The future of Puerto Rico (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 04:09:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The future of Puerto Rico (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The future of Puerto Rico  (Read 2083 times)
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,720


« on: April 28, 2010, 11:53:02 PM »

What's the point of the sovereignty movement?  Would the federal government give up Puerto Rico if they wanted to be independent?  I would just assume the answer to that is no, but I'm not up on PR current events, so if I'm wrong - let me know.

Why wouldn't the government give up Puerto Rico?  With the closing of Viequez and most military bases there, it's no longer of much strategic interest.  And I'm sure the federal government spends more supporting Puerto Rico than it takes in in revenue.  If Puerto Ricans want to go their separate ways, let them - and revoke the US citizenship of those who were born there from parents who also were born there (or at least make sure their children aren't automatically granted citizenship by birth).

The two-tier vote system from the bill is fundamentally flawed, especially since a plurality rules on the second ballot and "sovereignty with free association" is somewhat meaningless.  And forcing revotes until Puerto Ricans give the "correct" answer is a disturbing tactic.  Let Puerto Rico decide when and how often to decide their status.  That shouldn't be mandated.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,720


« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2010, 06:34:57 PM »

"sovereignty with free association" is somewhat meaningless.

I'm presuming it means a status like Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands have.

And it's not a real choice supported by many.  The real choices are status quo, statehood and independence.  The way these votes are deliberately stacked up essentially throw out the status quo option.  Which is crap, because it's won every referendum taken thus far.  The real first question - and ONLY question should be do you want statehood, independence, status quo or other.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,720


« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2010, 10:12:12 PM »

"sovereignty with free association" is somewhat meaningless.

I'm presuming it means a status like Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands have.

And it's not a real choice supported by many.  The real choices are status quo, statehood and independence.  The way these votes are deliberately stacked up essentially throw out the status quo option.  Which is crap, because it's won every referendum taken thus far.  The real first question - and ONLY question should be do you want statehood, independence, status quo or other.

Status quo should not be an option because the perceived status quo of "enhanced commonwealth" does not exist and cannot exist within the bounds of the Constitution.  This half state/half territory bastardization that the pro-status quo camp promotes is completely unacceptable.  If Puerto Rico wishes to remain a part of the US it must either exist as a territory completely subject to the whims of Congress or become a state.  Otherwise the other options are complete independence or the sovereignty with free association that some of our other former territories enjoy.  It doesn't matter how many votes the "status quo" option wins or how popular it is, it should not be paraded out as a viable route for Puerto Rico's future status in any way shape or form.

Funny.  Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of my constitution says "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" - i.e. Congress can make whatever rules and regulations it wants respecting how territories are governed.  If it wants to allow a territory to elect its own governor and legislature to make its own laws, it can.  If it wants to appoint a governor and legislate territorial matters from Washington, it can, too.  I don't know what your constitution says - but it must be different.

Status quo is a viable option - and the ONLY one Puerto Ricans have ever voted for when put to a vote.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,720


« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2010, 07:02:49 PM »

That's all well and good but the PPD (the political party which promotes the status quo) believes Puerto Rico is not a "territory" of the US and is therefore exempt from this clause.  They believe that Puerto Rico currently enjoys an irrevocable "enhanced commonwealth" status which allows them to enjoy near complete sovereignty while simultaneously maintaining US Citizenship.  This misleading fantasy status has been promoted by the PPD in every plebiscite to date and it appears as if the recently passed HR 2499 will unfortunately include it as well.  To allow Puerto Ricans to believe such an option is viable is completely unacceptable.

As long as CONGRESS thinks the status quo of enhanced Commonwealth status is okay, it is.  Period.   Puerto Rico's commonwealth status is far from unique among U.S. territories.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 10 queries.