Puerto Rico’s status lies in the hands of Congress

Please check your facts. The fire you are talking about was set by a member of the Teamsters Union, who were in a labor dispute with the hotel. Nobody in the leadership of the union ordered the fire to be set. It had nothing to do with the independence movement.

A separate group robbed that armored car in Hartford, but the guards were sedated, not killed.

Yes. Apartheid system. This is not about race, though. It's a geographical apartheid. Ann Coulter herself could move to Puerto Rico tomorrow and would instantly become a second class citizen. It's the separate and unequal doctrine of the Insular Cases that created this system. Please see post # 1.

Since according to the insular cases Puerto Rico is subject to the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution only Congress can solve this inequity. This problem has not been solved and will not be solved by beauty contests manufactured in Puerto Rico. The three or four votes on status, all locally produced and entirely not binding to the U.S., have been mere shows of force among the three factions that share local power. That's it.

I love my island but living under a Tammany Hall-like system, which counts with the consent of Congress, is not right for the people of the island or the people and taxpayers of the United States at large.

Last I checked, the territories (few that they are) that the US holds, enjoy the protection of the US, and are free from federal taxes... I seem to recall taxation without representation being part of the rallying cry of the revolution.

I haven't heard of any uprisings in Puerto Rico or Guam about unfair treatment, tyranny or other actions in my lifetime.... Have you?

Please point me to the part of the Constitution that disallows it? This "America as Empire" nonsense has to end... if the US was an Empire we'd bascially have never returned Europe or western russia to their countries and leaders post WWI... let alone WWII... We'd also be ruling Japan, Most of the pacific rim and North Africa.... The Carribbean... etc etc etc....

Puerto Rico has its own elected Senate, in fact on election days in Puerto Rico, parts of the island are shut down due to traffic and other congestion related to voting.

In the presidential election, the Constitution is quite clear, territories and commonwealths (which Puerto Rico is) that are not members of the union may not vote in the presidential election... its very very clear. Territories of the western expansion did not have the right to vote either, until they became states.

I don't know where you are getting this unconstitutionality nonsense from, but its clearly not.

Here ya go my friend... just so you are up to speed on the constitution:

The Constitution of the United States states,

"the congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed, so as to preclude the claims of the United States or of any state." - Article IV

Now, to claim that such territories are unconstitutional shows complete ignorance of the constitution.

Thanks for quoting the territorial clause of the Constitution. We are all too familiar with it, as we have been ruled by it for 107 years. And that's exactly the problem. 4 million Americans ruled as in:

"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." - Expanding on Justice Harlan's dissent to the Insular Cases, which are just our own Plessy and Korematsu.

Cll,

You get your independence movement going, and get a majority to vote for it, and you can self govern... of course this movement doesn't exist.. and whenever statehood comes up, support for that too does not pass. So, hardly are you the subject of tyranny.

I don't think the US is going to forcibly force PR to remain a protectorate if the majority through process voted to change its status. However, that hasn't happened, and even today doesn't seem very likely to happen. Indepence is a non starter with support, and full statehood never seems to win.

If living in a protectorate/commonwealth is such a burden to your life and body, move to the mainland, vote for statehood or rally for independence.

Griping about unconstitutionality of something that is clearly constitutional whether you agree or not, is not going to get you anywhere.

Okay, let me put it this way.

We agree that Puerto Rico is subject to the territorial clause of the Constitution, which means that it is Congress that makes the rules. Fine.

All we ask is that Congress give us a vote, which has never happened, on non-colonial or non-territorial options, namely, statehood or independence.

We can have a thousand locally produced votes here on the matter, but they mean nothing until Congress gets involved, which it hasn't.

In the meantime, and as the White House Intergovermental Affairs working group acknowledged, in the United States there exists a state of tyranny (okay, call it a benevolent tyranny, but it is a tyranny nonetheless) where it concerns over four million of its citizens, because Congress has chosen to hold on to the territories as mere colonies or provinces indefinitively. If the United States is proud of that then we shouldn't go preaching democracy around the world until we solve this problem here at home.

And thank you for your interest.

Cheers,

cll
San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States of America.

While you are right the votes are non binding, statehood hasn't won a local vote... it is hard to argue that the territory desires statehood, when in fact this is not the case.

Every territory ever admitted to the union wanted statehood, and lobbied hard and long for it... PR and Guam and others have not.

Its hard to argue congress should grant a statehood vote, when the 4 Million folks there haven't pushed for it in any measureable way. I think if PR truly wanted statehood Congress would likely grant them a path into the union, as they have for all states since the original 13 colonies.

I don't see us putting warships off the shore of PR either should independence be their desire.

PR has not, put forward a consistent or large movement for statehood.. and in fact, thanks to taxing loopholes enjoys great benefits from not being a state, which I think many folks in PR recognize. However if statehood is what PR desires, then the politicians and folks of PR need to make that voice consistently heard, in large numbers.

Have your senate offer it as a refferendum and get a majority vote.. show that statehood is indeed the desire of the folks and I think PR would be on the path to state from territory.. but to my knowledge this has not happened.

I don't think the people of the continental US, or the members of congress are dedicated to PR being a territory indefinately... I don't think you would see huge opposition to it if it were truly something that could be demonstrated was the desire of the people there. However, for good or bad, such a movement has not happened.... Maybe you can be the one to make it grow.

Since I mentioned the White House Intergovernmental Affairs Task Force's report on Puerto Rico's status, released on 12/22/2005, here is the full text of said report (minus appendixes), in case you or anybody else wants to review it:

STATEMENT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The mission of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status (Task Force) is to provide options for Puerto Rico’s future status and relationship with the Government of the United States of America. It has approached this mission without prejudice towards a status option and has developed options that are compatible with the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States.

The Task Force has developed these options after listening to and considering the views of individuals, elected officials, and other representatives of the people of Puerto Rico to ensure that views and positions have been objectively considered irrespective of affiliation or ideology.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS CONCERNING PUERTO RICO’S STATUS
President George H.W. Bush issued a Memorandum on November 30, 1992, to heads of Executive Departments and Agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

This memorandum directs all Federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a State insofar as doing so would not disrupt Federal programs or operations.

President Bush’s memorandum remains in effect until Federal legislation is enacted to alter the status of Puerto Rico in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of Puerto Rico (See Appendix A). On December 23, 2000, President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order 13183, which established the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status and the rules for its membership.

This Executive Order outlines the policy and functions of the Task Force in identifying the options for the island’s future status and the process for realizing an option (See Appendix B). On April 30, 2001, President George W. Bush amended Executive Order 13183, extending the deadline for the Task Force to forward a report to the President until August 2001 (See Appendix C). President Bush signed an additional amendment to Executive Order 13183 on December 3, 2003, which established the current cochairs and instructed the Task Force to issue reports as needed, but no less than once every two years (See Appendix D).

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has a rich tradition and history. As United States citizens, the people of Puerto Rico have enhanced American society and culture. Among their many contributions, Puerto Ricans have been recognized for their service and sacrifice in the United States Armed Forces.

The modern history of Puerto Rico traces back to November 19, 1493, when Christopher Columbus discovered the island on his second voyage to the New World and found it populated by Taíno Indians. He named the island “San Juan Bautista,” for St. John the Baptist, and the main town “Puerto Rico.” In 1521, the city and the island exchanged names, and the City of San Juan Bautista de Puerto Rico became the official capital. The Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the Spanish-American War on December 10, 1898, resulted in Spain relinquishing its holdings in the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico. The island was governed by a U.S. military governor from October 1898 until May 1900.

In 1900, the U.S. Congress passed the Foraker Act, which established a civilian government in Puerto Rico, with a governor and an executive council appointed by the President of the United States, a legislature, a judicial system, and a non-voting Resident Commissioner in Congress. Under the Foraker Act, all Federal laws were to be enforced on the island.

During an address to the Puerto Rican legislature in 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt recommended that Puerto Ricans become U.S. citizens.

Congress next acted by passing the Jones-Shafroth Act in 1917, which established the island as an “organized but unincorporated” territory of the United States and granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans. Under the Jones Act, the United States Congress had the authority to stop action taken by the island legislature.

The United States maintained control over economic, defense, and other basic governmental affairs. On April 2, 1943, U.S. Senator Millard Tydings introduced a bill in Congress calling for independence for Puerto Rico. This bill ultimately was defeated. On July 21, 1946, President Harry Truman appointed Jesús T. Piñero as the first native Puerto Rican to hold the position of governor of the island.

On August 4, 1947, the U.S. Congress approved a law allowing the election of the governor by the people of Puerto Rico. On November 2, 1948, Luis Muñoz Marín became the first governor elected by the Puerto Rican electorate with 61.2% of the vote.

On July 3, 1950, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 600 (known as the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act), giving Puerto Rico the right to establish a government and a constitution for the internal administration of the Puerto Rico government and “on matters of purely local concern.” It expressly upholds the terms of the Jones Act of 1917. On June 4, 1951, 76.5% of the island’s electorate favored Public Law 600 in a referendum.

The people of Puerto Rico approved a new constitution with 80% of the vote in a referendum held on March 3, 1952.

In response to the growing movement for statehood in Puerto Rico, Governor Roberto Sánchez Vilella arranged for a plebiscite (a popular vote concerning changes in sovereignty) to be held on July 23, 1967, in which the Puerto Rican electorate was asked to vote on the issue of Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States. In this first plebiscite on political status, Puerto Ricans were asked to choose among the existing commonwealth status, statehood, and independence. The voters chose to continue the commonwealth status:
Commonwealth . . . . . 60%
Statehood . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Independence . . . . . . . . 1%

In 1991, a plebiscite calling for a review of the commonwealth status was rejected by 55% of the electorate. On November 14, 1993, another plebiscite was held on the island in which a plurality of Puerto Ricans favored retaining commonwealth status in association with the United States as a self-governing polity.

The electorate voted as follows:
Commonwealth . . . . .826,326 (48.6%)
Statehood . . . . . . . . . .788,296 (46.3%)
Independence . . . . . . . .75,620 (4.4%)
Blank and Void . . . . . . .10,748 (0.7%)

On February 26, 1997, Congressman Don Young of Alaska introduced House Resolution 856, which called for a vote on Puerto Rico’s status before December 31, 1998. Although the House Resolution failed to be enacted, a plebiscite was nevertheless held on December 13, 1998, in which the Puerto Rican electorate rejected all status options presented with “none of the above” receiving a slight majority of the votes.

The votes were as follows:
Petition 1, “Territorial” Commonwealth
993 votes (0.06%)
Petition 2, Free Association
4,536 votes (0.29%)
Petition 3, Statehood
728,157 votes (46.49%)
Petition 4, Independence
39,838 votes (2.54%)
None of the Above
787,900 votes (50.30%)
Blank and Void Ballots
4,846 votes (0.31%)

In this plebiscite, the leadership for the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) backed continued commonwealth status, but campaigned in favor of “none of the above” because of disagreement with the “territorial” definition of the commonwealth option on the ballot.

LEGAL ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS FOR PUERTO RICO’S STATUS

The U.S. Constitution allows for three options for the future status of Puerto Rico: continuing territorial status (including the current Commonwealth system), statehood, and independence. This section briefly explains the possibilities and major issues under each option.

1. Continuing Territorial Status
The existing form of government in Puerto Rico is often described as a “Commonwealth,” and this term recognizes the powers of self-government that Congress has allowed.

The current Commonwealth system was established pursuant to Public Law 600, discussed in the previous section. Congress approved the Puerto Rican constitution in 1952, subject to several conditions that Puerto Rico fulfilled through amendments that took effect in 1953. In addition, the term “Commonwealth” has been given other meanings with regard to Puerto Rico. Some of the uses of the term in that context are discussed in a report of the Committee on Resources of the U.S. House of Representatives regarding H.R. 856, the “United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,” which narrowly passed the House in 1998 (See H.R. Rep. No. 105-131 (1997)).

However that term may be used, Puerto Rico is, for purposes under the U.S. Constitution, “a territory,” as President George H.W. Bush recognized in his 1992 memorandum concerning Puerto Rico (See Appendix A). It is, therefore, subject to congressional authority, under the Constitution’s Territory Clause, “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory… belonging to the United States.”

In adopting this view of Puerto Rico’s current status, President Bush was confirming the view that the U.S. Department of Justice had taken in congressional testimony in 1991 and had first reached in 1959. Congress may continue the current system indefinitely, but it also may revise or revoke it at any time. For example, Congress could legislate directly on local matters or determine the island’s governmental structure by statute, as it has for Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Congress likewise could allow the island increased powers of self government, subject to limitations imposed by the Constitution (some of which, such as in the area of international agreements, are discussed in a letter that the Justice Department sent to Congress on January 18, 2001, included in this report as Appendix E).

Some have proposed a “New Commonwealth” status. Under this proposal, the island would become an autonomous, non-territorial, non- State entity in permanent union with the United States under a covenant that could not be altered without the “mutual consent” of Puerto Rico and the Federal Government.

The U.S. Constitution, however, does not allow for such an arrangement. For entities under the sovereignty of the United States, the only constitutional options are to be a State or territory. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1879, “All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in any State must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of Congress” (First Nat. Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1879)). It is a general rule that one legislature cannot bind a subsequent one. For example, one Congress may repeal or amend the laws of a previous one, and Congress may pass laws inconsistent with treaties. Thus, one Congress cannot irrevocably legislate with regard to a territory (at least where the legislation is not part of converting the territory into a State) and, therefore, cannot restrict a future Congress from revising a delegation to a territory of powers of self-government.

The Federal Government may relinquish United States sovereignty by granting independence or ceding the territory to another nation; or it may, as the Constitution provides, admit a territory as a State, thus making the Territory Clause inapplicable. But the U.S. Constitution does not allow other options. It therefore is not possible, absent a constitutional amendment, to bind future Congresses to any particular arrangement for Puerto Rico as a Commonwealth.

The Executive Branch of the Federal Government, through the Department of Justice, temporarily took a different position on this question by relying on the partial exception to the general rule for acts of a legislature that are contracts granting or transferring property as a private party would do. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, Congress cannot deprive “any person” of “property” without due process of law and cannot take “private property” for public use without providing just compensation. Where the Federal Government has granted a vested property right, it ordinarily may not take away that right without paying damages. The Justice Department in a 1963 memorandum concluded that a compact granting self-governmental authority to a territory could “create vested rights of a political nature” that a subsequent Congress could not revoke unilaterally.

The Department reiterated this position as late as 1975, and the United States that year entered into a covenant with another territory, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, that contains a mutual-consent provision.

The Justice Department reconsidered this position in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, apparently spurred by a 1986 Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed a more traditional understanding of vested property rights in holding that a State’s purported contractual right to withdraw its employees from Social Security was not a property right (Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 54-56 (1986)). In congressional testimony on February 7, 1991, U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh rejected the view that a mutual-consent provision could prevent a future Congress from altering any covenant with Puerto Rico (See Political Status of Puerto Rico: Hearings on S. 244 Before the Senate Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 102d Cong. 206- 07 (1991)).

The Justice Department reaffirmed that position repeatedly during the Clinton Administration, particularly in a 1994 memorandum concerning Guam, in congressional testimony on October 4, 2000, and in its January 18, 2001, letter to Congress (See Appendices E and F). After undertaking a thorough review of the question in connection with the work of the Task Force, the Department continues to adhere to that position.

In summary, whether the “New Commonwealth” proposal is understood to envision a political entity under some form of United States sovereignty or an independent country somehow associated with the United States, a mutual-consent provision would be unenforceable and could not guarantee that any given political status or agreement would be permanent.

2. Statehood
The Constitution authorizes Congress to admit new States. In practice, admission by Congress often has been preceded by territories developing their own constitutions and petitioning for statehood. In addition, Congress may set conditions for admission of a territory as a State.

Once admitted, a new State stands on an equal footing with the original States in all respects. Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated” territory, which means that it is not intended to become a State. It therefore is subject only to the most fundamental provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

As part of the process of becoming a State, a territory becomes “incorporated” into the United States by Congress. An incorporated territory is subject to the entire U.S. Constitution except for those provisions that expressly apply only to States. In addition, an “incorporated territory” is subject to the Constitution’s Tax Uniformity Clause, which requires that all Federal “Duties, Imposts, and Excises” be uniform throughout “the United States.” Puerto Rico’s residents are currently exempt from most Federal income tax laws and receive certain tax references. If Puerto Rico were incorporated (or admitted), the Constitution would generally no longer allow such preferential treatment, but would probably allow a transition period to minimize economic dislocation.

If Puerto Rico were to become a State, Puerto Rican citizens would be entitled to vote for President, two U.S. Senators, and full voting Members in the House of Representatives. With regard to the House, Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers… The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Members in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to Puerto Rico’s population based on the next congressional reapportionment, following the 2010 census. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the population count of each State and is responsible for the administrative procedures for the apportionment for each State based on a formula determined by Congress.

When the States of Hawaii and Alaska were admitted, Congress temporarily increased the membership of the House to allow each of the new States to elect one Representative until the next reapportionment. Congress also, in some cases where the population justified it, has made interim additions of more than one Representative.

3. Independence
As already discussed, Congress’ power under the U.S. Constitution’s Territory Clause does include the power to relinquish all of its sovereignty over a territory. Congress thus may determine whether and upon what conditions a territory may receive independence, and its authority to regulate those conditions remains until the point of independence.

For example, the Territory of the Philippines, which the United States acquired from Spain at the same time as Puerto Rico, received its independence under the Philippine Independence Act of 1934. Under this Act, Congress set out the process by which the islands eventually would gain independence by authorizing the Philippine government to hold a convention to draft a constitution for an interim Commonwealth under which the Philippines would exercise extensive self-government, with limited United States involvement, pending full independence.

The constitution was subject to approval by the President and ratification by the qualified voters of the Philippines. The Act provided that, after a transition period of ten years from the establishment of the Commonwealth, the President by proclamation would “withdraw and surrender all right of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty” over the islands (with the exception of certain governmental property and military bases) and “recognize the independence of the Philippines as a separate and self-governing nation.”

In 1946, after World War II, the President did proclaim independence, and the two nations entered into a Treaty of General Relations. Another possible model of independence is that of the “freely associated states” of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. The freely associated states were part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which the United States administered following World War II. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands became independent in 1986, and Palau became independent in 1994, after Congress approved negotiated “compacts of free association” with the territories. Among other rights, they therefore gained the full right to conduct their own foreign relations.

The freely associated states retained close ties to the United States, however, and the United States continued to provide security, defense, and various other types of financial assistance and services.

Citizens of the freely associated states may generally enter the United States as nonimmigrants and may establish residence and work here. Although these three compacts did contain clauses requiring the mutual consent of the parties to changes, the renegotiated compacts approved by Congress in 2003 with Micronesia and the Marshall Islands provided for unilateral termination, consistent with the constitutional views discussed above. Among the constitutionally available options, freely associated status may come closest to providing for the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that advocates for “New Commonwealth” status appear to desire. But it would need to be made clear to the people of Puerto Rico that freely associated status is a form of independence from the United States and cannot (absent an amendment of the U.S. Constitution) be made immune from the possibility of unilateral termination by the United States. If this option were considered, there also would be a policy question for the President and Congress as to whether Puerto Rico’s significantly greater population (approximately 4 million compared to 136,000 in Micronesia, the largest of the freely associated states) makes a relationship with Puerto Rico similar to that with the existing freely associated states desirable or practical.

Any planning for Puerto Rican independence would need to consider citizenship. Individuals born in Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States by statute (rather than by being born or naturalized in the United States). The general rule is that citizenship follows sovereignty. So if Puerto Rico were to become an independent sovereign nation, those who chose to become citizens of it or had U.S. citizenship only by statute would cease to be citizens of the United States, unless a different rule were prescribed by legislation or treaty, much as citizens of the Philippines lost their status as U.S. nationals once the Philippines became independent.

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force recognizes that the authority under the U.S. Constitution to establish a permanent non-territorial status for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico rests with Congress.

Although the current territorial status may continue so long as Congress desires, there are only two non-territorial options recognized by the U.S. Constitution that establish a permanent status between the people of Puerto Rico and the Government of the United States.

• One is statehood. Under this option, Puerto Rico would become the 51st State with standing equal to the other 50 States.

• The other is independence. Under this option, Puerto Rico would become a separate, independent sovereign nation. The democratic will of the Puerto Rican people is paramount for the future status of the territory. Ideally, the process should begin with an expression from the people of Puerto Rico on whether to maintain current territorial status or establish a permanent non-territorial status with regard to the United States. The popular will of the people should be ascertained in a way that provides clear guidance for future action by Congress. Therefore, the following are the recommendations of the Task Force:

1. The Task Force recommends that Congress within a year provide for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to remain a U.S. territory subject to the will of Congress or to pursue a Constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United States. Congress should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain.

2. The Task Force recommends that if the people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non-territorial status, Congress should provide for an additional plebiscite allowing the people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the two permanent non-territorial options. Once the people have selected one of the two options, Congress is encouraged to begin a process of transition toward that option.

3. If the people elect to remain as a territory, the Task Force recommends, consistent with the 1992 memorandum of President Bush, that a plebiscite occur periodically, as long as that status continues, to keep Congress informed of the people’s wishes.

You are the one who should check your facts.

In fact,the head of the hotel workers union there was out on bail for that armored car robbery in Connecticut. Many of the union members were members of Macheteros. The goal was to rob the casino, with the fire as a distraction. They didn't get the money because the casino's doors were locked. A secret service man died in that fire.

That fire had *everything* to do with the independence movement.

Urban legend.

The secret service and the FBI who were crawling all over San Juan and who interviewing everybody, including me, did not think it was an urban legend. The cab drivers and employees who did not show up for work that day did not think it was urban legend.

Maybe around your union hall it's referred to as urban legend.

So how come only the idiot who put a burning sterno can under some furniture was the one caught, tried, convicted and sentence to life in prison?

And not only that: I almost died in that fire. Probably the only reason I didn't was because I had heard for three days that something big was planned. When the fire broke out I ran from the building immediately. The first thing I heard outside the building was talk of the liberation group.

So how come only the idiot who put a burning sterno can under some furniture was the one caught, tried, convicted and sentence to life in prison?

Happens all the time. You probably think McVeigh acted alone too.

Who else did McVeigh work with other than the guy in the glasses, what's his name?

Maybe we should expel all the Irish and/or Scots from the U.S. along with the Puerto Ricans.

If you were really in that fire, sorry. I am a retired National Guardsman and was outside helping in the rescue efforts and didn't hear a word about any terrorists.

And, btw, I don't belong to the union. I am management. But I deal with them on a daily basis.

good post, lots of good points. I've wondered about that myself (the nondecisiveness of the statehood movement). Maybe the brain drain migration from the island to the upper 48 has something to do with that; I'd bet a solid majority of those who took the guagua aerea would be pro-statehood.

Another factor has got to be the strong statist/democrat influence in local politics there. The same things that we freepers stand against - big government, high taxes, restricted business environment, large union presence feeding from relatively larger underclass - have strong presence on the island.

Obviously, the modern democratic politician is no Truman, Scoop Jackson or Zell Miller - we'll have to wait a generation for men such as these to save that party. Unfortunately, just like here in the upper 48, there don't seem to be any persons of strength on the Puerto Rican dem side of the political house.

The remaining slagheap no-names probably expend half their energy/influence in supporting the kinds of programs that need the poor to exist (the program, that is...). It wouldn't be such a stretch to see that a Puerto Rico becoming a state would mean the death of el Partido Popular. The Hernandez Colon & Sila Calderon's of the island need the present limbo status more than they want what's best for Puerto Rico.

Self-Preservation is the strongest prime-motivator. And I don't care whether it's Old San Juan or the Oval Office, a dhimmicrat is a dhimmicrat where-ever they are.

Sorry for my hostile comments. The horror of that day came back for me. Yes, I was in that fire. I had been told to avoid the hotel that day because something was going to happen. Other people knew about it too. None of the taxis would park in front of the hotel that day and the vendors were absent from that part of the beach all that afternoon.If you were helping with the rescues then I don't have to tell you how awful it was.

The rumors before and after were that it was union members (plural) who had been setting the fires (plural). There were fires in the hotel almost daily for the week before the big one on December 31. Supposedly the Secret Service was there to investigate the planned casino heist. At least one of the people who died that day had been killed before the fire started. It was a woman and I think she had been strangled but I'm not sure. I think the publisher or editor of the local newspaper also died in the fire.

It was more than just an accidental fire set by one random guy. A lot more was going on.

Well, If that's true, you might just have found a nail the national Dems could be using to boost their number by 2 in the Senate, and some in the house... Not that I'm advocating it, but in the manner of self serving... if PR is a solid Democratic bastion, and Dems keep losing territory and representation in the continenantal US... perhaps adding more states will be something they will advocate.....

Honestly though, PR wants statehood, or independence PR has to take action. To argue Congress give it to us, when they haven't made locally any vocal move is a bit over the top. Squeaky wheel gets the grease...

Of course, we could always just give it back to Spain... after all that was their last benefactor... undoing the peace accords of the Spanish American War, when they ceded PR and Guam to the US.

I don't think most american's have a hard position one way or the other, if 4 Million folks in the carribean want to be a state, I'm sure it would work itself out.. but until folks see they really want it, its hard to make a case for it.

I'll believe you were there and I am sorry you had to go through it. The Teamsters were a dangerous bunch back then. I have been working in opposition to them for the last 18 years or so. But the general conclusion is that the fire started as a small intimidation tactic, like the other small fires over that week, and that it went terribly out of hand.

It was indeed a horrible day. I'll never forget the poor girl that had to be evacuated from the rooftop half naked after she had to scramble out of her room. And the many others.

Dang. It's going to be exactly 20 years next New Year's eve since that fire.