Talk:Jones–Shafroth Act

Introduction/disambiguation

An editor on this article has repeatedly edited it to take out references to the "Jones Act" as another name for this statute, and eliminated disambiguation between this Jones Act, Jones Act (Philippines), and Jones Act (a better-known statute governing shipping). I appreciate his desire to minimize confusion between this 1917 statute governing Puerto Rico and the Jones Act of 1920 governing maritime matters. However, the Puerto Rico statute is referred to frequently, in the literature and by courts, as the "Jones Act" as well as as the "Jones-Shafroth Act." It is very desirable to minimize any confusion among these statutes, but I think the effort to eliminate any use of the term "Jones Act" at all from this article may be taking things a bit too far. This editor hasn't responded to a note I left on his talk regarding this so I'd appreciate input from other editors here before I consider whether to revert again. Newyorkbrad 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice

Here's a question: who were Jones and Shafroth?!98.170.194.117 (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This information is now included with citations. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Effects of the act on conscription

@Marine 69-71, Sarason, and Mercy11:

Hi guys,

I tried to expand the section regarding conscription which is often misunderstood. Please have a look and help develop it. You just need to study the act itself available at [1]. The act really did not mandate conscription nor did the Selective Service Act of 1917. Conscription was simply a by product of the Jones Act applying virtually all U.S. laws into Puerto Rico.

Hope this clarifies things up.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Saludos mi amigo. Tell you what, my friend. I'm going to let @Sarason: handle this one on my behalf. Sarason is more prepared in this field and I for one trust Sarason's input. However, I think that you got it right when you stated that"conscription was simply a by product of the Jones Act applying virtually all U.S. laws into Puerto Rico." The timing of the US entering World War I was and the passage of the was perfect and very convenient for the US. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Marine 69-71, Sarason, and Ahnoneemoos:. Hi Ahnoneemoos, I'll take a look at it perhaps tomorrow and respond, or provide an initial response, then. However, I trust your expertise in this area and -strongly- encourage you to continue to take the leading role. Again, will respond soon. Cheers, Mercy11 (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I edited the section down to bare, simple, inarguable facts. Once we go beyond those facts, we enter areas of historical conjecture and editorial disagreement. Please feel free to modify or revert.

Regarding conscription - it was mandatory. One could try to qualify for an exemption (as one might try to get an IRS exemption), but the draft was as mandatory as paying taxes to the IRS. Please see [2]

Saludos Tony & Mercy! Palante siempre! Sarason (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Seems pretty good this way. Can't argue facts! Will do some reformatting, though, for presentability. Mercy11 (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Sarason and Mercy11: this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid and why so many people misunderstand this issue. You are leaving out the fact that the Jones-Shafroth Act extended U.S. laws to Puerto Rico. Without the Jones Act the Selective Service Act would had applied to all citizens, but not to Puerto Rico. How so? Because the Selective Service act established that the draft had to be based "upon liability to military service of all male citizens" (notice how you left out that critical aspect of the law). It was not simply "all U.S. citizens", it was "all U.S. citizens that are liable to military service". Without the Jones Act extending U.S. laws to Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans would not have been "liable to military service". It is very important to mention this series of events. Conscription was not based on citizenship and citizenship alone. It was based on (i) citizenship, (ii) liability and (iii) sex. Citizenship alone is not what exposed Puerto Ricans to conscription. Now, how do we figure out who is "liable for military service"? That's when you have to go to the National Defense Act of 1916 which establishes in Section 57 that, "the militia of the United States shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the United States." Now, the question is, did the National Defense Act apply to Puerto Rico? Yes, because of the Jones Act. Without it the National Defense Act would not have applied to Puerto Rico and it would not have made Puerto Ricans liable to military service. Hope this helps. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)