Home | About Us | Writers | Contact Us
Search

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Permalinks
Statehood For Puerto Rico? Why?
Written By : John Hawkins

Tomorrow, they’re supposed to have a vote on statehood for Puerto Rico in the House.

Legislation that could set Puerto Rico on a path to statehood has divided Hispanic House lawmakers over whether it is the best way to determine the future of the territory’s relationship with the U.S.

Lawmakers are set to vote on the measure Thursday, which could lead to Puerto Ricans casting a ballot in a referendum about whether they want to change their century-plus territory status with the U.S.

According to the legislation, the island’s residents would first be asked to vote on whether they want to retain the status quo. If they opt for change, a second ballot would then be held to determine if they want to pursue statehood, independence or a loose association with the U.S.

If Puerto Ricans vote in favor of statehood, the U.S. could be expanded beyond 50 states for the first time since Hawaii joined the Union in 1959.

It would lead to a raft of questions that could result in significant changes about how many lawmakers sit in Congress, and how the federal government funds various programs including the highway trust fund, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

For Puerto Ricans, it would likely result in some paying federal income tax for the first time, and spark debate about whether the island would be able to continue having two official languages.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) is a strong backer of the bill. The scheduled vote on Thursday comes just a week after Hoyer decided to cancel a vote on another bill that would have given the District of Columbia a voting member of the House of Representatives, a measure the number two House Democrat also supported.

Other proponents of the Puerto Rican bill caution that it wouldn’t lead directly to statehood, noting that Congress would still have to react to the outcome of the votes.

We’re talking about radical change here — adding a new state. We’d have to assimilate a bilingual country, it would cost billions of dollars, and there’s no attempt to even explain how it would benefit the United States. That’s because it wouldn’t benefit the country.

In actuality, this is just one more left-wing powergrab that’s   being driven almost entirely by the idea that it might lead to more votes in Congress for the Democratic Party. If the American people won’t go along with a liberal agenda, well then, they’ll just have to get new people.

Republicans should vote against this and whatever the outcome of a vote in Puerto Rico may be, they should block Puerto Rico from becoming a state.

0
  • baoxian

    This issue comes up every few years, and the Puerto Ricans have always voted to maintain the status quo. It’s actually a good deal for them since they get a lot of the benefits of being a part of the US and get our military protection, but don’t pay Federal tax and have a nice degree of autonomy.

    Of course the Democrats are on board because they see the place as a source of millions of new government dependents and liberal voters.

    Maybe we should be asking why Steny Hoyer is so expansionist-minded after the liberals falsely accused Bush of running an “American Empire” for 8 years. Typical screaming hypocrisy.

  • http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

    It’s a blatant move to bring more Progressive legislators into our Congress, as the PR government seems to leaning that way, as well as millions of new Democrat voters.

  • Lizard

    I’ve got an idea.

    Immediately after granting Puerto Rico statehood, have a national referendum on abortion. After all, they’d be the first state to join AFTER Roe V. Wade, how could you expect them to follow a law they didn’t participate in passing?

    Sure, it’d force the Democratic abortion fetishists to vote against their own legislation, but if it all passed at once it’d make one heck of a consolation prize.

  • rjschwarz

    Another way to think of it is they now have another opportunity to grow up and be their own nation.

    Another way to look at it is that it is better to have a lot of territories than sketchy third world allies. The bad folks in the world know we’ll defend our territories no matter who is in power and we don’t have to ask their permission for military access to their airspace. They also use the dollar so they can’t screw their economy any worse than Washington can. The US should stop handing out aid and support to a lot of nations and instead offer for them to become territories or go their own way. After all if your little island has no foreign policy all you lose is a bit of pride and gain an awful lot in the ability to milk Uncle Sam.

    Another way to look at is as a test bed for the eventual Canadian fracture in which one or more parts might look South as an option.

    But the most realistic way is to paint opponents as racists and if successful it packs more lefties into Washington.

  • Smithwick

    Is there any legal method to get rid of a territory? I really don’t see how we benefit from this relationship. Why not grant them their independence and we go our separate ways amicably. I’m sure they won’t want it but we can outvote them.

  • H_Zinn

    …yeah, its not like they are a territory, being citizens since 1917, reaping all the benefits of a state without the voting rights… hey… wait a minute…

  • RBC47

    For a bunch of people who claim to be believers in democracy, that’s a weird collection of responses.

    First, given Puerto Rico’s long history as “part” of the US, why not give its citizens a chance to change their current awkward status? All of the original 13 colonies had that opportunity,and so did the people of every state that has joined the union since, so why not let the Puerto Ricans express their popular will?

    Second, why assume that Puerto Rico will elect Democrats? Is that because the Democratic Party holds an edge with Hispanic voters now? doesn’t that assume no change? ever? And doesn’t that say a lot more about conservative inability to appeal to those voters than it does about Puerto Rico?

    And by the by, aren’t Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California (and a whole lot of cities in those states and others) already blingual in fact if not in law? Adding one more bilingual state seems to me to make no difference at all for most purposes. Given that Puerto Rico is so heavily Roman Catholic, shouldn’t the anti-abortion and ‘family values’ folks want Puerto Rico to become a state?

  • Smithwick

    First, given Puerto Rico’s long history as “part” of the US, why not give its citizens a chance to change their current awkward status? All of the original 13 colonies had that opportunity,and so did the people of every state that has joined the union since, so why not let the Puerto Ricans express their popular will?

    They’ve had that chance. They’ve voted down statehood many many times in the past. Clearly they don’t want to be a state. At this point I assume they will always vote that way as it is to their benefit.

  • whats_up

    Posted by CavalierX
    2010-04-28 11:01:12

    Its pretty sad when conservatives wont consider statehood based on who the citizens might vote for. Shouldnt they be allowed to decide? Is that the criteria now that conservatives are going to use, if you have to many Dems you wont be considered for statehood, pathetic.

  • Smithwick

    Forgot to add: you know the whole “no taxation without representation” thing? It ought to go the other way as well. They pay no federal taxes but are represented. So comparing this to the original 13 colonies is inaccurate.

  • D-Vega

    Statehood is third in terms of what Puerto Ricans want.

    First is to remain as is.

    Second is independence.

    There’s a reason why it’s remained this way for so long. There’s been numerous votes on it already. The three choices split the vote and the “as is” always wins.

    But don’t think THEY want this. If they had to choose between independence and statehood, they would choose independence.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    Why turn them into a state? Because they get all the benefits of being in the US without the taxes. I think we should just cut them loose: make them independent.

  • baoxian

    “Its pretty sad when conservatives wont consider statehood based on who the citizens might vote for. Shouldnt they be allowed to decide?”

    Yeah, really. Why not let the Palestinians in their territories become a US state?

  • Smithwick

    But don’t think THEY want this. If they had to choose between independence and statehood, they would choose independence.

    I think most Americans would agree with them on that if it were put up to a vote here.

    A) keep peurto rico as a parasite territory contributing very little and absorbing federal money.
    B) give them the indepedence they want and save ourselves a bit in taxes.

    not a hard choice.

  • gfchicago

    Boy this should piss off the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. When my dad was stationed at K. I. Sawyer A.F.B. back in 1973 I remember that they always billed themselves as the 51st State. The’ve always wanted statehood.

  • D-Vega

    “I think we should just cut them loose: make them independent.”

    They would love that, CT.

    What they don’t love is losing the federal aid.

    But you put a referendum up, which is how it should be, and you give them the choice between statehood and independence, you would overwhelmingly get independence winning. Because the tiniest part of the population want PR to be a state. Because then they would be subject to the taxes and could lose a lot of their cultural identity.

  • D-Vega

    Smithwick, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    PR is no parasite. They get benefits, but they have provided a crucial training ground for the US military for generations.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    Exactly: they don’t want to be independent. They love how it is right now, they get all the benefits of being in the US with none of the drawbacks. They’ll never change that voluntarily.

  • Smithwick

    PR is no parasite. They get benefits, but they have provided a crucial training ground for the US military for generations.

    Crucial eh? So there is literally no way our military would be able to train without peurto rico on the payroll? I find that claim . . highly suspect.

    They take federal money, they pay in nothing. The island is a parasite, we are it’s host.

  • tourdeforce321

    Posted by Smithwick
    2010-04-28 16:08:03

    Dummy, where else do you think US troops trained to fight for US interests in Vietnam, Columbia and other jungle-scenario conflicts?

    Puerto Rico also has a great coastline that can be used for attracting more tourists.

    PLUS, it is strategically positioned to protect the Panama Canal which is crucial for US trade and shipping. What more reasons do you need?

    Smithwick, you sure are dumb for an American. Dumb and dumber

  • D-Vega

    Crucial eh? So there is literally no way our military would be able to train without peurto rico on the payroll? I find that claim . . highly suspect.

    Really? Then look it up. Specifically look up Vieques, and how much PR wants the US military out of Vieques, since the military training points to increased cancer rates among the people, and how the US military has said that it is too crucial a training ground to pull out of.

    They take federal money, they pay in nothing. The island is a parasite, we are it’s host.

    Like I said, look it up before you rush to judgement. PR is a strategic location and training ground for generations. There’s a reason why we made it a commonwealth in the first place.

  • D-Vega

    I should correct that, as I forgot that after years of protests, the Navy finally pulled out of Vieques (in terms of bomb testing and trainging) in 2003.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    Dummy, where else do you think US troops trained to fight for US interests in Vietnam, Columbia and other jungle-scenario conflicts?

    Hawaii.

  • D-Vega

    Puerto Rico was used more as a bombing range.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    Actually I’m mistaken, they also used Georgia and Louisiana.

  • http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

    Its pretty sad when conservatives wont consider statehood based on who the citizens might vote for.

    It’s pretty sad when liberals only consider statehood based on who the citizens might vote for.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    I wouldn’t mind Puerto Rico as a state, but I’d like to see them make some changes in order to be part of the US: being part of another country means changing to adapt to them not the other way around.

  • Smithwick

    Really? Then look it up. Specifically look up Vieques, and how much PR wants the US military out of Vieques, since the military training points to increased cancer rates among the people, and how the US military has said that it is too crucial a training ground to pull out of.

    Did look it up, we finished withrdawing from Vieques in 2003. Now it is controlled by the department of the interior. So yes, if you are worried about having to face time-traveling pirates in the vicinity of Peurto Rico that will go back and attack us in 2003 or earlier then it is crucial to our defense. But my concerns are more to do with our current financial straights than with time-traveling pirates. Actually I’m more worried about the state of our defenses around Vicksburg. That controls the entire Mississippi river and is crucial to our southern strategy!

    Like I said, look it up before you rush to judgement. PR is a strategic location and training ground for generations. There’s a reason why we made it a commonwealth in the first place.

    To defend against Caribbean pirates? Or a resurgent Cuba? I hear the haitians recently started work on their 4th nuclear air-craft carrier. This could be big.

  • Smithwick

    I should correct that, as I forgot that after years of protests, the Navy finally pulled out of Vieques (in terms of bomb testing and trainging) in 2003.

    Ah good, you caught that. So if we are no longer using it for a bombing rage, do you still find it to be the lynchpin of our defense?

    I’m curious what the argument really is for keeping this parasite.

    Dummy, where else do you think US troops trained to fight for US interests in Vietnam, Columbia and other jungle-scenario conflicts?

    Some other part of the world that is covered in jungle? You’ve got plenty to choose from. Besides which, that assumes that an independent PR would completely disavow the US. I’m sure we could arrange some deals with them on this subject.

    Puerto Rico also has a great coastline that can be used for attracting more tourists.

    Good for them, hopefully that will help out their fledgling new economy.

Advertisement
Featured Video

If I Was Your President (Boyfriend Spoof)

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time
50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know
Politically Correct Fairy Tales
Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married
Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies
The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web
Advertisement
User Info
Features
Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN