Gov. Pedro Pierluisi: ‘Puerto Rico will be the first truly Hispanic state’

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(03-07-2021, 11:07 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not following how this story relates to Puerto Rico.  Would you care to delve in a little deeper to explain the comparison?

Sure

Hollodero referred to Puerto Rico as a colony.
Jason comically added that we prefer to call them a territory probably because it sounds less imperialistic to what Hollodero was implying?

Then I added how slave labor in WWII is bad when the Nazis did it but if worded differently it takes on a whole different meaning when we, the supposed good guys, did the same thing. Kind of like one man's Inheritance tax is another man's Death tax.

It had little to do with Puerto Rico and more to do with a play off of their word usage.

[hollodero]

(03-07-2021, 12:51 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Sure

Hollodero referred to Puerto Rico as a colony.
Jason comically added that we prefer to call them a territory probably because it sounds less imperialistic to what Hollodero was implying?

Then I added how slave labor in WWII is bad when the Nazis did it but if worded differently it takes on a whole different meaning when we, the supposed good guys, did the same thing. Kind of like one man's Inheritance tax is another man's Death tax.

It had little to do with Puerto Rico and more to do with a play off of their word usage.

So short (not that that's my trait), it's about euphemisms. That's also why I used "cognitively imperfect term" instead of "stupid term" in my response. Yeah territories is an apparent euphemism for what this is.

If Afghanistan promised to erect a democracy in which of course every Afghan citizen were to vote for the Afghan government... except those Afghan citizens back there in that region, because of reasons; I would have quite a bad opinion about their democratic efforts. We'd probably call that region "occupied" and their people "oppressed", on the grounds that it's Afghanistan. 
Of course no one says so about the US and Puerto Rico. You have territories.

[Wes Mantooth]

(03-07-2021, 12:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: In distinct politenenss, but: Oh, come on    I mean, I apparently talk about United States citizens having no vote in elections for United states president, and no representation in the United States legislative body.

I note your counterpoint of them having a governor and a local governement with a certain amount of power that they can vote for. But imho, that is not the issue at hand. At all.

And I doubt this would fly with any other state. Realism aside. If the US say took Wyoming out of the EC and sent their representatives in Congress home. Claiming now come on you people, you don't really pay much federal tax anyway, look at that number it's more of an embarrassment really... and we rather govern the US without you to be frank. - What are you people complaining about? You can still vote for your governor, for your mayors, for dogcatcher, for teacher of the year... so don't make a fuzz about being stripped of your fundamental rights as a citizen. You're still citizens, we'd just rather don't have your input on how to run this country.

Would you accept that?

I mean, to br frank, that is an absolutely terrible comparison (Puerto Rico vs. Wyoming).

Again, Puerto Rico has wanted autonomy for quite some time.  They've resisted statehood in the past.  They literally fought for independence through a series of uprisings and political maneuvers during Spanish rule.  This desire for autonomy didn't just end with the Spanish-American war.

Not only do they have their own Governor, they have their own Senate and House of Representatives.  They even have their own Supreme Court.

Honestly, I don't want to delve into this too deeply, because frankly it's not my place.  I'm not Puerto Rican, and my knowledge is based on a very light amount amount of reading, with zero experience.  But I really do think this conversation is much complicated than most think.  It can't be simpified down to a lot of the talking points seen thus far in this thread.  

All this said, to answer your question, would a US state take this deal?  I think Texas would very much consider it.  No federal income tax, and the ability to elect their own government?  All while being backed by the strength of the US military, with each resident retaining citizenship, and access to Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SNAP, and FEMA aid?   Yeah, I think they would have to think long and hard about that.  I'm sure other states might as well.

All I'm saying, is there is a very good reason those polls you see are split down the middle.  If it was as simple as taxation without representation, and the inability to vote in a Chief of State then it'd be 95%+ in favor.  I'd suggest we find an actual Purto Rican to contribute to this thread before speculated about how much it makes sense for them.

[Wes Mantooth]

(03-07-2021, 12:51 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Hollodero referred to Puerto Rico as a colony.
Jason comically added that we prefer to call them a territory probably because it sounds less imperialistic to what Hollodero was implying?

We don't prefer to call them anything.  They're, in fact, a territoty.  They're not under colonial rule.  Hence, not a colony.

We didn't just sweeten up the terminology, there are distinct differences.

[hollodero]

(03-07-2021, 01:12 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I mean, to br frank, that is an absolutely terrible comparison (Puerto Rico vs. Wyoming).

Yes, it is, in many respects.

(03-07-2021, 01:12 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Again, Puerto Rico has wanted autonomy for quite some time.  They've resisted statehood in the past.  They literally fought for independence through a series of uprisings and political maneuvers during Spanish rule.  This desire for autonomy didn't just end with the Spanish-American war.

Well, they don't resist statehood now.
I don't think it matters much what they did several decades back.

(03-07-2021, 01:12 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Not only do they have their own Governor, they have their own Senate and House of Representatives.

As do, as far as I know, all other states. With none of those this would ever be a reason to not let them participate in presidential elections and not give them their representatives in Congress.

(03-07-2021, 01:12 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Honestly, I don't want to delve into this too deeply, because frankly it's not my place.  I'm not Puerto Rican, and my knowledge is based on a very light amount amount of reading, with zero experience. 

Same here.
If we only talked things we are deeply versed in, this would be a very empty place.

In this case, my point imho is simple enough. Every (unblemished) US citizen should have the right to vote for US president and for their representatives in Congress. I deem that fundamental for every democracy.

(03-07-2021, 01:12 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: All I'm saying, is there is a very good reason those polls you see are split down the middle.  If it was as simple as taxation without representation, and the inability to vote in a Chief of State then it'd be 95%+ in favor.  I'd suggest we find an actual Purto Rican to contribute to this thread before speculated about how much it makes sense for them.

But here's the thing, imho we don't need to speculate about that. They held an election about this question. They were asked. And they answered. They (meaning, a majority of them, which in a democracy is the deciding thing) want statehood.
Had they decided they'd rather keep the status quo, then ok so be it. But they did not.

[Wes Mantooth]

(03-07-2021, 12:51 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Then I added how slave labor in WWII is bad when the Nazis did it but if worded differently it takes on a whole different meaning when we, the supposed good guys, did the same thing. Kind of like one man's Inheritance tax is another man's Death tax.

I admittedly know very little of this.  Perhaps I should read more, or you would be kind enough to take the time to educate me a little bit.

It's my understanding (which is limited) that the Soviets contributed by far the most forced labor after WWII.  I believe a lot of this occurred in what eventlually became East Germany.  I was under the impression this extended far beyond the scope of the other Allies, and included all citizens where they occupied.

I was under the impression that the US (and the UK) labor camps were mostly comprised of German POW's, and were termed reperations for war, or something to that affect.  For residents, the practice was ended after stablilzation (housing, rations, medical, etc.) I also that thought, again, the scale was dwarfed by that of the Soviets.

I'm honestly curious about this.  My initial reaction to your post here, that the Nazi labor camps and Allies labor camps (specifcally the "we" as in US) are essentially one and the same, just worded differently, is to put it very lightly, a bit of a stretch.

[BmorePat87]

Puerto Rico should have been a state decades ago.

[Wes Mantooth]

There was a pretty big article done about a decade back about the statehood movement in Puerto Rico. There's a lot more going on there than simple statehood vs. the status quo, and percentages for and percentages against.

The situation is incredibly complicated, and it would take an actual resident to give it it's proper context. I'm trying to see if I can find it, because it has plenty of quotes from actual Puerto Ricans that explain the issue. But in the meantime, this kind of explains what I'm talking about:

On November 6, 2012, eligible voters in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico were presented with two questions:
(1) whether they agreed to continue with Puerto Rico's territorial status and (2) to indicate the political status they preferred from three possibilities: statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in free association with the United States.[23] Voters who chose "No" to the first question numbered 970,910 (54.0%), expressing themselves against continuing the current political status, while those who voted "Yes" numbered 828,077 (46.0%), indicating their desire to continue the current political status relationship. Of those who answered the second question, 834,191 (61.2%) chose statehood, 454,768 (33.3%) chose free association, and 74,895 (5.5%) chose independence.[4][5]

Breaking down simply...

Only 46% of votes were in support of the Puerto Rico territory status, while 54% were not. For the "nots" there is a second question, of which you prefer, and of those 61% chose statehood, thus winning out.

There have been a lot of complaints from those who are anti-statehood that it's not fair that the 54% now represents for "statehood" when in actuality it's much lower.

Although the previous two referendums (November 2012 and June 2017) also had ostensibly pro-statehood outcomes, the New York Times described them as "marred, with ballot language phrased to favor the party in office".[3] For example, the fourth referendum, held in November 2012, asked voters (1) whether they wanted to maintain the current political status of Puerto Rico and, if not, (2) which alternative status they prefer. Of the fifty-four percent (54.0%) who voted "No" on maintaining the status quo, 61.11% chose statehood, 33.34% chose free association, and 5.55% chose independence.[4][5][6][7] Opponents of statehood argued that these results did not show that a majority of Puerto Rican voters support statehood. The June 2017 referendum was, according to the New York Times, a "flawed election" where the turnout was only 23% because most statehood opponents sat out. 97% of votes cast favored statehood.[3]

Now, I believe the most current results are a simply yes or no, but I haven't read enough to really know all the details. I'm simply sharing this for those that think Puerto Rico should have been a state decades ago. It's not that simple, even as recently as 2017.

[GMDino]

(03-07-2021, 02:11 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: There was a pretty big article done about a decade back about the statehood movement in Puerto Rico.  There's a lot more going on there than simple statehood vs. the status quo, and percentages for and percentages against.

The situation is incredibly complicated, and it would take an actual resident to give it it's proper context.  I'm trying to see if I can find it, because it has plenty of quotes from actual Puerto Ricans that explain the issue.  But in the meantime, this kind of explains what I'm talking about:

On November 6, 2012, eligible voters in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico were presented with two questions:
(1) whether they agreed to continue with Puerto Rico's territorial status and (2) to indicate the political status they preferred from three possibilities: statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in free association with the United States.[23] Voters who chose "No" to the first question numbered 970,910 (54.0%), expressing themselves against continuing the current political status, while those who voted "Yes" numbered 828,077 (46.0%), indicating their desire to continue the current political status relationship. Of those who answered the second question, 834,191 (61.2%) chose statehood, 454,768 (33.3%) chose free association, and 74,895 (5.5%) chose independence.[4][5]

Breaking down simply...

Only 46% of votes were in support of the Puerto Rico territory status, while 54% were not.  For the "nots" there is a second question, of which you prefer, and of those 61% chose statehood, thus winning out.

There have been a lot of complaints from those who are anti-statehood that it's not fair that the 54% now represents for "statehood" when in actuality it's much lower.

Although the previous two referendums (November 2012 and June 2017) also had ostensibly pro-statehood outcomes, the New York Times described them as "marred, with ballot language phrased to favor the party in office".[3] For example, the fourth referendum, held in November 2012, asked voters (1) whether they wanted to maintain the current political status of Puerto Rico and, if not, (2) which alternative status they prefer. Of the fifty-four percent (54.0%) who voted "No" on maintaining the status quo, 61.11% chose statehood, 33.34% chose free association, and 5.55% chose independence.[4][5][6][7] Opponents of statehood argued that these results did not show that a majority of Puerto Rican voters support statehood. The June 2017 referendum was, according to the New York Times, a "flawed election" where the turnout was only 23% because most statehood opponents sat out. 97% of votes cast favored statehood.[3]

Now, I believe the most current results are a simply yes or no, but I haven't read enough to really know all the details.  I'm simply sharing this for those that think Puerto Rico should have been a state decades ago.  It's not that simple, even as recently as 2017.

Point is thought that if the people vote in favor of it there is no good reason to not do it.

And without a link I had to look up your facts and it seems to jive with this report from 2013.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42765.pdf

But that was 2013. A new vote would be needed.

[hollodero]

(03-07-2021, 02:11 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: There was a pretty big article done about a decade back about the statehood movement in Puerto Rico.  There's a lot more going on there than simple statehood vs. the status quo, and percentages for and percentages against.

The situation is incredibly complicated, and it would take an actual resident to give it it's proper context.  I'm trying to see if I can find it, because it has plenty of quotes from actual Puerto Ricans that explain the issue.  But in the meantime, this kind of explains what I'm talking about:

On November 6, 2012, eligible voters in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico were presented with two questions:
(1) whether they agreed to continue with Puerto Rico's territorial status and (2) to indicate the political status they preferred from three possibilities: statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in free association with the United States.[23] Voters who chose "No" to the first question numbered 970,910 (54.0%), expressing themselves against continuing the current political status, while those who voted "Yes" numbered 828,077 (46.0%), indicating their desire to continue the current political status relationship. Of those who answered the second question, 834,191 (61.2%) chose statehood, 454,768 (33.3%) chose free association, and 74,895 (5.5%) chose independence.[4][5]

Breaking down simply...

Only 46% of votes were in support of the Puerto Rico territory status, while 54% were not.  For the "nots" there is a second question, of which you prefer, and of those 61% chose statehood, thus winning out.

There have been a lot of complaints from those who are anti-statehood that it's not fair that the 54% now represents for "statehood" when in actuality it's much lower.

Although the previous two referendums (November 2012 and June 2017) also had ostensibly pro-statehood outcomes, the New York Times described them as "marred, with ballot language phrased to favor the party in office".[3] For example, the fourth referendum, held in November 2012, asked voters (1) whether they wanted to maintain the current political status of Puerto Rico and, if not, (2) which alternative status they prefer. Of the fifty-four percent (54.0%) who voted "No" on maintaining the status quo, 61.11% chose statehood, 33.34% chose free association, and 5.55% chose independence.[4][5][6][7] Opponents of statehood argued that these results did not show that a majority of Puerto Rican voters support statehood. The June 2017 referendum was, according to the New York Times, a "flawed election" where the turnout was only 23% because most statehood opponents sat out. 97% of votes cast favored statehood.[3]

Now, I believe the most current results are a simply yes or no, but I haven't read enough to really know all the details.  I'm simply sharing this for those that think Puerto Rico should have been a state decades ago.  It's not that simple, even as recently as 2017.

I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that this issue and determining the will of the people is a bit more complicated as portrayed. I figure it is. And I also figure that those referendums of '12 and '17 had several issues and posed questions in a way that they can not be seen as any clear-cut expression of voter will.

The 2020 referendum, however, was different, and it asked one simple question: Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a state?

And while one might still say that well this is still a real complicated issue - so was Brexit. Where people were asked "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?", a simple enough question it was broken down to. And the result was close enough, 51,9% vs. 48,1%. But that was it. No one argued afterwards that "hey this is actually all real complex and this is a really close margin and in light of all that we rather go with the losing option and don't change things..." - Nope, the will of the people was clear and undoubted and that was that. As it should be.
Of course the Puerto Rico referendum was non-binding and that needs recognition. It was, however, a clear injunction to have a binding one - if that is feasible, which it might not be.


- May I ask why you, as far as I can tell, are at least tentatively against Puerto Rico statehood?

[Wes Mantooth]

(03-07-2021, 02:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: - May I ask why you, as far as I can tell, are at least tentatively against Puerto Rico statehood?

I'm not against it.  I just realize it's an incredibly complex issue that's not as cut and dry as seen in mainstream media.  Nor do I think it's my place to weigh in on.

Please read these two articles if you're curious why I don't think a simple 52-46 vote automatically clears the issue up:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/white-liberals-must-stop-pushing-puerto-rican-statehood-their-own-ncna1247419

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-op-statehood-vote-puerto-rico-lost-20201119-skegrl2slffc7bhdlpmo4izrry-story.html

Lastly, take this exerpt from the Harvard Crimson:

Puerto Rican nationalists refuse to let go of our national identity. To never hear the Puerto Rican Anthem “La Borinqueña” again when a Boricua wins a medal is reason enough to hold on to the little autonomy we have. Even the Miss Universe pageant is a reason to repeal annexation. The contest is especially popular in Puerto Rico because we are the country with the third-most wins. It is a matter of honor and pride. To lose our international presence as Puerto Ricans is unthinkable to those of us who are against statehood

Accordingly, the main difference between D.C. and Puerto Rico is that Washingtonians are undeniably Americans who overwhelmingly want statehood and would not lose a unique, national identity if admitted. This is not the case with Puerto Ricans. There even exists a part of the population who want complete independence from the United States. While this group is currently a minority, the Puerto Rican Independence Party received almost 14% of the vote during this election, a figure they had not seen for decades. Whether this signals a growing support for independence is not clear, but one thing is sure: The debate is far from being settled.

This is not just about politics. It is about identity, culture and nationality. A matter so important requires consensus because of the irreversible nature of its consequences. We need a transparent process of self-determination, not a hasty referendum to serve a political party. Until a legitimate majority of the people of Puerto Rico can agree on what is best for the Island, the United States Congress should not make this decision about our land. Right now, Puerto Rican statehood would irreversibly deny the wish of many Puerto Ricans to be just that: Boricua

Aunque nacieran en la luna.

All of the above are written by actuall Puerto Ricans, giving much needed perspective that can be lost in our understanding.  All of these are written after the vote as well.

My fear is that some people are playing partisan politics right now, some politicians (both Puerto Rican, and American) true interests only lie in personal gain, and others are attatching themselves to an issue like this in the name of fairness (best intentions) without knowing exactly what it is they're calling for.

[Dill]

(03-07-2021, 12:51 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Hollodero referred to Puerto Rico as a colony.
Jason comically added that we prefer to call them a territory probably because it sounds less imperialistic to what Hollodero was implying?

Then I added how slave labor in WWII is bad when the Nazis did it but if worded differently it takes on a whole different meaning when we, the supposed good guys, did the same thing. Kind of like one man's Inheritance tax is another man's Death tax.

It had little to do with Puerto Rico and more to do with a play off of their word usage.

Lol way to go Vinyl. You just triggered an off topic digression. Let's look more closely at the differences between Nazi and U.S. "slave labor" in the example of WWII.

The U.S. treatment of prisoners of war was based upon U.S. and international law, both founded upon the liberal conception of universal human rights, with its implied universal equality of humans.

Enemy soldiers, not civilians, could be imprisoned if  taken in war but were not "property" of the victor. They could be held until hostilities end, e.g., with the destruction of the opposing state, at which time the prisoners revert to the status of individuals with the same rights to freedom and dignity as everyone else--provided they don't take up arms again and are not guilty of war crimes. Their private property returned to them, along with that of civilians. Prisoners were sometimes forced to labor, in part to keep them busy, as are civilian prisoners in peacetime. (E.g. German soldiers worked on sugar beet farms in Montana during WWII.)

Nazi treatment of prisoners was illiberal, not based on a conception of universal human rights. Excepting "Aryans," civilian populations were enslaved along with military prisoners, their property permanently confiscated by the Reich. There was no plan to free them after the war. Treatment of prisoners was partly race-based and partly pragmatic. British, Norwegians and Danes were treated well. Russians and Poles were worked to death and used for lethal medical experiments. Where burdensome or a drain on resources, they were simply executed. (The diets of Russian prisoners at Buchenwald, as with Jews in Auschwitz, were calculated to produce death by attrition after 5-6 months of labor, making room for new prisoners.) Americans were treated well (Malmedy excepted) to insure that German prisoners in the U.S. and Great Britain were treated well.

There are indeed ironies with U.S. definitions and application of wartime law during the great world war against fascism, starting with our use of a segregated army to defeat the racists. But I don't think, in the case of prisoner treatment, it's just toMAYto/toMAHto.

[Dill]

(03-07-2021, 03:20 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I'm not against it.  I just realize it's an incredibly complex issue that's not as cut and dry as seen in mainstream media. 

Nor do I think it's my place to weigh in on.

And yet--your informative interventions have complicated our discussion in a way that has elevated it considerably. You've expanded the factual ground and political record of this issue so non-PRs like myself can gain a deeper understanding of it. So thanks for all that.

And you've spoiled our fun a little too, making it harder to issue knee-jerk responses without looking uniformed. But in the long run that's for the better.

I'd hate to see what happens if you do decide to "weigh in" on a subject. lol

Anyway, you've convinced me that what Puerto Ricans think should take precedence over what "Americans" think at moment. For sure.

Not that the whole nationhood/statehood distinction is settled. I wonder if the nationalists, or many Puerto Ricans, seriously desire FULL national autonomy. Their laments about lost identity if absorbed into the U.S. do imply that.

[hollodero]

(03-07-2021, 03:20 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I'm not against it.  I just realize it's an incredibly complex issue that's not as cut and dry as seen in mainstream media.  Nor do I think it's my place to weigh in on.

Please read these two articles if you're curious why I don't think a simple 52-46 vote automatically clears the issue up:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/white-liberals-must-stop-pushing-puerto-rican-statehood-their-own-ncna1247419

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-op-statehood-vote-puerto-rico-lost-20201119-skegrl2slffc7bhdlpmo4izrry-story.html

Lastly, take this exerpt from the Harvard Crimson:

Puerto Rican nationalists refuse to let go of our national identity. To never hear the Puerto Rican Anthem “La Borinqueña” again when a Boricua wins a medal is reason enough to hold on to the little autonomy we have. Even the Miss Universe pageant is a reason to repeal annexation. The contest is especially popular in Puerto Rico because we are the country with the third-most wins. It is a matter of honor and pride. To lose our international presence as Puerto Ricans is unthinkable to those of us who are against statehood

Accordingly, the main difference between D.C. and Puerto Rico is that Washingtonians are undeniably Americans who overwhelmingly want statehood and would not lose a unique, national identity if admitted. This is not the case with Puerto Ricans. There even exists a part of the population who want complete independence from the United States. While this group is currently a minority, the Puerto Rican Independence Party received almost 14% of the vote during this election, a figure they had not seen for decades. Whether this signals a growing support for independence is not clear, but one thing is sure: The debate is far from being settled.

This is not just about politics. It is about identity, culture and nationality. A matter so important requires consensus because of the irreversible nature of its consequences. We need a transparent process of self-determination, not a hasty referendum to serve a political party. Until a legitimate majority of the people of Puerto Rico can agree on what is best for the Island, the United States Congress should not make this decision about our land. Right now, Puerto Rican statehood would irreversibly deny the wish of many Puerto Ricans to be just that: Boricua

Aunque nacieran en la luna.

All of the above are written by actuall Puerto Ricans, giving much needed perspective that can be lost in our understanding.  All of these are written after the vote as well.

My fear is that some people are playing partisan politics right now, some politicians (both Puerto Rican, and American) true interests only lie in personal gain, and others are attatching themselves to an issue like this in the name of fairness (best intentions) without knowing exactly what it is they're calling for.

That sure is interesting.

Regarding the debate at hand. You brought up many points Puerto Ricans probably want to consider. And that's the thing. It's their consideration to make, not anyone else's, in the statehood question. 
For some issues there might be a workaround. Eg. they probably don't necessarily give up their hymn, or could still compete in sports as an own entity, like for example Wales and Scotland do. The Miss Universe pageant, well, I would not know how important that is. But as with all of these questions. It is on them to consider.

For me, the case remains clear-cut, for it remains a case of principle. Every citizen of every nation should have the right to vote for the leader of that nation. If Puerto Ricans somehow rather have another model, eg. no such rights in exchange for tax exempts, to preserve cultural identity, or whatever, then so be it. But in principle, every citizen deserves a vote, and representation, in a democracy. Or else it really isn't one.

Puerto Ricans sure should have the right to decide that question, and the way I see it they did decide. There was a referendum. I could imagine an argument for having another one, but if they still decide for statehood, the US as a democracy has no standing and no right to refuse. And especially not on Puerto Rican's own behalf.


Edit and yeah politics will be played. It should not. It should also not matter if they are left leaning or right leaning. And it should be a decision Puerto Ricans make freely and uninfluenced by outside influence or outside money. No democratic election ever is quite that ideal though. Doesn't mean we call it off.

[Dill]

Just looking over one of Wes's links here. The paradoxes and unclarities generated by the debate over Puerto Rico are fascinating. This author argues that giving Puerto Ricans voting rights and Congressional representation is "the latest form of American colonialism."

But that's not how colonialism generally works--giving the dominated an equal right to vote. What I am struggling to understand is the degree to which absence of direct representation protects Puerto Rican political autonomy, given that PRs must already follow U.S. laws they cannot vote for.

White liberals must stop pushing Puerto Rican statehood for their own benefit. Let us decide.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/white-liberals-must-stop-pushing-puerto-rican-statehood-their-own-ncna1247419

Telling a nation you colonized that you know what's best for them is no more progressive in this century than it was in the last two.

The liberal fantasy of having 104 U.S. senators — i.e., four new guaranteed Democrats to end the Republican majority — is all dependent on statehood being granted to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. And while the push for D.C. statehood might have more credibility inside Washington and inside the progressive movement, the push on the mainland for Puerto Rico statehood is now mostly coming from a group of people who lack any real knowledge about the colony’s history or its long-standing independence movement.

In fact, white liberals' newfound desire to grant Puerto Rico statehood to thwart Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is just the latest form of American colonialism. It is not as overt as when U.S. troops invaded Puerto Rico in 1898, but it is still colonialism.

The fantasy of granting Puerto Rico statehood just so the Senate can have more Democratic senators rather than as an acknowledgment of the fact that Puerto Ricans are and always should have been equal partners in the American experiment speak to exactly what colonialism is all about: the patronizing attitude that white, mainland Americans' political priorities are of greater importance than those of the people who live there, and that they generally know better than the people who do live there, who don't need to decide what they want.

Aren't there "black liberals" who want Puerto Rican statehood as well?? The Congressional Black Caucus stands up for them in Congress.

[Dill]

Nydia Velasquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Congresswomen of Puerto Rican heritage, have introduced legislation which would give PR the right to self determination.

Puerto Rico, not Congress, must determine its future. Our bill enables it do so.
Understandably, many of our Democratic friends want to make the territory a state to empower it. But many Puerto Ricans view that push as the culmination of colonization.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/puerto-rico-not-congress-must-determine-its-future-our-bill-ncna1238032

It was recently reported that in 2017, while Puerto Rico was suffering through the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, a natural disaster that would ultimately claim nearly 3,000 lives, President Donald Trump had inquired about “selling” the Island. While this heartless suggestion was discarded by his advisers, the incident speaks to how disposable Washington has long viewed Puerto Rico to be.

For more than 100 years, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico has been subjected to policies foisted on it by a Congress frequently uninterested in the welfare of those who live there. This reality touches every aspect of Puerto Rican life: Puerto Rico receives disparate treatment for Medicaid reimbursement, nutritional support and a host of other safety net programs, despite being poorer than the poorest state. These problems and others stem from Puerto Rico’s unique, long-standing colonial status, which has resulted in the island’s residents being treated as second-class citizens.

The time to remedy this situation has come, but it must be done correctly. Puerto Rico needs to be afforded the freedom to design its own future. That’s why the two of us, both members of Congress of Puerto Rican descent, have introduced the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act. ...

I can see why Hollo might reach for the C-word when describing a U.S. "territory."

Until now, Puerto Rico has been ravaged by decisions made unilaterally by Congress. In one especially disastrous move for the economy, Congress began phasing out an important manufacturing tax break in the mid-1990s that had long bolstered the island. In particular, pharmaceutical firms that had previously flocked to the commonwealth left in droves, eroding the local economy and tax base.

Over the years, most notably during the period in which those companies fled the Island, the government of Puerto Rico borrowed heavily, fueling the current debt crisis. That fiscal crisis was compounded by a puzzling law Congress crafted in the 1980s that excluded Puerto Rico from bankruptcy tools available to other localities.

Puerto Rico’s local environment also suffered from Washington’s mistreatment. The island of Vieques was subjected to decades of U.S. Navy test bombings of everything from Agent Orange to depleted uranium, and Viequenses suffer higher rates of cancer than the rest of Puerto Rico. While more than 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served in U.S. conflicts since World War I, the U.S. military has still not addressed the health and environmental damage it instigated in Vieques.

But clearly, many Puerto Ricans still don't want Statehood. Wondering if, as the debate progress, more would go for full independence. Then they could create laws that would draw business and investment back to the island. Very unclear as to why people would prefer the middle ground of citizenship plus taxation without representation.

[Wes Mantooth]

(03-08-2021, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: But that's not how colonialism generally works--giving the dominated an equal right to vote. What I am struggling to understand is the degree to which absence of direct representation protects Puerto Rican political autonomy, given that PRs must already follow U.S. laws they cannot vote for.

This is something I haven't been able to quite understand, and am frankly too lazy to fully do the research on.

There's lot of information that seems somewhat conflicting regarding their laws.  They do have their own laws, their own constitution, their own bill of rights, and their own court system.  But it also says they're subject to most federal law.  I've also read that decisions between their Supreme Court and ours can arrise in some conflicts from time to time, but federal court can no longer appeal their decisions.  US courts cannot appeal their rulings, nor can they prosecute someone once they've ruled.

Basically, it's all very, very tricky and difficult to fully understand.

Here's just one tiny thing I just found, that I think presents an interesting example of something few consider when it comes to statehood.  Puerto Rico's current minimum wage is set $5.08.  So this is an example of something that is not regulated by federal law.

So while $15 an hour means something very different in California and New York than it does Mississipi, imagine what that would mean for somewhere like Puerto Rico.  This is something they would be subject to with statehood.

That may sound great in theory, but that might be much harder in practicality.  Trying explaining that to a small business owner there. How does this affect a small family and/or neighborhood business that simply operate in a very different way than one here, who are used to all of the red tape and regulation?

I won't ramble too much, but I have a feeling statehood would greatlty transform the territory in ways not often discussed.  Perhaps it wouldn't rob them of their culture and identity, but it would be significant nonetheless.

Puerto Rico being suddenly subjected to all sorts of regulations, labor laws, OSHA, and liabilities would be tremendous change. And this list probably goes on and on and on. I just listed some examples of potential differences.

Fwiw, this is what I think a lot of the comments about their, what they call "statehood party" needing to have education prior to adding these votes onto their elections are getting at. A lot of Puerto Ricans feel that some in politics are presenting statehood in a simplistic way without properly educating people on what it actually means. And apparently, they attactch these votes, which are for all intents and purposes meaningless onto general elections to bring out their supporters.

Long story short, this shit is hella complicated.

[Belsnickel]

(03-07-2021, 11:04 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: No, they're not like US corporations.  Nor can you liken their tax code as to having similar loopholes.

It's not that hard to understand.  They do not pay income tax unless they're employed by the US governent, or they're not a full-time resident.  The employers (not employees) do pay into social security, medicaid/medicare as citizens are eligible for these benefits.

How can you bring about a term like loopholes when the vast majority of residents don't even have to file a tax return?

I just wanted to correct this, as it is incorrect. Puerto Rican employees do have to have their portion of the FICA taxes withheld from their pay by employers.

[GMDino]

(03-07-2021, 11:04 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: No, they're not like US corporations.  Nor can you liken their tax code as to having similar loopholes.

It's not that hard to understand.  They do not pay income tax unless they're employed by the US governent, or they're not a full-time resident.  The employers (not employees) do pay into social security, medicaid/medicare as citizens are eligible for these benefits.

How can you bring about a term like loopholes when the vast majority of residents don't even have to file a tax return?

I guess sarcasm is a lost art.

But you aren't against it (statehood) anyway so it's moot.

[Belsnickel]

So, a couple of thoughts on the arguments so far in here.

1. All states elect their own leaders and have their own courts that are all independent of the federal system. If a state case moves to the supreme court of that state, the appeal goes to SCOTUS. I'm not seeing the big change, there.

2. Becoming a state has the potential to be a big boon to the Puerto Rican economy. Not only would their debt now be backed by the US, but they wouldn't be off fending for themselves to make trade deals and they could rely on those from the US.

Anyway, just my initial thoughts, other than the tax thing, on this topic.