There's nothing conservative about Puerto Rico's political status

The Hill ^ | 4/24/2017 | Jose Rodriguez Suarez

[cll]

The governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rosselló, is set to keynote an address at The Heritage Foundation on Wednesday. In the past, policy analysts and fellows at Heritage were rather reluctant about Puerto Rico becoming a state. It seemed as though statehood were contrary to conservative policies and principles, while keeping the island as an unincorporated territory furthered what Heritage stood for.

However, the truth is just the opposite. There is nothing conservative about Puerto Rico’s political status —beginning with its legal origins. Conservatives believe that judges overstep their constitutional powers when they make laws rather than interpret them. In contrast, Puerto Rico’s territorial unincorporation is the product of judicial legislation. The distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories is not in the Constitution. It was created out of whole cloth by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1901.

The founders believed that economic freedom is essential to America’s growth and prosperity. That is why conservatives reject the government’s intervention in the economy. And yet, territorial unincorporation has made possible the most perverse interventions by Washington in the economy of Puerto Rico.

By granting "triple tax-exempt" status to bonds that Puerto Rico issues — meaning they cannot be taxed by federal, state or local government — Congress fueled high demand for the bonds regardless of fiscal policies. This encouraged many of the Puerto Rican government's administrations to engage in aggressive deficit spending.

[cll]

In summary: It is ironic that the most conservative organizations in the U.S. keep supporting Puerto Rico's status quo of "unincorporated territory", which is the unconstitutional child of judicial activism of the early 20th century.

[cll]

“In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the people of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces,the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them,is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution”. - Justice John Harlan, dissenting in the Insular Cases, 1901)

[allendale]

The Spanish-American War launched the US onto the world imperialist stage. Taking the Philippines, Puerto Rico and other Spanish possessions fundamentally changed America’s foreign policy perspective and ultimately its culture. Puerto Rico was known as the poor house of the Caribbean. Spain mourned the loss of Cuba but was amused when the US seized Puerto Rico.

[VanDeKoik]

“It is ironic that the most conservative organizations in the U.S. keep supporting Puerto Rico’s status quo of “unincorporated territory”, which is the unconstitutional child of judicial activism of the early 20th century.”

Wonder what is the take on the Louisiana Purchase? That wasn’t exactly by the book either.

I frankly think all of the territory gained from the Spanish American War + Hawaii was done by a bunch of crazy people using the most crooked of reasoning, but it’s here and that’s that. The milk has been spilled.

Honestly just cut them lose or carve out a state that includes PR, and the Virgin Islands.

[Leep]

“It was created out of whole cloth by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1901.”

They have been at it along time.

[Rockingham]

Let us instead give Puerto Rico its full independence. They will soon become another socialist paradise like Cuba — and will thereby shift Puerto Ricans in the US sharply to the right.

[cll]

Puerto Rico Ping! Please Freepmail me if you want on or off the list.

[cll]

“Spain mourned the loss of Cuba but was amused when the US seized Puerto Rico”.

You need to study “The War with Spain in 1898” by David Trask before you utter such an untrue statement. Spain mourns the loss of Puerto Rico to this day.

[TexasFreeper2009]

I have always said Puerto Rico should be a state.

...

Part of the state of FLORIDA!

no way in HECK do they get two US senators!

[Lurkinanloomin]

You’re going to love having them as the 51st state.
The Uniparty has already decided for you.

[Stingray51]

There are a number of reasons why, in my opinion, Puerto Rico should not be a state:

First, the primary language of P.R. is Spanish. The primary language of the 50 United States is English, and in my opinion that should remain a unifying principle.

Second, P.R. cannot support itself. It has demonstrated over the course of decades an inability to handle its own affairs despite enormous tax breaks. Instead of taking advantage of the exemption from federal income tax and having the lowest taxes in the USA, P.R. has more than made up for this with its own high taxes.

Third, P.R. has a more socialist economy than the rest of the USA in that its government owns a far larger portion of the business sector. And of course these government-owned enterprises are a big piece of why P.R. is in terrible debt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government-owned_corporations_of_Puerto_Rico

Fourth, it is highly likely that making P.R. a state would mean two more Democrats in the Senate. By design, the Senate is undemocratic in the sense that the states vary in population but each has 2 senators regardless. This has generally proven to be to the advantage of conservative positions. But to the extent some Americans in high-population states view this system as unfair, this would exacerbate that and potentially lead to calls for changing that, which I think would ultimately be to the nation’s detriment.

[drop 50 and fire for effect]

PR has absolutely no connection to the State of Florida.

It is an open question as to which direction they would take when voting for Congressmen and Senators.

Back in the late 50s the conventional wisdom was that Hawaii would be a reliably Republican state. Alaska was seen as leaning Democrat. The conventional wisdom is often wrong.

The bottom line is that you cannot keep almost 3.5 million American citizens in constitutional limbo forever. I have served with dozens of Puerto Rican soldiers. They do their bit for the country. I think we should bring them in out of the cold.

Everything that is wrong with Puerto Rico is fixable from a policy standpoint. As far as language goes, let the market decide. The issues in Canada and Quebec regarding English and French are almost entirely due to government meddling. Spanish will have a place in the home, but real world requirements of business will ensure that English proficiency grows.

We can help them help themselves. Personally, I’d start b ditching the Jones Act, which indirectly taxes the goods and services in PR, AK, HI and the territories. Statehood would end economic uncertainty by firmly tying the island to the mainland. Both HI and AK expanded their economies after statehood.