Posted on 01/08/2015 10:18:29 AM PST by Ebenezer
Mr. Speaker:
As the new Congress begins its work on behalf of the American people, I rise to address my colleagues about an issue of national importance, namely Puerto Rico’s quest to discard its status as a U.S. territory and to become a U.S. state.
Puerto Rico has been a territory since 1898. If Puerto Rico does not desire to remain a territory, it can follow one of two paths. The territory can become a state or it can become a sovereign nation, either fully independent from the U.S. or with a compact of free association with the U.S. that either nation can terminate. If Puerto Rico becomes a nation, future generations of island residents would not be American citizens.
My constituents have made countless contributions to the United States in times of peace and war, serving in every military conflict since World War I. They fight today in Afghanistan and other dangerous locations, in the same units as young men and women from states like Florida, Texas and New Mexico. Many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice in battle. When they do, their casket is flown back to this country, draped in the American flag.
It takes a special kind of patriotism to fight for a nation that you love, but one that does not treat you equally. Although Puerto Rico is home to more American citizens than 21 states, my constituents cannot vote for president, are not represented in the Senate, and have one non-voting delegate in the House. Moreover, territory status gives Congress a license to treat Puerto Rico worse than the states, and Congress often uses that license.
Everyone other than apologists for the status quo comprehends that territory status is the root cause of the economic crisis in Puerto Rico. As a result of the structural problems this status has created, residents of Puerto Rico are relocating to the states in staggering numbers. I know it breaks their hearts to leave behind the island they love, but most see no other option.
Yet, through the clouds, a bright sun is emerging. The people of Puerto Rico have finally said: “No more.” They have come to the conclusion that they deserve a status that is democratic and dignified. They will no longer tolerate being second-class citizens. They do not want special treatment. Rather, they demand equal treatment. Nothing more. But nothing less.
The will of the Puerto Rican people was expressed in a 2012 referendum sponsored by the Puerto Rico government. There, a majority of my constituents expressed their opposition to territory status; statehood received more votes than territory status; and statehood received far more votes than independence or free association, proving that Puerto Rico has no desire to weaken the bonds forged with the United States over nearly 12 decades. In short, statehood is now the predominant force in Puerto Rico.
At my urging, and in response to this landmark referendum, the Obama Administration proposed—and Congress approved—an appropriation of $2.5 million dollars to fund the first federally-sponsored vote in Puerto Rico’s history, with the stated goal of “resolving” the status issue.
I have proposed that the funding be used to hold a simple, federally-sponsored, yes-or-no vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted as a state, just as Alaska and Hawaii did. This approach would yield a definitive result that nobody could reasonably question. And it has broad congressional support, since a bill I introduced last Congress that embodies this approach had 131 cosponsors and led to the filing of an identical Senate companion bill.
All that remains is for the Governor of Puerto Rico to schedule the vote. Yet, a year has passed, and we have seen only inertia and indecision. All talk and no action.
For my part, I will continue to press for action in both San Juan and Washington, D.C., using any strategy and technique that will advance the statehood cause. Since none of my colleagues in this chamber representing states would accept territory status for their constituents, I know they will understand that I will not accept it for my constituents.
Thank you.
Untrue. The reconquista crowd has discussed leaving for decades, and would like the southwestern United States to break away from the rest of the U.S. and become a separate Latin American country. Nobody refers to reconquista hispanics as "neo-confederates".
Rather, the term is specifically applied to people who continue to whine about the lost confederate cause from 1865, like yourself.
“Whine” ?
Should states have the freedom to leave the US?
What states CANNOT do is unilaterally decide to leave on their own because they want to protect slavery, seize federal government property, open fire on federal military installions, create rival foreign governments in states that HAVEN'T left the union and are still part of the United States (Kentucky, Missouri), and engineer coups to overthrow duly elected state governments who don't support slavery and won't pledge alliance to the Confederate "cause" after their state secedes (Sam Houston in Texas)
If states engage in those actions (like if Hawaii decided to secede tomorrow so they could enslave all registered Republicans in their state, then began bombing Pearl Harbor and killing American military personal), the rest of the country has every right to put down their immortal and criminal actions.
People who support southern states going to war to protect their human "property", and deny the motivation was to protect slavery, are called Neo-Confederates. End of story.
Agreed on nearly all this. That’s an excellent and thorough reply, thanks.
But I’m hearing that “neo-confederate” pejorative term spoken about anyone who wants to give states the legitimate freedom to leave peacefully. Sorry, I admit I can’t give examples, but will watch.
That’s because the example you gave (”If you actually try to leave, the president will invade and decimate your economy for decades.”) appear to be a reference to the civil war, with you whining about the southern states getting their butts kicked and they decided to start their own pro-slavery nation and attack Ft Sumter.
If you weren’t whining about the pro-slavery confederates getting slapped down, I apologize.
As I said, I’d be all for getting rid of Hawaii, and probably most of New England too (convince them to leave and join Canada). Let ‘em go!
Could call it whining :-)
The “neo-Confederate” ad hominen attack and the president-directed armed attack are two different things: one is related to what happens when you just discuss the issue, one is related to what might (I apologize - I should have stated it as a hypothetical) happen if you actually do it.
The problem is that most people close down genuine discussions of secession - they associate sovereign states wanting to leave the Union with slavery and the grave political and moral mistakes the Southern states made 150 years ago.
The problem is also that most people assume that the issue of state secession, which the Constitution does not address well (or at all) was solved by Lincoln’s destructive forces. And, if a state tries to leave without Federal approval, the people may accept force again.
I would argue that one of the reasons that legitimate questions of peaceful secession get lumped in with civil war era secession is that actual Neo-Confederates WANT it that way -- any modern-day talk of secession (including states that are nowhere near the south) and they start a "the south was RIGHT!" thread on the internet, arguing that the civil war had nothing to with slavery, and wave the confederate flag around at Tea Party events. This does NOT help our side. (not to mention they totally accept the kool-aid from the mainstream media and the left that segregation-era Democrats were "the conservative party back then")
Modern-day talk of secession may be fun, but it is not something actually on the table, unless one resides in the confines of Candyland.
Kick out Hawaii and Vermont (free trade with both) and eject those foreign devils, Sanders and Leahy!
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.