Talk:Luis A. Ferré

Untitled

What's going on here...he died today,it's in lots of media...did Rmherm delete mention of his death and call it a minor edit? Or is this a computer problem?(Going from the Recent Deaths list on the main page,I found a version with death not mentioned,when I checked the history for it the version with death was "current revision" under changes that had nothing to do with the death.

Everything seems in order now. From what I can see, all Rmherm did was delete a superfluous ref. to Ponce that I'd sloppily left in my edit (recording LAF's passing) this morning. Put it down to the ongoing server hiccups? Hajor 02:01, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

cause of death?

Any news on what he died from?

Respiratory failure (99 yrs!) while already hospitalized for pneumonia. Hang on, I'll put that in the article.

He had been ill for some time,I don't recall an exact cause but he was in the hospital. I am STILL going to an article that has him still alive when I browse with Lynx...but to one with his death included when I use Netscape. I hope the server hiccups clear up.==L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

BS and MS from MIT, on what field?

I have searched the web, MIT archives, but failed to come up with the answer. Was it mechanical engineering, physics, mathematics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.229.49 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits about Puerto Rican vs. American by IP 72.50.87.238

Reverted edits HERE by above IP alleging this governor (Luis A. Ferré) is American and not Puerto Rican. According to THIS log, the anonymous IP has also been making identical claims and edits at the article pages for these other Puerto Rican governors

1. Luis Muñoz Marín
2. Pedro Pierluisi (Puerto Rican Congressman)
3. Carlos Romero Barceló
4. Rafael Hernández Colón
5. Pedro Rosselló
6. Sila María Calderón
7. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá
8. Luis Fortuño

The IP first based his allegations on a faulty understanding of the US. Immigration and Naturalization Act HERE and when reverted then changed his tune to allege HERE that the Foraker Act had been superseded by the Jones–Shafroth Act. The allegations is invalid as the Jones Act and the Foraker Act were not mutually exclusive. As such, his allegations violate WP:V and WP:OR. In another claim HERE the editor also makes a claim regarding someone born in Texas, which is an utterly invalid comparison, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. This matter is not about Texans, it is about Puerto Ricans. In any event, he provides no cites for anyone of his 3 claims and his last one (in particular) violates WP:SYNT. Reverted for violation of policies as indicated. The anonymous IP editor is invited to discuss his allegations here. Mercy11 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

So you deny that they do not have American citizenship and therefore are not Americans? Hammersbach (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to Mercy, my actions were from a plain-letter reading of 8 U.S.C. 1402. (All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.) If Mercy's argumentation is correct, then please enlighten me as to that effect, and please show me upon what knowledge and professional qualifications you base your determinations upon. My invocation of § 7 of the Jones-Shaffroth Act was based on your trite citation of the Foraker Act, which served only to illustrate that the Foraker Act has become deprecated with regards to citizenship, being directly cited in the former statute and summarily corrected. The pertinent section in the Jones-Shaffroth Act later became codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940, and later included in the current INA, dating to 1952. Caolo v. Dulles, 115 F.Supp. 125, 126 (1953). The 1952 INA added the second sentence regarding citizenship at birth. Furthermore, taking the Foraker Act together with the INA, we come up with another problem: Congress has no right to even affect what citizenship is. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 267 (1967). Holding that the people of Puerto Rico are of a Puerto Rican nationality, while also granting them citizenship would be in violation of Afroyim. The referral to Texans is quite simple: Mercy considers the usage of Puerto Rican instead of American more specific. I mentioned Texans as a point where the practice is not used; Texans, also citizens by birth, are referred to as Americans. Furthermore, it is paramount to consider that citizenship and nationality have only been distinguished legally as concepts with regards to American Samoans, and that in itself is being litigated in SCOTUS. As a result, I will continue to label Puerto Ricans as Americans as per their legal and internationally recognized citizenship.72.50.87.238 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You will not do so. Your actions are disruptive by not starting a discussion before you make such edits to numerous high-traffic articles. Regardless of your legal research, changing important facts in so many articles should be notified first in discussion pages. This may be a controversial subject, and the final decision on what to include or not include should be reached through discussion and consensus. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 11:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)