Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indicted Puerto Rico Governor Now Demands “Sovereignty” for the Island (“Wag-the-Dog” Scenario)
NotiUno.com (Spanish-language news brief) ^ | April 28, 2008

Posted on 04/28/2008 11:00:35 AM PDT by Ebenezer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last
To: rrstar96

If they could only decide...


41 posted on 04/29/2008 9:52:00 AM PDT by gogeo (Democrats want to support the troops by accusing them of war crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogeo

Well, if you always offer Puerto Ricans Commonwealth status as a choice in a plebiscite, expect no mature decision (i.e., either statehood or independence).


42 posted on 04/29/2008 10:33:52 AM PDT by Ebenezer (Strength and Honor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Hey, that Google translator works pretty good!


43 posted on 04/29/2008 10:35:57 AM PDT by Ebenezer (Strength and Honor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Again, why do Puerto Ricans (in your scheme) get to vote but the rest of us don’t?

Mostly, a plebiscite is relevant to those that can decide to alter their status or to remain status-quo.

In the case of Puerto Rico, it has always been the current residents (at the time) that decided upon statehood, or commonwealth or independence. But, there is a huge number of people born on the island who no longer live there but who still consider themselves as "Puerto Ricans". Those Puerto Ricans like the idea of being able to travel back and forth with no visas or other encumbrances. And, many, if not most, still have relatives and friends on the island. So to them, it's similar to a former Texan living in New York still having the freedom to go to Texas to visit family and friends whenever he pleases with no problems.

If those Puerto Ricans living outside the island want to continue identifying themselves as "Puerto Ricans" and they care about the future of the island, then they should have a say on the future of the island/country.

Also, I don’t agree with your “all Puerto Rican’s” lose citizenship if the vote is no.

I'm not too crazy about the idea either, but the way I see it, it's to force the issue on those "outside" Puerto Ricans, and make them take part in what many still consider their "home".

Citizenship is a individual matter, not a group one. The USA has never revoked citizenship of a group, and should not.

Like I said above, it's to force the issue on those that still identify themselves as Puerto Ricans but enjoy the benefits of U.S. citizenship. If the threat existed that they could lose American citizenship, then they might be encouraged to vote for statehood to keep that citizenship if it mattered to them so much.

All current PR’s *are* US Citizenship. If the independence motion passes they should all be given US citizenship (except perhaps convicted felons) if they want it, perhaps with a requirement that they renounce their Puerto Rican citizenship, or take residence in the USA to within a certain amount of time.

If the thread of losing citizenship doesn't exist before a plebiscite, then those "outside" or American residents (and citizens) might not have enough "encouragement" to partake in the critical vote on the island. I for one like the idea of being an American citizen, and would not give that up for anything. But, if forced to decide the island's future, then I would partake in the plebiscite to vote for statehood, but if that failed, I would then apply for citizenship as a new immigrant would. To me, it's a matter of forcing the issue on "Puerto Ricans" everywhere to essentially "come to the aid of their country".
Beside, that would give the current crooked governor of Puerto Rico something more to worry about. Essentially, he would worry about how those "external" PRs feel about his crookedness.
44 posted on 04/29/2008 11:25:08 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: adorno

No, sorry I still don’t agree with you. The Puerto Rican vote should be limited to people living in Puerto Rico.

Those are the people who will be effected. American’s of Puerto Rican background living in NY will not be effected, except for, as you say travel being harder or something. As a PR living in NY you already have both American and New York citizenship, that’s enough.

For the USA to institute weird racial voting categories (or birthright voting categories) is a huge step backwards. In fact the Supreme Court threw out just such an (existing) plan in Hawaii a few years ago.

To do anything else is simply bizarre. I was born in Michigan. Do I get to vote in Michigan elections, even very important ones? NO!! Why, because I changed my state citizenship to Michigan.

As far as the other states go, people in the entire USA will be effected by making PR a state. Therefore we should (and DO!) get a say in it. It’s not simply a case of rubber stamping PR as a state.

My suggestion is that we should all start getting to vote on this issue. Many of us feel that PR should not be a state. There are too many language, cultural and historical differences. I would certainly vote against PR statehood in a referendum. Of course usually such referendums are non-binding.

The last autonomous Island nation seeking statehood was Hawaii. It took them 110 years of trying to achieve it. The story is told here: “http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/statehoodpetition1954.html";.

Now, many disagree with the decision and there is a movement to undo it. I suspectd that the same would occur with PR given another 30 years.

The American Empire was always a bad idea. It is coming to an end. As a true small government conservative I’d favor letting go as many foreign possessions as possible, perhaps even including Hawaii it a large marjority there agree.

I certainly view divesting ourselves of Puerto Rico as a priority.

I believe many other Americans would actively lobby Congress to vote “no” on the bill to grant statehood. Such a bill is required by Article IV, section 3 of the US Constitution, and has taken place for all states joining since the original 13.

RE Hawaii: After some debate, the Senate bill passed on March 11 by a vote of 76 to 15. The House bill reached the floor on the same day and the House substituted the Senate version for it and passed it on March 12 by a vote of 323 to 89.

This was the fifth attempt in 50 years. Hopefully we can put the PR statehood off that long, too, at which point I think it will be a dead issue. Starting now to pass citizen resolutions in states calling for “NO STATEHOOD FOR PR” in the most promising states (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and other core Red states that understand the language and culture issues involved in statehood) would also do a lot to cool of the desire for statehood by even strong PR Statehood proponents, I imagine.


45 posted on 04/29/2008 2:40:48 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Do we want a "Hispanic Entity" as part of our nation? I do not.

So you want Hispanics kicked out of the United States? Even US citizens? Charming! I have friends in Texas and New Mexico, people whose families have lived inside the United States for 3 or 400 years, since long before the United States existed. You want them to go "home?" To where?

The American ownership or control or federation or whatever is a legacy of Theo. Roosevelt and his absurd Spanish American war. It was a real low point in American history and it is LONG PAST time that we undo it.

What about conquering South Texas, California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada in 1846? BTW, William McKinley, not Roosevelt, was responsible for the Spanish Americna War.

Why do Puerto Rican's get to vote and the rest of us don't?

Actually, non-Puerto Ricans get a lot more say than Puerto Ricans do, since any status change has to be made by Congress and Puerto Rico has no vote in Congress.

46 posted on 04/30/2008 10:55:16 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson