Anti-Immigration Zealot Tom Tancredo Takes to the Airwaves to Bash Sotomayor
It seems to me that if conservatives want to avoid a Hispanic backlash against their attacks on Sonia Sotomayor they might want to come up with a better spokesman than anti-immigrant zealot Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO):
Indeed, Tancredo might want to ask himself why he was invited on The Ed Show in the first place? Was it because Ed has the best interests of the conservative movement at heart, and was looking to promote the most credible possible conservative voice? Or was it that Tancredo was invited specifically because he’s such a bad spokesman?
Ali Frick takes us back:
Remember, Tancredo is the lawmaker who called Miami a “third world country” because of the number of Latinos there, criticized presidential candidates for “pandering” by participating in a Spanish-language debate, and accused immigrants of “pushing drugs, raping kids, and destroying lives.” He said the issue of immigration is “whether we will survive.
Of course Puerto Ricans aren’t immigrants, but they have many of the same Spanish-speaking, nation-destroying qualities as immigrants from Latin America.
67 Responses to “Anti-Immigration Zealot Tom Tancredo Takes to the Airwaves to Bash Sotomayor”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Next thing ya know, Judge Soda Lady will be wanting citizenship for all them Perter Reekins!
May 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Puerto Rico is not a foreign country (citizenship and so forth), but it is not part of the United States, so I think it is reasonable, if not entirely accurate, to consider people who come to the mainland from Puerto Rico to be immigrants.
But wait, then you can’t be a new media know-it-all. Curses!
May 27th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Moral Panicker,
Huh?
Puerto Rico is very much part of the US and Puerto Ricans are US Citizens.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
#2, I’ll try to put this delicately. You’re completely wrong.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Those GOP Senators may take a different approach and tone down the rhetoric during Sotomayor’s hearing, but I’m surprised the blowhards and Newt and a few other influential policy folks are hitting her profile as hard as they are . . . keep it up, Republicans, and watch your stock plummet in Florida, Arizona, and Texas.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
But, Tancredo has also recently come out against the drug war. Perhaps this is a calculated ploy to garner more libertarian votes than they lose over Sotomayer.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Well, it’s not part of the United States in the same way that D.C. isn’t.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“Progressives” throw hissy fits when corporations move factories abroad to exploit cheap labor, but say nothing when the same corporations back amnesty for exactly the same reason. That’s why illegal immigration is the plan of choice for Wall Street/BushCo/Obama. It allows their GOPocratic sock puppets like Matt to spin screwing working people as a high-minded devotion to “inclusiveness” and “compassion,” stuff Wall Street doesn’t give a shit about beyond its proven ability to turn “progressives” into useful idiots.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
He actually does OK in the middle, but starting with the IQ stuff (not that he is implying anything, of course, wink-wink) and then using the word “racist” in the final part is just bad politics. Of course, all indications are that in addition to being a whacko, Tancredo is also a terrible politician.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“Nobody Knows in America / Puerto Rico’s in America!”
Tancredo is such a great example of the American dream– that the grandchild of immigrants could become a ladder-pulling bigot.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Tancredo?
Tancredo … the creationist?
Heh.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Look, you libruls can whine all you want, but you ain’t a real citizen if good conservative Southern white males don’t think you is. Why do you think it is that Obama is legally a Kenyonesian and not an Amurkin?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Fuck you!!!! NO SERIOUSLY PROGRESSIVES!!! FUCK YOU!!!
You will notice that in my comment I say “citizenship and so forth.” That clearly suggests that I am and was aware of the citizenship-status of Puerto Ricans.
That being said, Puerto Rico is not part of the United States in the conventional sense even while the US government is the sovereign power and the President is chief of state. Its legal status as a commonwealth is completely different from those of the 50 states and the Twenty-Third Amendement does not apply to it. THe Central Intelligence Agency describes its government as “unincorporated, organized territory of the US with commonwealth status; policy relations between Puerto Rico and the US conducted under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President.”
May 27th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
But wait, then you can’t be a new media know-it-all. Curses!
No, Moral Panicker, you can’t.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Actually, many progressives have spoken out strongly against the “guest worker” system those corporations endorsed a couple years ago, and have long decried immigration crackdowns precisely because they, too, drive down wages (in this case, by placing a larger boot on the necks of undocumented immigrants, thus making it easier to exploit them).
But nice try.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
No one can legally be a Supreme Court justice if they were raised by a single parent and whatnot.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Moral Panicker, do some more research on commonwealths in the US–you might be surprised what you find!
May 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
You know, if Tancredo is trying to stress how his activism is all about opposition to illegal immigration, rather than being a racist enterprise, it would probably be best for him to shut up about Sotomayor. I’m not saying what opinion he should or shouldn’t hold about Sotomayor, but this is a fight he’d be best to stay out of.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
BrklynLibrul Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Those GOP Senators may take a different approach and tone down the rhetoric during Sotomayor’s hearing, but I’m surprised the blowhards and Newt and a few other influential policy folks are hitting her profile as hard as they are . . . keep it up, Republicans, and watch your stock plummet in Florida, Arizona, and Texas.
===========================================================
Interesting that it didn’t seem to hurt Democrats any in 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada
Miguel Angel Estrada Castañeda (born September 25, 1961) is an American lawyer who became embroiled in controversy following his 2001 nomination by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Unable to block Estrada’s nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the Senate in 2003, Senate Democrats used a filibuster to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote on the full Senate floor. Although a filibuster had been used in 1968 to prevent the elevation of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to the position of Chief Justice of the United States, Estrada’s filibuster was the first ever to be used against a Circuit Court of Appeals nominee.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
A district, with special passages dedicated to it the Constitution is not a commonwealth, neither are the states which insist on calling themseleves commonwealths.
http://www.gobierno.pr is only in Spanish and has a special section on simbolos nacionales and refers to PR as nuestro pais.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“and have long decried immigration crackdowns precisely because they, too, drive down wages (in this case, by placing a larger boot on the necks of undocumented immigrants…”
Yes, let’s never forget that the BushCo/Wall Street push for amnesty in 2007 was motivated by a desire to see higher wages for poor, predominately non-white, workers.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
El Cid Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
No one can legally be a Supreme Court justice if they were raised by a single parent and whatnot.
=============================================================
You bet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, impoverished African American community.[2] His family are descendents of American slaves in the American South. His father left his family when he was two years old.[3] After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers were taken to Savannah, Georgia, where their mother worked as a domestic employee. Thomas’ sister Emma stayed behind with relatives in Pin Point.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Blog commenters generally cannot read so I would like to point out again what I already said in comment #20. MA, VA, KY, PA call themselves commonwealths but they at the same time have the legal status of states. PR does not.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Interesting that it didn’t seem to hurt Democrats any in 2001
Since the Democrats never engaged in “it” – that is, hitting her profile as hard as they are – then I’d have to disagree. It isn’t remotely interesting that Democrats were not hurt by a tactic they didn’t use.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I think you forgot the word “illegal” when describing him as an anti-immigrant zealot.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Interesting that it didn’t seem to hurt Democrats any in 2001
They filibustered Estrada specifically to avoid having Bush nominate the “first Latino Justice.” Can’t have those pesky republicans show the world that they aren’t the racists the left portrays them as.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Oh well. I should have said “is not conventionally part of the United States” in addition to the other qualifications that I placed in my comment like “reasonable” “not entirely accurate” “to consider.”
May 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
[something trollish to provoke Moral Panicker]
May 27th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
joe from Lowell Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Interesting that it didn’t seem to hurt Democrats any in 2001
Since the Democrats never engaged in “it” – that is, hitting her profile as hard as they are – then I’d have to disagree. It isn’t remotely interesting that Democrats were not hurt by a tactic they didn’t use.
============================================================
How quickly they forget. Dems filibuster well qualified Latino nominee on specious grounds
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/estrada.withdraws/
Estrada’s Democratic critics said he had not answered questions about several key court cases, including some involving abortion and affirmative action.
They also objected to a decision by the White House not to provide access to documents Estrada prepared when he was assistant solicitor general.
All seven living former solicitors general, including three who served under Democratic presidents, had opposed release of the internal work documents, calling them “highly privileged.”
The dispute over Estrada is part of a larger and increasingly bitter struggle over Bush’s judicial nominations in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Democrats are under pressure from interest groups in their party’s base to hold the line against Bush’s conservative nominees.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Well, it’s not part of the United States in the same way that D.C. isn’t.
I don’t think that’s correct. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States, and is thus not considered an integral part of the United States, unlike D.C., which is. See Wikipedia:
So Puerto Rico is arguably not part of the United States, although its citizens are U.S. citizens.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Moral Panicker -
Fuck you!!! NO SERIOUSLY FUCK YOU!!!
Uhm…yes, you’ve cleverly deduced that Puerto Rico isn’t a state, and like a bunch of other pieces of land (Guam, the District of Columbia), is in kind of a funny/awkward relationship to the U.S. gov’t. But frankly, it’s just uncomfortable to say “Puerto Rico isn’t a part of the United States, we just own it,” which is in some ways closer to the truth.* But whatever its status, it’s still part of the US! Natural born Puerto Ricans are automatically U.S. citizens! It’s not anything else, so it’s American.
Actually, if you set the statehood thing aside, I was gonna make a joke comparing Puerto Rico not to D.C., but to Alaska; geographically separate, but not insurmountably so, culturally distinct enough (in their own minds, at least) that despite significant commonalities and influence with/from mainstream US culture it’s quite common for people to define themselves as Alaskan/PR in contrast to being “American,” and both locations sport small fringe separatist movements.
The above is mostly joking. Mostly.
* For the record, as a 1/4 Puerto Rican myself, I support statehood but don’t think the status quo is horrible, and definitely think it’s preferable to independence.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
So, the point about progressives OPPOSING his proposal – once again, for a guest-worker program – doesn’t put a dent in your belief that they supported it?
Way to hew to the established facts.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Is it trollish to provoke a troll? Anyway, I am willing to admit that PR is part of the USA and that I should have said is not conventionally part of the USA. That being said, it does not change the fact that is reasonable (I probably should have said excusable instead) if not accurate to consider Puerto Ricans who come to the mainland (which I was careful to describe as the mainland, even though it includes HI, and not as “the USA” or something like that) as immigrants who come from a pais with its own simbolos nacionales.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Moral Panicker
Racists assholes like you can define citizenship however you want for your rantings but it has no bearing on the law.
Legally citizens of Puerto Rico are US Citizens and by definition therefore are not immigrants
May 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Incidentally, when I want to distinguish PR from the 50 states (+ DC, I guess), I invariably refer to the latter as “The States,” which is sort of unfair to DC but otherwise gets the point across.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Tancredo’s opposition to Sonia Sotomayor demonstrates exactly why Rep. Tom Tancredo is FORMER Rep. Tom Tancredo. The man is on a mission. Tancredo is on hate campaign to disparage and discredit Hispanics. He blames them for all of America’s problems: drugs, guns, gangs, violence, jobs, healthcare, housing, education, and social policies. Tancredo opposes affirmative action and any other social policy that helps the poor. He would like to deport all illegal aliens, especially those who would “take good American jobs”.
Perhaps Tom Tancredo needs to be reminded of how some members of established society felt about the Italians who came to the Northeast in the 1900-1930s. They didn’t speak English. Their strange-sounding names ended in vowels. They were dark skinned, and their culture was different- Catholics, no less. They were dirty and lived in squallor, multiple generations shared a home. Despite their poverty, they produced broods of kids. They were poorly educated and worked menial jobs. Many were unemployed, “lazy.” They couldn’t afford healthcare or insurance. They lived on the poor side of town, and no one wanted them to live next door. Some were violent; some were petty criminals involved in drugs, gangs, guns, and violence. Some were notorious king pins, involved in organized crime. Those who made it big in sports, entertainment, or business never looked back. Within a generation, most became educated, hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of the United States.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I think you forgot the word “illegal” when describing him as an anti-immigrant zealot.
This stipulation may apply to some right-wingers, but not to Tancredo. He’s a firmly Buchananite anti-immigration restrictionist who wants a “time-out” on legal immigration, whatever that means.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
It may also be worth considering the words that form the name of the United States of America. It is the States, which includes those commonwealths that have the same legal privileges as states. Because the district is “by cession of the several states” it is considered part of it. But I am willing to admit that if the main criterion is the sovereignty of the USG and automatic citizenship for native Puerto Ricans, then yes, PR is part of the USA.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I can’t stop writing comments!
But look, these are the problems you get when you can’t acknowledge that the USA is an imperialist power. There’s an established language for discussing these issues and relationships, and we can’t use it because people make funny faces when you say things like “colony.”
Many Puerto Ricans also considered themselves, as Moral Panicker puts it, a pais with their own simbolos nacionales, back when they were still “part” – a colony! – of Spain. My grandmother, who was born after PR became part of the US but before PR citizens became US citizens, considered herself Puerto Rican first, and reported that her parents and grandparents considered themselves Puerto Ricans before they were Spaniards.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
The Census Bureau’s population of the United States does not include that of PR or other commonwealths.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“Why do you think it is that Obama is legally a Kenyonesian and not an Amurkin?”
Hey, Obama went to Occidental, not Kenyon. Keep yur liberal artz collidges strait.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Thank you for proving my point – the Democrats did nothing that could be described as “hitting her profile as hard as they are.”
Not answering questions? Nothing to do with his profile.
Not releasing documents? Nothing to do with his profile.
Don’t want a conservative? Nothing to do with his profile.
Here, I’ll use very small words, because you’re a conservative: it isn’t opposing Sotomayor, by itself, that will hurt Republicans among Latinos. It’s “hitting her profile as hard as they are” that will hurt them. If they go after her for her judicial philosophy, as a “judicial activist” who “legislates from the bench,” it won’t hurt them so much among Latinos.
On the other hand, if they continue pushing the “dumb, obnoxious, overly-emotional affirmative action case who’s had everything handed to her” line – which the Democrats never used during the Estrada fight – then they’re doomed.
Seriously, you can’t just look at Estrada and Sotomayor, note that they’re both Latino, and conclude that everything else about them is the same, too. You actually need to have some knowledge about the facts of their cases.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Similarly the definition the Census Bureau uses for the United States is The 50 states and the District of Columbia.
But, yes, Puerto Ricans are American citizens so it is problematic to think of them as immigrants.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The USA has had non-state territories under its administration since its founding.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
So where were we? Ah, I remember.
1) Sotomayor is qualified and it’s creepy how Republicans bring up her qualifications before her liberalism and
2) I am completely insane, although I believe I have done a good job of explaining how although it makes more sense to say PR is part of the USA, it also makes some kind of sense to make a distinction based on its free-association (which it would not make the same sense to make for DC).
May 27th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
It seems to me that if conservatives want to avoid a Hispanic backlash against their attacks on Sonia Sotomayor they might want to come up with a better spokesman than anti-immigrant zealot Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO):
=============================================================
MY also seems to have forgotten than Trancredo retired and isn’t in the House anymore.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“So, the point about progressives OPPOSING his proposal – once again, for a guest-worker program – doesn’t put a dent in your belief that they supported it?”
They didn’t OPPOSE his proposal. The Democrats favored it by large margins. The opposition came from the GOPers, except for a few Bush bots like Lindsey Graham who accused opponents of racism, a tactic familiar to you.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Likewise, conservatives throw hissy fits when liberals demand freedom of movement for workers but are up in arms when liberals oppose freedom of movement for capital.
Both sides are obviously hypocritical. The question of who is right, though, remains for each issue.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I’m so grateful that this site has readers who are so devoted to and knowledgeable about politics that we have long flame-wars about tangential issues like if PR is part of the USA. You should all be proud of and happy with yourselves, at least wit respect to commenting on this site (except for the people who are even bigger trolls than I am).
(The National Assessment of Educational Progress also excludes PR when it makes national averages, but that does not change the basic fact that Puerto Ricans are Americans which really should be the primary fact in determining whether somewhere is part of the United States of America.)
May 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Your statement was about progressives, not Democrats.
Progressives opposed Bush’s guest worker proposal. Most Democrats did, too, but supported a comprehensive deal that included that proposal, as the deal they had to cut in order to get the elements of the bill they supported.
Accurately describing xenophobes’ attitudes towards Latino immigrants is indeed a familiar tactic. And a damn effective one. Perhaps if their racism wasn’t quite so overt, it would be less effective.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Jennifer Palmieri must have had a talk with MattY; he’s even more of a doltish hack than usual.
Regarding the “Hispanic backlash”, it’s already started.
As for the Frick excerpt, it’s incredibly misleading. The issue with Miami isn’t per se the “number of Latinos there” but the fact that they haven’t assimilated. And, if anyone doubts that the Spanish-language debate was pandering, take a look at Richardson’s performance. The only “immigrants” he accused of “pushing drugs, raping kids, and destroying lives” were a subset of illegal aliens. Is Frick claiming that no illegal aliens have committed such crimes?
How low will the Democratic Party go to support illegal activity?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
That isn’t what you said. Let’s go to the tape:
No, it is not reasonable. Puerto Ricans are as American as you and me.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I just looked up “progressives” in my dictionary, and there it was, definition #1: Congressional Democrats. Then I looked up Mother Jones, where the article “The Senate Immigration Plan Is a Turkey” appeared, and it said “Publication that has nothing to do with progressive politics.” Finally, I looked at the Official Progressive Platform on the internet, and it said that as a member of Congress given only the choice between “limited-amnesty guest worker program” and “throw all the illegal scum out and seal the border with a wall made of werewolves,” the former was inexplicably the more progressive of the two. So take that, progressives!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Tancredo should also be complaining about these other dirty immigrant justices: (location of their births follow their names)
James Wilson – Carskedo, Scotland
James Iredell – Lewes, England
William Paterson – County Antrim, Northern Ireland
Felix Frankfurter – Vienna
George Sutherland – Buckinghamshire, England
Damn Geo. Washington shoulda kept that wetback Wilson off the court, that’s for sure. Washington just wanted to keep the wages of good hard-working American lawyers down by importing cheap Scots legal talent.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
MY also seems to have forgotten than Trancredo retired and isn’t in the House anymore.
People often get to continue going by the title of highest office they’ve won even after they no longer hold that office. I don’t know all the rules of etiquette (heraldry?) that have to do with this, but, for example, Howard Dean was usually introduced as “Gov.” while head of the DNC.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Regarding the “Hispanic backlash”, it’s already started.
Lone Wacko, I persist in not following links you post to one of your own Web sites. If nothing else, make an effort to hide the link-whoring.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
On the other hand, if they continue pushing the “dumb, obnoxious, overly-emotional affirmative action case who’s had everything handed to her” line – which the Democrats never used during the Estrada fight – then they’re doomed.
You better talk to Turley then, I believe he is on your side.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hello Joe from Lowell,
Yes Puerto Ricans are as American as you or me. I NEVER SAID THAT THEY AREN’T. And they are not immigrants. But my point about it being “reasonable” (should have written excusable, I already wrote not accurate) for Puerto Ricans to be considered immigrants had to do not with the issue of citizenship (from a certain point of view) but with…
“im·mi·grant
Pronunciation:\ˈi-mə-grənt\
Function:noun
Date:1789
: one that immigrates: as a: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence”
Here is the issue in the US Code.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
So yes, Puerto Ricans are Americans. My very first comment on the issue say so.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I thought for sure that Tom Tancredo’s parents would turn out to be race-traitors, but lo and behold, all of his fore bearers were swarthy Italians. Ok, I don’t *know* that they were all from the *south* of Italy, but those kind were the most motivated to get the hell out.
All in all, Tom’s a real credit to his race, but I don’t think he’s Senate material. He hasn’t lost his first million, yet.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Being an commonwealth associated with the USA might as well be part of the USA. Why else would the USA be sovereign? The following issues remain related to the social, as opposed to legal, concept of the USA…
In addition to the CIA, the Census Bureau and the Center for Education Statistics….
national weather service has offices in “every state and our territories” and does not have a picture of PR on its map of the USA, putting it down with other commonwealths and territories.
National INstitute of Standards and Technology and US Naval Observatory do not include PR on their detailed map of US time zones.
US Geological Survey
Government Printing Office children’s website “The US has several territories and possessions.” (although this also excludes DC)
May 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
United States
–noun a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. 267,954,767; conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq. mi. (7,827,982 sq. km); with Alaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi. (9,363,166 sq. km). Capital: Washington, D.C. Abbreviation: U.S., US
May 27th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Campesino / kim:
As usual, you’re an idiot. You have no idea whom I was parodying. It’s earlier in the thread.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
what kind of vowel-ended name is “Tancredo,” anyway?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I assume as a good American speaking patriot he prefers his name pronounced “Tanker-dough”.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:34 am
I use to think Tancredo hated Mexicans but now I know he really just hates arroz y frijoles and anyone that eats that stuff.
Maybe it is just the beans since those Cubans are always eating arroz con pollo and Tancredo seems to be okay with them. Cubans also eat a fair amount of black beans though so I think maybe he just hates the i griega.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Puerto Ricans are a border case in the native/immigrant division. As John says above, while Puerto Ricans have US citizenship, the political status of Puerto Rico is different from that of the states and DC, in that the relationship between Puerto Rico and the USA is determined by Congress, and not by the constitution.
I think the discussion is leaving out a very crucial fact: Puerto Rico has a Spanish-speaking culture as distinctive as any of the Hispanic republics in the world, and a very large number of Puerto Ricans in the island (likely a majority) don’t consider themselves “American.” In Puerto Rican public discourse, Puerto Rico is routinely (and controversially) discussed as a Latin American nation without a state.
In addition, “Puerto Ricans are Americans” and “Puerto Rico is not a nation” are partisan pro-statehood talking points in Puerto Rico. Former governors of Puerto Rico Carlos Romero Barceló and José Luis Ferré have had the habit of stirring up controversy in the Puerto Rican media by labeling themselves and Puerto Ricans in general as “American,” saying they are “American first,” using dictionary definitions of “nation” to rebut opponents’ claims that Puerto Rico is a nation, etc.
So here’s a hint: don’t go around calling Puerto Ricans “American” too lightly. Even if you think you’re making a simple statement about citizenship, you’re going to be interpreted as either making a partisan statement, or denying Puerto Rican cultural distinctiveness.