Zealand, the Channel Islands with the United Kingdom, Greenland and the Faroe Islands with Denmark, and Netherlands Antilles and Aruba with the Netherlands 28 have been allowed to hold the citizenship of the states with which they associate. Therefore,

21

Position Paper, supra note 1, at 3. Id. at 4. Id. at 3-4. LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 472.

22

23

24

The Guam Organic Act, Sec. 4, grants citizenship to [a]ll persons born in the island of Guam who resided in Guam on April 11, 1899, including those temporarily absent and their descendants. See Position Paper, supra note 1, at 14-15. Interview with Leland Bettis, Former Executive Director, Guam Commission on Decolonization (January 8, 2002); see also infra n.85 and accompanying text.
27 26

25

See discussion infra Part VI.B. See discussion infra Part VI.D.

28

126

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

should the U.S. citizens of Guam opt to freely associate with the United States, the continuation 29 of their individual stature as U.S. citizens is legally attainable. II. A. GUAMS HISTORY AS A U.S. COLONY AND ITS QUEST FOR U.S. CITIZENSHIP Guams Early Days as a U.S. Possession

With the signing of the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899, the United States officially 30 took ownership of Guam as a U.S. territory. The Territories Clause of Article IV of the U.S. 31 Constitution gives Congress plenary powers over U.S. territories. Congress may not only abrogate laws for [sic] the territories, but it may itself legislate directly for the local government. 32 It may make a void act of the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. In an exercise of its plenary powers, immediately after the United States acquisition of Guam, Congress gave the Department of Navy administrative authority over Guam, authorizing the Navy to establish a 33 military government there. From the outset, the United States promised the full measure of individual rights and 34 liberties to the island of Guam. Since the very beginning, however, the reality of Guams experience as a military possession stood in stark contrast to the American ideals of liberty and 35 democracy. During the time in which the Navy administered Guam, the particulars of how
See Dept of Justice, Section-By-Section Comments on S. 244, Feb. 5, 1991, at 23 [hereinafter Dept of Justice] (on file with The Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal). In the case of Puerto Rico, Congress has considered the matter of U.S. citizenship, particularly as to how citizenship would be affected if the people of Puerto Rico chose the political status of independence. In its comments on S. 244, The Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act, the Justice Department expressed concern that the bill created the impression that independence would not have any effect on the continued United States citizenship of the residents or citizens of Puerto Rico. Id. The Justice Department further stated their objection to allowing this possible dual (U.S. and Puerto Rican) citizenship: While Congress has the power to allow such an arrangement, we strongly oppose allowing dual citizenship for the entire Puerto Rican population. Id. That the Justice Department concedes the possibility of Congress allowing residents of an independent Puerto Rico to retain their status as U.S. citizens bodes well for an argument that the people of a free association of Guam (which would presumably have greater political and legal ties to the United States) can enjoy the same continuation of citizenship. However, the substance of the Justice Departments comments regarding this issue suggests that Guam may meet some of the same resistance should the time come for the island to negotiate the terms of its free association arrangement with the United States. See generally Statement of Dick Thornburgh, Former Attorney General of the United States, to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate (Feb. 7, 1991) (on file with The Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal).
30 29

LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 400. Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 454. Natl Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1880).
FOR

31

32

See LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 400-1; see generally CAMPAIGN POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 18.
34

33

See TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 112. Id.

35

Guams Future Political Status

127

Guam was governed were left largely to the whims of whoever happened to be sitting as 36 Governor at the time. The territory was to be administered within the absolute domain of 37 naval authority . . . until the legislation of the United States . . . otherwise provided. It was not long before the native inhabitants of Guam described by both their American rulers and themselves as loyal, cooperative, and patriotic to the United Statesbegan to manifest their frustration; to them, there existed a clear dissonance between the idea of military rule and the principles of liberty and participation central to a civilized government, and even more so, to an 38 American government. B. Guams Pursuit of a More Meaningful Status

In 1901, the native inhabitants of Guam formally appealed to the United States Congress for a better political arrangement; in a letter to the U.S. Congress, Guams inhabitants beseeched 39 the American legislators to improve Guams system of governance. Another letter expressing 40 the desire of some islanders to obtain U.S. citizenship came a year later in 1902. The naval Governor mentioned this desire in his report to the Department of Navy, noting that, when the time came for consideration of this matter, America need not harbor concerns about Guams 41 loyalty to the United States. Over the next four decades, Guam would make similar pleas to 42 obtain U.S. citizenship, or at the very least, to alter Guams governmental structure. Even the Secretary of the Department of Navy made an appeal to Congress to establish a civil government in Guam, urging that the people of the island be afforded that sense of security which can only come from permanent laws and a form of government in harmony with that of a country to 43 which the island belongs. In 1905, the United States Senate passed a bill to grant U.S. citizenship to Guam, but the 44 House of Representatives took no action on the bill, and it eventually died. Guam was held as a
36

CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 19. Id. at 18 (quoting Declaration by Secretary of the Navy & President William McKinley). See generally CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 35. TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 112; CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 47-48. LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 403. CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 53.

37

38

39

40

41

See generally id. at 47-103 (chronicling the numerous petitions, both formal and informal, that the native leaders of Guam made in seeking a more defined political status and a more stable statement and enforcement of their rights as a people of the island during the time preceding the signing of the Guam Organic Act). Id. at 53 (quoting comments from the Secretary of the Navy to the United States Congress in 1904 that urged Congress to establish a suitable governmental system for the island).
44 43

42

TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 112.

128

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

45

military installation and its people were merely American nationals; civil government with 46 American citizenship was considered incompatible with the military presence. Furthermore, leaders in Washington were skeptical about granting citizenship and civil government, as they believed that Guams small size and lack of resources would render such a decision an 47 uneconomical undertaking. In 1917, the United States authorized the establishment of the Guam Congress, which 48 was to consist of respected members of the island community appointed by the Governor. These members, however, had little real powerthey were described merely as guests of the 49 naval Governor, serving at his pleasure. Additionally, the Guam Congress was not vested with any legislative authority, but rather was in place solely to offer recommendations to the 50 Governor on certain matters relating to the islands governance. Even when the Congress became an elected rather than appointed body in 1931, it still lacked any true legislative 51 powers. Those who served in the Guam Congress had quite different views of what role that body should play. Although the Governor intended that the Congress discuss and advise on issues particularly related to how the native inhabitants could better serve the goals of the American 52 administration, the members used the Congress as a forum to express their desires as a people; they wanted to discuss not merely how to enhance agriculture, but how to define and better their 53 political status. This was demonstrated during the meeting of the First Guam Congress. At this meeting, the Governors agenda focused mainly on economic matters, but the Congress members nonetheless addressed the uncertainty of their islands political status and expressed their desire to end the prolonged military rule: The Chamorro people only desire . . . that their government be adjusted to the principle established by the immortal Washington, liberator of the great nation 54 that now rules our destinies in this Island.
LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 403; CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 143 (referencing a Dec. 22, 1948 speech by Guam Assemblyman Antonio C. Cruz).
46 45

TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 242. CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 53. GOVERNOR OF GUAM, ANNUAL REPORT 35 (1917); CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 56.

47

48

56.

49

GOVERNOR OF GUAM, ANNUAL REPORT 35 (1917) (Its duties are to consider and recommend measures for the improvement of the Island and the welfare of its inhabitants.); CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 56; LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 403.
51

50

TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 242. CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 56-57. Id. at 56. Id. at 58 (quoting speech delivered by Guam Congressmember Tomas Calvo Anderson during a meeting

52

53

54

Guams Future Political Status

129

Despite repeated fervent appeals, the United States did not actively consider the possibility of granting U.S. citizenship to the native inhabitants of Guam until after World War II, a war for which many of Guams people fought and died on behalf of the United States, and 55 during which thousands of Guams civilians were interned and killed. In the logic of postwar thinking, the Chamorro people had willingly suffered and died for their proud affiliation with the United States of America. Now that they had unquestionably proven their love for and loyalty to the Mother Country, the indigenous inhabitants deserved the rights and privileges of American 56 57 In 1946, the Department of Defense appointed the Hopkins Committee to citizenship. prepare a study on the issue of granting U.S. citizenship to Guam: The Hopkins Committee Report made a strong recommendation for citizenship, stating that it was long overdue especially in light of the heroic service rendered by the people of Guam to the United States during the Second World War. The Committee concluded that the United States not only owed Guamanians 58 citizenship, but also an apology for having delayed it for so long. In 1947, the Chief of Naval Operations granted limited legislative powers to the Guam 59 Congress, comprised of the House of Council and the House of Assembly, perhaps in an effort to quell their dissatisfaction until the U.S. Congress took action. A year later, the Ninth Guam Congress passed Concurrent Resolution No. 1, which petitioned the U.S. Congress to determine 60 the political status and rights of the people of Guam. This resolution passed the House of 61 Council unanimously. In a poignant appeal in favor of the resolution, one member of the House of Assembly stated:
of the First Guam Congress in 1917). LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 401-03. Japanese Imperial Forces occupied Guam from 1941 to 1944, and the people of Guam were interned and brutalized. Id. at 401-02. Many Guamanians carried out movements of resistance against the Japanese and for the Americans, and lost their lives as a result. Id. at 402. Civilians in Guam suffered death penalties for even minute acts of disobedience. Id. After nearly three years of occupation, American forces liberated Guam in July of 1944. Id.
56 55

CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 115.

LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 403-04. The Hopkins Committee was a committee headed by Dr. Ernest M Hopkins, whose primary function it was to investigate allegations of abuse of naval rule in Guam and American Samoa. The Committee spent two weeks in Guam, during which time it conducted interviews and held public hearings on the issue of granting U.S. citizenship to the native people of Guam. CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 120.
58

57

LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 6, at 403-04. CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 118-19, 140. Id. at 140. Id.

59

60

61

130

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

We would like to be secure in our homes and free from fear and condemnation of our property. We would like the privilege and freedom of planning our own home . . . of our own choice and free from dictatorial rule and one mans opinion. . . . [W]e are only nationals of the United States, with no permanent existing rights, privileges and immunities. We are the orphans of our beloved United States. . . . We are eagerly awaiting the time when we the people of Guam will have inalienable rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of our beloved United 62 States. The House of Assembly passed this resolution by a majority vote. Soon thereafter, both houses of the Guam Congress passed the resolution and a draft organic act, which detailed 64 provisions for U.S. citizenship, as well as a bill of rights, and civil government. While the people of Guam fought hard for citizenship, they regarded it merely as a means to an end, and not an end in itself. Discussions with a visiting U.S. Congressional Committee surrounding the draft organic act made this apparent; these discussions focused largely on the question of land specifically, the islanders desire to obtain property rights such that their land could no longer be 65 summarily condemned and seized by the military. They viewed U.S. citizenship as a way of 66 securing such rights. Finally, after Guam had languished for half a century under a government essentially without established law, President Truman signed H.R. 7273the Guam Organic Actinto law 67 on August 1, 1950. The Organic Act extended citizenship and a Constitution-based bill of 68 rights to the native inhabitants of Guam. Furthermore, the Act declared Guam to be an 69 unincorporated territory of the United States.
63

Id. at 143 (quoting speech by Guam House of Assembly member Antonio C. Cruz during discussions on Concurrent Resolution No.1 in 1948). Guam Congress, House of Assembly, Congressional Record p.16 (Dec. 22, 1948); CAMPAIGN POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 143.
64 63

62

FOR

Guam Congress, Congressional Record, Appendix pp. 3, 36 (Mar. 5, 1949); CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 144.
65

CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 154. See id. at 154-55. Id. at 155.

66

67

Providing a Civil Government for Guam, S. Rep. No. 2109 to accompany H.R. 7273, 81st Cong. 2nd Sess. 13 (July 20, 1950); CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 155.
69

68

CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 155.

Guams Future Political Status

131

III. A.

THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP

U.S. Citizenship Generally

For the people of Guam granted U.S. citizenship by the Guam Organic Act, their 70 citizenship is, for the most part, similar to that of other U.S. citizens. Generally, U.S. citizenship carries certain rights and obligations: Citizenship has important legal consequences, both in domestic United States law and in international law. Apart from its capacity to be transmitted, citizenship can affect ones political rights, ones tax and military obligations, and ones eligibility for certain publicly funded programs, for certain government jobs, and for certain occupations. Congress, the state legislatures, and the federal courts have all helped to shape the boundaries. Most important here, United 71 States citizens are not subject to immigration restrictions. The immigration laws of the United States divide the global population into two 72 categories: U.S. nationals and aliens. With a few exceptions (mainly having to do with natives 73 of American Samoa and Swains Island), most U.S. nationals are also U.S. citizens. As a result of this distinction, the United States can extend its protection, rights, privileges, and duties to the class of people it calls its own, while excluding all others from these same advantages and 74 obligations. U.S. law acknowledges several ways that an individual can obtain citizenship. A person can acquire citizenship at birth jus soli (born on United States soil) or jus sanguinis (born to a 75 Citizenship can also be acquired after birth through the process of U.S. citizen parent). naturalization, the procedures for which are detailed in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act 76 (INA). The current statute (INA 101(a)(38)) clarifies that Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.

For the differences in the rights and protections between citizenship generally and citizenship granted through the Guam Organic Act, see discussion infra Parts IV-V. STEPHEN H. LEGOMSKY, IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE LAW AND POLICY 3 (Robert C. Clark et al. eds., 2d ed. 1997) (1992) [hereinafter IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY].
72 71

70

Id. at 2.

Id. Since the number of non-citizen nationals is so small, and since their rights so closely resemble those of citizens anyway, the terms national and citizen are often used interchangeably. That practice is technically incorrect, but the distinction is rarely important. Id.
74

73

Id. at 3. Id. at 1030. 8 C.F.R. 334.11, 335; IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY, supra note 71, at 1039.

75

76

132

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

77

Virgin Islands count as United States soil for purposes of conferring citizenship jus soli. Although the original Constitution was silent as to who is (and who can become) a citizen of 78 the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment addresses this uncertainty in its first sentence: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are 79 citizens of the United States . . . . Statutory law has subsequently codified this constitutional 80 decree. B. U.S. Citizens of Guam The Guam Organic Act of 1950 granted U.S. citizenship to [a]ll persons born in the island of Guam who resided in Guam on April 11, 1899, including those temporarily absent and 81 82 their descendants. Primarily, this applied to the Chamorros, the native inhabitants of Guam. The Chamorros of Guam, therefore, did not acquire citizenship by birth or naturalization (the ways addressed in the Fourteenth Amendment); rather, they acquired it by federal statute. This has created disparate treatment of the Chamorros in the application of the Constitution. For instance, because Guam is an unincorporated territory and receives only those constitutional 83 rights and protections deemed fundamental, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment do 84 apply to Guam, but with the notable exception of the first sentence. Thus, the U.S. citizens in 85 Guam are not Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizens.
77

IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY, supra note 71, at 1032. Id. at 1030-31. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, 1. IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY, supra note 71, at 1031 (referring to Immigration and Nationality Act

78

79

80

301(a)). Guam Organic Act, supra note 9 at 1421. Although this particular provision was later repealed, similar language appears in I.N.A. 307 (codified as U.S.C. 1407). Leland R. Bettis, The Roots of Guams Experience as an American Colony: Approaches to Understanding the Rationale of a New Political Status 16 n.36 (on file with the Guam Commission on Decolonization).
83 82 81

See Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 449; see discussion infra Part IV. LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 416; see discussion infra Part IV.

84

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971). Plaintiff Bellei, born in Italy to a U.S. citizen mother, lost his U.S. citizenship conferred at birth for failure to comply with INA residential requirement. Id. at 826. The court held that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to citizenship acquired by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent, and that such citizenship is therefore subject to congressional actions. Id. at 827. The Court stated: The central fact, in our weighing of the plaintiffs claim . . . is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. Id. Because the native inhabitants of Guam received their citizenship neither by birth in the United States nor by naturalization, but rather by federal statute, their citizenship is similarly subject to congressional action. Interview with Leland Bettis, Former Executive

85

Guams Future Political Status

133

The consequence of not having this ultimate protection has significant implications when it comes to the stability and certainty of retaining ones citizenship. Generally, the United States cannot divest a person of citizenship absent a showing that the person committed an 86 expatriating act as defined by statute done voluntarily and with intent to relinquish citizenship. This limitation applies to those who acquired their citizenship through one of the aforementioned means (those who have Fourteenth Amendment citizenship), but not to those wholike the natives of Guamreceived their citizenship by statute. The Supreme Court has held that U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to retain their citizenship unless they voluntarily relinquish 87 it, but later qualified this assertion, saying that this right only applies to those who received 88 their citizenship by birth or naturalization in the United States. In sum, the native inhabitants of Guam, because they acquired their citizenship by statute, do not have constitutionally-protected 89 citizenshipthey do not have a constitutional right to retain their U.S. citizenship. IV. THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO GUAM

Which constitutional rights should be extended to the people of territories such as Guam has been the subject of significant debate and litigation, resulting in the birth of the doctrine of 90 incorporation. The incorporation doctrine emerged from the Insular Cases of 1901, and 91 specifically from Justice Whites concurring opinion in Downes v. Bidwell. The United States 92 Supreme Court unanimously adopted the doctrine in 1922, in the case of Balzac v. Porto Rico. This doctrine establishes that, unless a territory is incorporated (generally thought of as being on the way to statehood), then not all provisions of the United States Constitution are applicable to

Director, Guam Commission on Decolonization (Jan. 8, 2002).

86

BARRONS LAW DICTIONARY 157 (4th ed. 1996). Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 266 (1967). See also Dept of Justice, supra note 29, at 25. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971). See also Dept of Justice, supra note 29, at 25.

87

88

Interview with Leland Bettis, Former Executive Director, Guam Commission on Decolonization (Jan. 8, 2002). It appears from the way in which the constitutional protection of citizenship has been interpreted that the people from foreign countries, such as the Philippines and other Asian countries, who come to Guam to be naturalized have a protected right to their citizenship; yet, ironically, the people in Guam today who derived their citizenship from the Guam Organic Act (the inhabitants into whose native land these others were able to come to be naturalized), do not have such a right. This has been one of the arguments offered in favor of having only these native inhabitants participate in the upcoming plebiscite on status change (i.e., they are the ones who have the most at stake). This matter has resulted in passionate debate from all angles and, as of this writing, has not been resolved. Id.
90

89

See Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 449. 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 449. 258 U.S. 298, 305 (1922); LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 129.

91

92

134
93

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

the territory. These cases proposed that only those constitutional rights found to be 94 fundamental would apply to unincorporated territories. The courts have deemed the Bill of 95 Rights and Amendments Thirteen, Fourteen (except the first sentence), and Fifteen to be 96 fundamental, and they are thus applicable to Guam through the Guam Organic Act. In 1975 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia established the test used to determine inapplicability of a specific constitutional provision to territories: whether the 97 application would be impractical or anomalous. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later 98 followed this test in Wabol v. Villacrusis, a case arising out of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Since Guam falls within the Ninth Circuits jurisdiction, this test is 99 now binding on Guam. Various cases have considered the applicability of specific constitutional provisions to Guam. The Ninth Circuit held in Sakamoto v. Duty Free Shoppers that the Commerce Clause 100 does not apply to Guam. The Ninth Circuit also held in Attorney General of Guam on Behalf 101 of All U.S. Citizens Residing in Guam etc. v. United States that the Article II provision dealing 102 103 with the selection of President of the United States is inapplicable to Guam. Additionally, 104 federal courts have firmly upheld the applicability of the Article IV Territories Clause and 105 Article I, Section 10, which deals with imposing duties on imports and exports by the states. Evident from these determinations is the reality that U.S. citizens of Guam do not stand on equal footing with most other U.S. citizens when it comes to the rights, protections, and privileges that U.S. citizenship affords.
93

Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 449. Id. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971). LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 416. King v. Morton, 520 F.2d 1140, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 1975). 958 F.2d 1450, 1462 (9th Cir. 1992). LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 416. 764 F.2d 1285, 1288 (9th Cir. 1985); LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 416. 738 F.2d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 1984). U.S. CONST. art. II, 1, cl. 2. LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 416.

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

U.S. CONST. art IV, 3, cl. 2; Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd. v. Tax Commr, 464 F. Supp. 730, 733-34 (D. Guam 1979); LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 416.
105

104

U.S. CONST. art. I, 10, cl. 2; LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 416.

Guams Future Political Status

135

V.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. LAW

In addition to the possibility of solely retaining U.S. citizenship, one alternative for Guam 106 if it opts for free association with the U.S. would be to create some sort of dual citizenship arrangement, whereby Guams inhabitants could simultaneously hold the citizenship of the United States and the freely associated state of Guam. Dual Citizenship is defined as citizenship where two different sovereigns within their respective territorial confines may 107 U.S. immigration law, lawfully claim citizenship of the same person and he of them. 108 however, has traditionally disfavored dual citizenship. A leading U.S. treatise on immigration law, for example, states that dual citizenship impairs the singleness of commitment which is the 109 hallmark of citizenship and allegiance. Nonetheless, dual citizenship/nationality does exist in 110 U.S. law. 111 The U.S. Supreme Court in Kawakita v. United States held that, in the dual citizenship regime, a person does not renounce the citizenship rights of one state merely by asserting the citizenship rights of the other state. Furthermore, a dual citizen may take an oath of allegiance . . . without losing his United States citizenship in the process, provided that such oath does not place the person taking it in complete subjection to the state to which it is taken; the oath may 112 not renounce loyalty to the United States by its terms. Therefore, if Guam were freely associated with the United States, its citizens would not, by definition of the status, be completely 113 subjected to the state of Guam. Indeed, any oath of Guam citizenship would not conceivably include a renunciation of loyalty to the United Statesthe terms of its free association arrangement would reaffirm the close ties that the two states would share. Guams loyalty to the United States is not a question. Even one hundred years ago, when the people of Guam had no citizenship or political rights to truly bind them with the United States, their loyalty was clear. The naval Governor in 1901 stated that: When the time shall come to give consideration to this 114 matter [citizenship], there will be no qualifying condition arising from disloyalty . . . .
106

See discussion infra Part VI.D.1-2 (discussing the option of free association). BARRONS LAW DICTIONARY 157 (4th ed. 1996). IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY, supra note 71, at 1054-55. 7-9 IMMIGR. L. & PROC. (MB) 91.01[3][d]; IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY, supra note 71, at 1054-55.

107

108

109

See generally, IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY, supra note 71, at 1053-55. Dual citizenship has resulted more frequently in recent years, particularly in the immigrant-receiving countries of North America. . . . Id. at 1054.
111

110

343 U.S. 717, 724 (1952).

David S. Gordon, Section V Civil Rights: Dual Nationality and the United States Citizen, 102 MIL. L. REV. 181, 188-89 (1983).
113

112

See discussion infra Part VI.B. CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 53.

114

136

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

More than a century later, the question is not whether Guams people should be granted U.S. citizenship but whether they should be allowed to retain this status. Although todays question may be different, the heart of the argument is still the same. Guam is an island of Americans. The people of Guam as a whole have been, and remain to this day, loyal to the 115 United States. Concerns of disloyalty, then, should not be an obstacle to allowing the people of a freely associated state of Guam to retain their U.S. citizenship. The situation of the Native Americans accommodates the notion of a dual citizenship in a way that suggests a similar arrangement for Guam is attainable. Native American tribes are 116 considered semi-sovereign. They are subject to the rule of their individual tribal governments and also, to a limited degree, to the United States governmentin many regards these tribes 117 elude the full reach of federal and state laws. Native Americans can hold citizenship of their 118 semi-sovereign tribes as well as U.S. citizenship. Although the circumstances of the Native Americans and those of the native inhabitants of Guam are not perfectly analogous, they have some parallels that invite comparison. Guam is a colony, belonging to the United States by command of a treaty; scarcely anything about the relationship between Guam and the United States has been mutual or consensual. Now Guam faces the possibility of becoming a sovereign state while maintaining integral, consensual links with, and delegating certain powers and authority to, its former colonizer. Should one of the links Guam hopes to maintain be its U.S. citizenship, the situation of the Native American tribes illustrates that the United States can grant it. The fact that the United States recognizes and allows a dual citizenship regime to exist for members of semi-sovereign 119 Native American tribes lends some weight to the argument that other peoples having a oncecolonial relationship with the United States may also have the option of holding dual citizen status.

See, e.g., Gutierrez, An American Colony, supra note 15; LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 402. David C. Williams, The Borders of the Equal Protection Clause: Indians as Peoples, 38 UCLA L. REV. 759, 762 (1991).
117 116

115

Id.

Carole Goldberg, A Law of Their Own: Native Challenges to American Law, 25 LAW. & SOC. INQUIRY 263-64 (2000). See, e.g., Mark A. Michaels, Indigenous Ethics and Alien Laws: Native Traditions and the United States Legal System, 66 FORDHAM L. REV. 1565, 1577 (1988). In an exercise of this dual citizen status, some Native American tribes issue and travel on their own passports, such as the Iroquois Confederacy and the Hopis. Id.
119

118

Guams Future Political Status

137

VI. A.

THE POLITICAL STATUS OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Free Association Generally

The status of free association is one of three options recognized by the United Nations 120 as having the elements of decolonization and full measure of self-government. The United Nations recognizes the legitimacy of continued association with the former colonial power, provided that the people concerned had made a free and voluntary choice, that their cultural integrity was respected, and that they retained the right to opt for a different status in the 121 future. It is not uncommon for small states to establish certain dependencies with other, 122 Free association would allow larger states, assigning them certain important state functions. Guam to become a separate state, but it would also enable Guam to maintain close ties with the United States, by giving the U.S. a determined degree of control over matters Guam is not 123 presently equipped to undertake, particularly defense and certain matters of foreign affairs. Unlike the other two options, full integration (statehood) and independence, free association is not a pre-defined status; rather, it is defined only by the agreement for free 124 association itself, which results from fair arms-length negotiations, a relationship of equality 125 and voluntariness of association. One constitutional scholar has explained free association as follows: As free association has been defined in the United States context, it means that there are two independent states dealing with each other as such, but that both create a very close association with each other . . . Certain powers, such as the power of denial of the area to foreign powers in defense matters, has [sic] been delegated to one party by the other . . . and the [other party] has extended a 126 number of benefits . . . not granted to other nations.

120

Position Paper, supra note 1, at 3. TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 203.

121

Daniel Orlow, Of Nations Small: The Small State in International Law, 9 TEMP. INTL & COMP. L.J. 115, 118 (1995). Position Paper, supra note 1, at 4. Guams small size and centuries-long status as a colonial dependency would make matters such as defense an extremely difficult, if not impracticable, undertaking at this time. See discussion infra Part VI.E. Peter Rosenblatt, Free Association Negotiations: A Case Study, PROCEEDINGS: CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS 32-33 (Paul M. Leary ed., 1988) [hereinafter Rosenblatt Presentation].
125 124 123

122

Id. Troutman, Partial Disposal, supra note 6, at 8.

126

138

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

In its simplest terms, free association differs from independence in that it allows Guam to achieve sovereignty, but does not altogether end the close relationship between Guam and the United States. Although statehood would fully incorporate Guam into the United States and give the island the representation, rights, and protections currently extended to the fifty states, the reality of Guams small size and perceived inability to contribute meaningfully to the U.S. 127 economy make statehood a largely unrealistic option. Proponents of free association status argue that becoming a freely associated state is the most realistic way by which Guam can obtain decolonization and self-government without divorcing itself from the American ideals of government and way of life to which Guam's people have become accustomed over the last 128 hundred years. B. U.S. Examples of Free Association: The Former Trust Territory

The former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands is an example of the type of free association arrangements that have been negotiated with the United States. The Trust Territory of the Pacific was comprised of three groups of islandsthe Carolines, the Marshalls, and the 129 Marianas. A United Nations mandate granted the United States trusteeship over these islands 130 and their 150,000 people in 1947. Within the last three decades, these groups of islands have restructured their political statuses and relationships with the United States, resulting in the creation of the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. Since the Northern Mariana Islands have chosen a commonwealth relationship with the United States, they 131 132 do not have separate sovereignty. The Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States 133 134 of Micronesia, and, most recently, the Republic of Palau, however, have become sovereign
127

Rosenblatt Presentation, supra note 124, at 32 (stating that it is inconceivable at present, at least as seen from Washington, that tiny territories like the Virgin Islands could achieve statehood. Though this statement was made in regard to the U.S. Virgin Islands, it is quite applicable to the similar situation of Guam); see also Gutierrez, An American Colony, supra note 15.
128

See Position Paper, supra note 1, at 2. LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 461. Id.

129

130

Id. at 430, 477. The CNMI Covenant establishing the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was signed on Feb. 15, 1975. Id. Marian Nash (Leich), Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, 89 AM. J. INTL L. 96 (1995). The Compact of Free Association of the Republic of the Marshall Islands took effect on Oct. 21, 1986. Id.
133 132

131

Id. at 96. The Compact of Free Association of the Federated States of Micronesia took effect on Nov.

3, 1986. Id.
134

Id. at 97. The Compact of Free Association of the Republic of Palau took effect on Oct.1, 1994. Id.

Guams Future Political Status

139
135

states, ending their trust relationship and establishing free association with the United States. Through their individual compacts of free association, these sovereign nations have become internally fully self-governing, but have negotiated provisions that maintain a role for the United States with regard to defense, as well as to other issues such as travel, United States residency, 136 and financial/economic assistance. Generally, these compacts of free association provide that the United States will defend these states militarily just as it would defend its own territory and 137 citizens. To this end, the United States has the right to be consulted concerning (and can veto) the states foreign affairs decisions. The United States can also establish military facilities, carry 138 out military operations, and use military force to keep others out of the area. The people of the Trust Territory were never U.S. citizens and therefore when negotiating the terms of their respective free association compacts there was no issue of retaining U.S. citizenship. Their compacts of free association do provide, however, that the United States will extend certain benefits associated with citizenship to the citizens of these freely associated states. For example, in addition to receiving military security and defense, the citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau can travel freely into, and within, the United States, can receive an education and work there, can join the U.S. armed forces, can receive some social benefits, and can remain in the United States and 139 Additionally, citizens of these states can receive obtain lawful permanent resident status. protection and assistance from U.S. embassies or consular offices when traveling abroad to 140 countries where these states themselves do not have such offices. C. The Case of the U.S. Virgin Islands

The case of the U.S. Virgin Islands helps illustrate the possibility of free association status for Guam. The U.S. Virgin Islands resembles Guam in both its relationship with the United States and its form of government. The United States purchased the U.S. Virgin Islands 141 from Denmark in 1917, and the residents of the island are U.S. citizens governed by the
Id. at 96. The other member of the Trust Territory, the Northern Mariana Islands, established a covenant with the U.S. to exist in commonwealth status, remaining in political union with and under the sovereignty of the U.S. Id. See also supra note 129 and accompanying text.
136 135

LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 473-74. Id. at 474.

137

Id. at 473. As to the U.S.s veto power over states foreign affairs decisions, these states do have the right to an expeditious appeal to the Secretaries of State and Defense. Id. Id. at 474, 477. The citizens of these states cannot, however, enter the United States to establish residency for purposes of naturalization. Id. Telephone Interview with Elfrieda Koshiba, former Compact Impact Information and Education Program Coordinator in Guam (Apr. 15, 2002). See LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 377. On February 27, 1927, the U.S. Congress granted citizenship to residents on the U.S. Virgin Islands, making such citizenship effective as of January
141 140 139

138

140

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

142

Revised Organic Act of 1954, essentially identical to Guams Organic Act. In 1988, the University of the Virgin Islands held a conference on the future political status options of the Virgin Islands, examining the status of commonwealth, free association, statehood, and 143 Former U.S. Ambassador for Micronesian Status Negotiation and former independence. Counsel for Guams Commission on Self-Determination, Peter Rosenblatt, participated as a panelist at this conference. In suggesting that new negotiations are not constrained by the terms of existing status arrangements, Ambassador Rosenblatt stated: Do statehood, independence, territorial status and the US-Micronesian free association agreement exhaust all of the status options? The US and Puerto Rico invented a new commonwealth bottle for old territorial wine. 144 The US and Micronesia created a new bottle and a new wine. It therefore stands to reason that Guams condition is also amenable to a status tailor-made to fit Guams situation. Clearly, Guams options for greater self-governance are not restricted to the arrangements already in existence. Marco Rigau, another expert panelist at this conference, explicitly argued that the question of citizenship for the Virgin Islands could be negotiated into an arrangement of free 145 association. He emphasized that there are no specific confines within which the arrangement of free association must lie: You can have a free association with US citizenship. You can have a free association with US and Virgin Island citizenship. . . . You can have a free association in 146 any fashion that the United States and yourself are willing to negotiate. This statement is pointedly applicable to Guam, and it supports the argument that Guam should not be prevented from crafting a free association arrangement that includes retaining U.S citizenship. D. Non-U.S. Examples of Free Association-Type Arrangements

Although the status of free association with U.S. citizenship has never before been negotiated, it is not without precedent on the international scene. The following examples at once demonstrate that free association with U.S. citizenship is a realistic option for Guam, and also provide models for realizing such a status.

17, 1917. Id.

142

LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 380.

See generally PROCEEDINGS: CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS (Paul M. Leary ed., 1988). 144 Rosenblatt Presentation, supra note 124, at 33 (emphasis added). Marco Rigau, Free Association as a Status Alternative for Unincorporated U.S. Territories and Commonwealths, in PROCEEDINGS: CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS 33, 38 (Paul M. Leary ed., 1988).
146 145

143

OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES,

Id. Presently, the U.S. Virgin Islands remain, like Guam, an unincorporated, organized territory. LAW supra note 2, at 377.

Guams Future Political Status

141

1.

Cook Islands-New Zealand

The relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand offers one example of a successful transition from colonization to free association in which the formerly-colonized 147 people retained their colonial citizenship. This relationship deserves examination because it marks the first time that this term [free association] applied to this sort of relationship between 148 At the time of the United Nations resolution calling for selftwo entities or states. 149 determination for nonself-governing entities, the Cook Islands were held as a colony of New 150 151 Zealand, having been ceded to New Zealand by Great Britain in 1901. The overriding sentiment, both on the part of colonizers and the colonized, was that the Cook Islands should work toward establishing a government with significant political autonomy, rather than full 152 integration. In a study on the future political status of the Cook Islands, one scholar indicated that full political integration would not be appropriate, because of the groups geographic isolation from New Zealand, its lower standard of living, and the peoples relative lack of sophistication in Western forms of politics, while also concluding that full independence was not a realistic 153 Throughout discussions about their future political status, the Cook Islanders were goal. 154 greatly concerned about the possibility of losing their access to New Zealand citizenship. In 1962, the legislative assembly had to choose among four political status options: independence, full integration with New Zealand, a federation of Polynesian countries, or free association with 155 New Zealand. Urged by the Minister for Island Territories that it would be in the best interests of the Cook Islands people to keep the present link with New Zealand, but to have full internal self156 157 government, the legislative assembly opted to pursue such a relationship. In the 1964
147

See TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 203-05.

Paul Leary, The Historical Developments of Free Association in the Pacific and the Caribbean, PROCEEDINGS: CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS 25-26 (Paul M. Leary ed., 1988) [hereinafter Leary Presentation].
149

148

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, supra note 19. See TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 196-97. Leary Presentation, supra note 147, at 26. TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 202. Id. Id. Id. Id. at 202-03.

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

142

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

general election, the people of the Cook Islands approved the proposed status of free association 158 with New Zealand. In 1965, the Cook Islands Assembly and New Zealand Parliament gave the 159 status legal legitimacy by signing the Cook Islands Constitutional Amendment Act. With the 160 approval of this Act, the novel arrangement termed free association went into effect. Additional constitutional amendments, in 1981 and 1982, further solidified the Cook 161 Islands status as a sovereign nation. Although ambiguities have surfaced regarding the degrees and boundaries of the special, freely associated relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, the continuation of the latters residents New Zealand citizenship is firmly 162 established. As recently as June of 2001, the two states reaffirmed this status in their Joint Centenary Declaration: The people of the Cook Islands will retain New Zealand citizenship, respecting and upholding the fundamental values on which that citizenship was based. The Cook Islanders and New Zealanders share a mutually acceptable standard of values in their laws and 163 Likewise, as a freely associated state, Guam would also hold the same policies . . . . mutually acceptable standard of values as the United States. 2. Channel Islands-United Kingdom

Another example of free association with circumstances paralleling Guams situation is the arrangement between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom. Although not termed as such, their political arrangement is conceptually similar to a free association status. Comprised of the Bailiwicks (territories) of Jersey and Guernsey, the Channel Islands are not politically 164 incorporated into the United Kingdom. The inhabitants of the Channel Islands, however, are 165 British citizens, giving allegiance to the Crown. Although considered Crown dependencies, 166 Jersey and Guernsey are internally self-governing, essentially what Guam would seek in a free association arrangement with the United States.
157

Id. at 203. Id. Id. Leary Presentation, supra note 148, at 26. TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 204. Id. at 203, 205.

158

159

160

161

162

Joint Centenary Declaration of the Principles of the Relationship Between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, cl. 2, available at http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/pactreaties/Treaties_etc/ NZ_Cooks_JointDec.html (last visited June 11, 2001). Don Aitken, What is The UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain, or England?, at http://www.altusage-english.org/whatistheuk.html (last visited Feb. 14, 2002).
165 164

163

Id.

Guams Future Political Status

143

The Channel Islands have fashioned their own institutions of government and laws (based on English law and local statutes) within their territories, while the United Kingdom manages 167 Jersey and Guernsey have their own parliament, the States defense and foreign affairs. 168 Assembly. A Crown-appointed Lieutenant Governor serves as both head of government and 169 170 commander of the armed forces, and functions primarily as a representative of the Crown. The Lieutenant Governor does not have the right to vote in the States Assembly, a privilege reserved for the local elected members, but does have the power to veto any of the Assemblys 171 decisions regarding matters within the special interest of the Queen. Furthermore, acts of the United Kingdom Parliament do not apply to the dependencies unless these dependencies 172 specifically say that they do. 3. Faroe Islands & Greenland-Denmark

The association that the Faroe Islands and Greenland have with the Kingdom of Denmark is similar to the relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom. Neither the Faroe Islands nor Greenland is a colony of Denmark, but both are governed under the Danish 173 Constitution of 1953. Additionally, both the Faroe Islands and Greenland are considered 174 internally self-governing states under the Danish Realm, holding Danish citizenship. They

166

Id.

Id.; CENT. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Guernsey, in THE WORLD FACTBOOK 2001 210-11 (2001), available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gk.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2003) [hereinafter CIA FACTBOOK, Guernsey]; CENT. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Jersey, in THE WORLD FACTBOOK 2001 260 (2001), available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/je.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2003) [hereinafter CIA FACTBOOK, Jersey].
168

167

CIA FACTBOOK, Guernsey, supra note 167, at 210; CIA FACTBOOK, Jersey, supra note 167, at 260. CIA FACTBOOK, Guernsey, supra note 167, at 210; CIA FACTBOOK, Jersey, supra note 167, at 260. CIA FACTBOOK, Guernsey, supra note 167, at 210; CIA FACTBOOK, Jersey, supra note 167, at 260.

169

170

CIA FACTBOOK, Guernsey, supra note 167, at 210; CIA FACTBOOK, Jersey, supra note 167, at 260; Website for the States of Jersey, at http://www.jersey.gov.uk/sections/government.htm. (last visited Feb. 12, 2003).
172

171

Website for the States of Jersey, at http://www.jersey.gov.uk/sections/government.htm (last visited Feb.

12, 2003). CENT. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Faroe Islands, in THE WORLD FACTBOOK 2001 167 (2001), available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fo.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2003) [hereinafter CIA FACTBOOK, Faroe Islands]; CENT. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Greenland, in THE WORLD FACTBOOK 2001 200 (2001), available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gl.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2003) [hereinafter CIA FACTBOOK, Greenland]. Report Submitted by Denmark, Article 3: Information on the Populations of the Faroe Islands and Greenland, at http://www.humanrights.coe.int/Minorities/Eng/FrameworkConvention/StateReports/1999/denmark/ Article_3.htm (last visited Feb. 12, 2003) [hereinafter Denmark Report].
174 173

144

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

175

have a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. The Faroe Islands have been politically connected with Denmark for centuries, and achieved self-government with the Home Rule Act of 1948; Greenland attained self-government through the Home Rule Act of 176 1978. Considered self-governing overseas administrative division[s] of Denmark, the Faroes and Greenland have the Queen of Denmark (represented by an appointed High Commissioner) as 177 their chief of state. Legislatively, each has a popularly elected parliament, which in turn elects 178 the Prime Minister. Denmark is fully responsible for matters of defense for the Faroes and 179 Greenland, and provides certain economic subsidies as well. 4. Dutch Affiliated Islands in the Caribbean

In addition to the above examples, the Dutch-affiliated islands in the Caribbean offer yet another model that may be instructive for Guam. The relationship between these islands and the Netherlands provides another example of the type of relationships that larger colonial nations have arranged with smaller island nations. The Netherlands Antilles, for instance, is part of the 180 Kingdom of the Netherlands. It became fully self-governing over internal matters in 1954, but 181 the Dutch government maintains control over defense and foreign affairs. Aruba, which was part of the Netherlands Antilles until 1986, is now a separate member of the Kingdom of the 182 Netherlands. It too is internally autonomous, but yields responsibility for defense and foreign 183 affairs to the Dutch government. The political arrangement that the Netherlands Antilles and

175

CIA FACTBOOK, Faroe Islands, supra note 173, at 167; CIA WORLD FACTBOOK, Greenland, supra note

173, at 200.
176

Denmark Report, supra note 174. CIA FACTBOOK, Faroe Islands, supra note 173, at 167; CIA FACTBOOK, Greenland, supra note 173, at CIA FACTBOOK, Faroe Islands, supra note 173, at 167; CIA WORLD FACTBOOK, Greenland, supra note

177

200.

178

173, at 200.
179

CIA FACTBOOK, Faroe Islands, supra note 173, at 168; CIA WORLD FACTBOOK, Greenland, supra note

173, at 201. CENT. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Netherlands Antilles, in THE WORLD FACTBOOK 2001 363 (2001), available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ geos/nt.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2003) [hereinafter CIA FACTBOOK, Netherlands Antilles].
181 180

Id.

CENT. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Aruba, in THE WORLD FACTBOOK 2001 26 (2001), available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/aa.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2003) [hereinafter CIA FACTBOOK, Aruba].
183

182

Id.

Guams Future Political Status

184

145

Aruba have with the Netherlands is nearly identical to that of the Danish dependencies. The Queen of the Netherlands is chief of state, and is represented locally by an appointed Governor 185 Additionally, each has a unicameral legislature elected by the people, and a Prime General. 186 Minister and Deputy Prime Minister elected by the legislative body. Residents of these island 187 entities may hold Dutch citizenship. E. Possible Model of Guam-U.S. Free Association

Similar to the aforementioned examples, a freely associated state of Guam could negotiate to give the United States authority over all matters of defense and access to the island for military purposes, while assuming full authority over its internal government. These matters of defense and military access could be placed solely under the purview of the United States according to the negotiated terms of a compact for free association. To this end, Guam could agree not to enter into any arrangements with any state if such an agreement affects foreign policy in a manner potentially adverse to the U.S. interests of defense and military access. In return for this prized military use of the island, Guam could retain eligibility for United States services and assistance (such as the postal service, civil aviation safety services, emergency 188 management agency programs, and some social benefit programs), and could retain U.S. citizenship. 189 Because free association is accepted internationally as a form of decolonization, a freely associated state of Guam could gain access to membership in regional organizations such as the Pacific Islands Development Program and the South Pacific Regional Environmental 190 Program, which Guam currently cannot join as a nonself-governing entity. Guam would also be able to control, exploit, and manage the resources in its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which would finally give Guam jurisdiction to manage the use of all living and nonliving natural resources of the seabed, subsoil, tidelands, and adjacent territorial waters in 191 accordance with international law. When negotiating free association status, Guam may also

Id.; compare CIA FACTBOOK, Faroe Islands, supra note 173, at 167; CIA WORLD FACTBOOK, Greenland, supra note 173, at 200. 185 CIA FACTBOOK, Netherlands Antilles, supra note 180, at 363; CIA FACTBOOK, Aruba, supra note 182, at 27. CIA FACTBOOK, Netherlands Antilles, supra note 180, at 363; CIA FACTBOOK, Aruba, supra note 182, at 27. For examples of international organizations of which the aforementioned island-nations are members, see infra note 191.
187 186

184

Id. at 27. Position Paper, supra note 1, at 12. TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 203. Position Paper, supra note 1, at 13-14.

188

189

190

146

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

consider allowing the United States to continue representing Guam in the United Nations (and not becoming a member state itself), while representing itself in certain U.N. sub-organizations 192 and other regional organizations. In addition, Guam could enter into trade agreements with other Asia-Pacific states, which could have great potential for enhancing Guams economy. Guams economic and political association with the US, as a free association, would continue to attract foreign investment and 193 opportunities with its over $3 billion economy, the largest in the Pacific island community. Certainly, doors to economic opportunities would open for Guam as a freely associated state in ways that Guams current political status prevents. Moreover, since the United States would retain its use of Guam for military purposes, it will not lose what it has always valued most about 194 Guamits strategic military importance. Given the possible benefits of the status, free association has the potential to evolve into a mutually beneficial arrangement for the United States and the U.S. citizens of Guam. VII. CONCLUSION

[G]eographic isolation, lower standard of living, lack of sophistication in Western politicsthese words were used to describe the Cook Islands and their people as an argument 195 against full political integration of the Islands into New Zealand. In spite of this unflattering perception that their colonizer had of them (whether true or not), the fact remains that the Cook Islanders were not stripped of their access to New Zealand citizenship when they chose free association with New Zealand.

Id. at 6. With this, Guam would have first-hand involvement and control in the organizations that most greatly and directly impact its interests, while deferring to the United States on broader or less immediate matters. Some of the other island-nations previously discussed have crafted similar arrangements. Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles, and the Cook Islands, for instance, are not individually represented as member states of the United Nations, but are either associate members or members of the sub-organization United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as well as other confederations and organizations outside of the U.N. CIA FACTBOOK, Aruba, supra note 182, at 27; Netherlands Antilles, supra note 180, at 363; Cook Islands, at 120, available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/ publications/factbook/geos/cw.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2003). Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, in addition to being associate members of UNESCO, are also represented in organizations such as the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) and as observers in the Caribbean Community (Caricom). CIA FACTBOOK, Aruba, supra note 182, at 27; Netherlands Antilles, supra note 180, at 363. The Cook Islands have representation in the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States (ACP), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). CIA FACTBOOK, Cook Islands, at 120. Similarly, allowing the U.S. continued representation of Guam in the U.N. but taking charge of its own representation elsewhere may be a possible option for Guam in negotiating the terms of the association.
192 193

191

Position Paper, supra note 1, at 11. Gutierrez, An American Colony, supra note 15. TIDES OF HISTORY, supra note 13, at 202; see also discussion supra Part VI.D.1.

194

195

Guams Future Political Status

147

Although Guam could have once been described as having a low standard of living and 196 lacking sophistication in Western politics, that is hardly the case today. Now, Guam has the 197 highest standard of living and the largest economy in its region, despite its inherent encumbrances (limited economic assets, small size, etc.). Today, with the few resources it has 198 been allowed to use, the small island of Guam and its 140,000 inhabitants boast a gross island 199 product of more than $3 billion, with even greater potential for the future . . . . And as for the native inhabitants of Guam, even with their distinct cultural traditions, they overwhelmingly view themselves as American; they are accustomed to no other way of government than the 200 Western, American way. It is incongruous to argue that the people of Guam must be stripped of their U.S. citizenship merely for taking action towards bettering their status and improving their relationship with the United Statesa country whose ways have, after a century of 201 association, become very much their own. The Territories Clause of the Constitution, which essentially gives Congress the powers to dispose of U.S. territories in any way it sees fit, arguably also gives Congress the implicit power to partially dispose of its authority over the territory of Guamneither granting it 202 statehood, nor cutting it off entirely. It is conceivable and possible to have a freely associated state of Guam in which the United States disposes of its authority to govern Guam internally and represent it in regional associations that affect Guams interests directly, while maintaining authority to govern matters of defense and related matters of foreign affairs. It is also conceivable and possible to allow the Americans of Guam to achieve a self-governing status in free association with the United States without taking away their U.S. citizenship. Although none of the international examples of associations discussed above is without its drawbacks, each of them serves as a model of what is possible for Guam. Each of them provides for an arrangement by which the island-states involved are able to enjoy selfgovernment without being denied the support, protection, and citizenship of their (former) Mother Countries. Each of the cited examples is an arrangement crafted specifically around the nature and experience of the historical relationship of the parties involved.
CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 36-37 (quoting the 1904 Annual Report by Guams Naval Governor to the Dept of Navy, describing the Chamorros as poor, ignorant, and very dirty in their habits). 197 Position Paper, supra note 1, at 11. The estimated population of Guam as of July, 2001, is roughly 158,000. CENT. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Guam, in THE WORLD FACTBOOK 2001 205 (2001), available at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/ factbook/geos/gq.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2003).
199 198 196

Gutierrez, An American Colony, supra note 15.

See generally LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 402 (stating that the net effect of the World War II experience was to strengthen the ties of the Guamanians with the United States. From that point on most Guamanians looked upon themselves as patriotic Americans.); Gutierrez, An American Colony, supra note 15 (stating that [s]ince the dawn of the relationship between the United States and Guam, the Chamorro people have sought the application of American principles of civil rights and democracy.)
201

200

Position Paper, supra note 1, at 5-6. Troutman, Partial Disposal, supra note 6, at 6.

202

148

ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003)

Guam has its own experience and historical relationship with the United States. It is within the framework of that experience and relationship that Guams arrangement for free association should be crafted. Indeed, U.S. citizenshipand the fifty-year quest to obtain that statushas been an integral part of Guams history and experience. It therefore can and should be a significant part of any future relationship with the United States. Hannah M.T. Gutierrez
203

203

Class of 2003, University of Hawai`i, William S. Richardson School of Law.