Puerto Rico Statehood and General Discussion

[Bori427]

Bill Could Lead To Statehood For Puerto Rico

Tue Nov 27, 12:29 PM ET



A bill has been introduced to the U.S. Congress that could make Puerto Rico the 51st state.

For almost 50 years, the U.S. has been made up of 50 states. In 1959, Hawaii was the last state added to the Union, but that could change.

Related Content: Puerto Rico Statehood?




Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States for more than a century, and some people think it's time for the commonwealth to become a state. The topic has sparked a heated debate.

"Statehood would go against that sense of uniqueness, culture, identity that we do have under commonwealth," Puerto Rican Gov. Anibal Acevedo-Vila said.

"As a U.S. citizen, if you live in Puerto Rico, you are stripped of your rights," Luis Fortuno, Puerto Rico's only non-voting congressman, said.

Acevedo-Vila believes his people are better off the way they are now.

"We are U.S. citizens, we are a commonwealth of the U.S., but we are a nation sociologically. We call ourselves Puerto Ricans. We don't call ourselves Puerto Rican-Americans," Acevedo-Vila said.

Puerto Ricans do not currently pay taxes and do not vote for U.S. president, but they do receive welfare and unemployment benefits and pay Social Security. Puerto Ricans also serve in the U.S. military.

Fortuno said Puerto Ricans in the U.S. military are why Puerto Rico should become a state.

"We have fought in every single war since the first world war," Fortuno said. "We are proud to be Americans, and we are bound by the same values that actually make us the greatest nation in the world."

"As a senator who represents a lot of Puerto Rican people in this state, I should give them a voice, and I know it's a big deal to the people of Puerto Rico," Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said.

Martinez said the people of Puerto Rico should decide their own fate.

In August, Martinez introduced a bill to Congress that would set a date for a federally sanctioned vote on the island, which would allow Puerto Ricans to choose between commonwealth status, independence, free association or statehood.

Commonwealth status would mean no change, but independence would make the island a sovereign nation and free association would mean independence with a special relationship to the U.S.

"Since 1898, Puerto Rico has been essentially in a limbo colonial status, and it's just not right. There's not too many places in the world where a complete lack of definity exists for a people," Martinez said.

Puerto Ricans have voted on their status before. In those non-binding referendums, known as plebiscites, Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood.

"I think that Puerto Rico in the future should get a better deal with the U.S. Congress in order for the island to get more power, more autonomy," Acevedo-Vila said.

"We're not asking for any special treatment," Fortuno said. "We just want to participate fully in this experiment. We want to carry our own weight."

Martinez said, ultimately, Congress has the last word on the status of Puerto Rico, no matter what the voters on the island choose.

If Puerto Rico becomes a state, it would be represented by six members of Congress and two U.S. senators.

Martinez's bill is now in the hands of a Senate committee. Lawmakers are expected to act on the bill early next year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/wesh/20071127/lo_wesh/14697953

So what do you guys think???

[ABQalex]

I think it should be statehood or independence. I didn't know that Puerto Ricans are eligible for all those benefits without paying taxes. I don't think that's right. I've also always resented the claims of those like Senator Martinez who say that Puerto Rico is similar to a colony. Let them loose or have them be truly equal to all other states for once and for all. The same for all other U.S. posessions like Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

[Uncle Phil]

Why not? I'd give P.R. statehood. I mean, if its what they truly want. God knows they deserve it as its sons and daughters have died in every war this country has gotten into since WWII.

The hurdle would be the Spanish language I guess. After reading into it, it would probally be easier on the taxpayers to give them statehood then leave it in its current state.

[Uncle Phil]

Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. are the only two places I think should and could be states. I guess you could make a case for American Samoa, Mariana Islands, Guam, Marshall Islands, etc. being one state. That might be a bit of a reach though.

[Xusein]

May as well. Puerto Rico, at this point, is a state except in name. IMO, of course.

But however, we should do a referendum down there eventually to see what the people think.

[xote]

Originally Posted by ABQalex

I think it should be statehood or independence. I didn't know that Puerto Ricans are eligible for all those benefits without paying taxes. I don't think that's right. I've also always resented the claims of those like Senator Martinez who say that Puerto Rico is similar to a colony. Let them loose or have them be truly equal to all other states for once and for all. The same for all other U.S. posessions like Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

1) Citizenship was awarded as to allow Puerto Ricans to be drafted, which proved crucial during WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement, not a charity case.

2) Puerto Ricans receive on average much less than broke states like Mississippi.

3) Puerto Ricans do pay federal taxes, just not income taxes. And many of these can't be recuperated as they are not a formal part of the country.

[xote]

Puerto Rico becoming a state is not going happen for at least another couple of generations because:

1) Puerto Rico would immediately become among the more populous states in the Union, ranking upper half.

2) Puerto Rico would be a heavily Democrat state, which means the Republicans would kill any attempt to allow for statehood.

3) Puerto Rico will under no circumstances marginalize the Spanish language. Given the bleating about immigration, imagine how it would look in "Jesusland-Red America" if a state that is essentially monolingual Spanish enters the Union.

4) Even though Puerto Rico is officially bilingual, this is only by name. And, given the predominance of Spanish, in theory, Puerto Rico could be a Quebec in miniature. Not in terms of secessionism (why would it choose statehood then ), but in terms of demands on the federal government. Puerto Rico could be the gateway to forced bilingualism in the federal government (Puerto Rico could demand that as there is no official language, that it has a right to address the federal goverment in one of its co-official languages, Spanish). This is similar to point #3.

5) Many Americans do not realize how fucked up federal policies were in Puerto Rico until 1950. In essence, the federal government tried to convert Puerto Rico to an English-speaking country, even changing the name to "Porto Rico" as it is easier to pronounce than "P-weh-rto Rico." Any attempt, see points #3 and #4, to alter that status of Spanish will bring back flashbacks to those dark times.

I think in the long run, the only sustainable choice is eventual independence. Puerto Rico obviously gains from being the US, and the current status suits both the US and Puerto Rico very well. However, Puerto Rico is not roling in the money as some people in this very thread have suggested.

In addition, the US is going to attack the Spanish language before any entrance of Puerto Rico into the Union, and Puerto Rico is never going to give up its native language. These are fundamentally mutually exclusive demands.

[MRichR]

There have been referendum's asking citizens of Puerto Rico if they would like to become a state, the last one in 1998, and the majority has always voted against it.

[Uncle Phil]

I dont know why you have to refer to it as Jesusland. And their problem is not with Spanish speakers, but with illegal immigration.

[xote]

Originally Posted by Uncle Phil

I dont know why you have to refer to it as Jesusland. And their problem is not with Spanish speakers, but with illegal immigration.

Well, you are correct. I think for most it is more illegal immigration than anything else, and I think it would be hard to find someone who does not thing that uncontrolled entry is somehow something that should remain. But, among WASP evangelicals (hence my reference to Jesusland) in many instances, it is simply a poorly cloaked xenophobia; they would be angered even if these were all legal immigrants.

[globill]

Originally Posted by xote

Puerto Rico becoming a state is not going happen for at least another couple of generations because:

1) Puerto Rico would immediately become among the more populous states in the Union, ranking upper half.

Actually, it would rank 27th, just after Kentucky and ahead of oregon.

[Uncle Phil]

Originally Posted by xote

Well, you are correct. I think for most it is more illegal immigration than anything else, and I think it would be hard to find someone who does not thing that uncontrolled entry is somehow something that should remain. But, among WASP evangelicals (hence my reference to Jesusland) in many instances, it is simply a poorly cloaked xenophobia; they would be angered even if these were all legal immigrants.

Its not just WASPs that are xenophobic. Not every person who votes Blue is some cultural uber-hippie. I know plenty of non-WASP Democrats who aint exactly fond of people just hopping the borders.

[xote]

Originally Posted by globill

Actually, it would rank 27th, just after Kentucky and ahead of oregon.

Close enough

It would still be me several Democratic votes too many for Republicans, and I believe that for something as significant as proceeding to change the territorial make-up of the country, would require bipartisan support.

[Xusein]

I don't know what illegal immigration has to do with Puerto Rico.

Here we go with our stereotypes.

[xote]

Originally Posted by Uncle Phil

Its not just WASPs that are xenophobic. Not every person who votes Blue is some cultural uber-hippie. I know plenty of non-WASP Democrats who aint exactly fond of people just hopping the borders.

Another good point. One of the most vocal groups of people are African Americans, who see illegals as competing unfairly for jobs that are held by African Americans.

But I am thinking about who would need to accept Puerto Rico entering the Union; it would need to be Middle America. Middle America is key for our presidential votes, it would be key for voting on statehood. And right now, large swaths of Middle America, even after the 2006, are controled by WASP evangelical politicans. Even where they are not the majority, "liberal" politicians need to sing the same tune just to stand the chance of being elected.

[xote]

Originally Posted by TenRot

I don't know what illegal immigration has to do with Puerto Rico.

Here we go with our stereotypes.

I am Puerto Rican-American

You need to only look at how the public looks at this illegal immigration debate to see how simplistic they look at it. Spanish-surname = illegal immigrants in many people's eyes, no matter how long they have been here (and no matter how legal either).

[Uncle Phil]

Originally Posted by xote

Another good point. One of the most vocal groups of people are African Americans, who see illegals as competing unfairly for jobs that are held by African Americans.

But I am thinking about who would need to accept Puerto Rico entering the Union; it would need to be Middle America. Middle America is key for our presidential votes, it would be key for voting on statehood. And right now, large swaths of Middle America, even after the 2006, are controled by WASP evangelical politicans. Even where they are not the majority, "liberal" politicians need to sing the same tune just to stand the chance of being elected.

I agree that these types might be a hurdle. Given the evidence of Puerto Rico's sacrifices to this country, some may be swayed.

Many will have an issue with the Spanish thing. I could care less. There are probally more Spanish speakers in Southern California then there are people on P.R.

[Xusein]

Originally Posted by xote

I am Puerto Rican-American

You need to only look at how the public looks at this illegal immigration debate to see how simplistic they look at it. Spanish-surname = illegal immigrants in many people's eyes, no matter how long they have been here (and no matter how legal either).

Oh, I wasn't referring to you. It's the media that's irking me.

I'm not Hispanic, as you know, but I'm just sick of this thought from the media that all Spanish speakers are illegals and are trying to make look every guy with the last name "Mendez" or whatever, just jumped off the fence and now is mowing your lawn.

[Second City]

Why not?

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by xote

Another good point. One of the most vocal groups of people are African Americans, who see illegals as competing unfairly for jobs that are held by African Americans.

Newly arrived immigrants and Black Americans have always been pitted against one another as far back as the arrival of huge swaths of Irish and Italians at the turn of the last century. The outcome is and will always be the same under the presiding paradigm. The once marginalized immigrant class by the 2nd, 3rd generation will begin to associate themselves more and more closely with a white construct and eventually will be considered "white" if not outright by the Census gang at least in social similarities and begin to move up economically all because of their "hard work". Already upwards of 80% of "Hispanics" chooses the white box on the Census form(even the black ones), it's only a matter of time baby. Ironically blacks have always had a mix of sympathy and rage for the immigrant class of the day, as is further explored in the SF Gate article below:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGMII8HI61.DTL