Puerto Rican Statehood?

[DFW5Traveler]

Now I understand that the bill, H.R. 2499, being volleyed around in the house (passed, now senate debate) is not a vote for PR statehood, but could force PR to make a vote. Isn't that in and of itself forcing our govts will on a sovereign territory?

I've known a lot of PR people and have one friend who lives in Arlington from PR. I knew quite a few in the USMC that served and became citizens. They all said that they prefered the way things are; i.e., being a territory. Why would our govt try to force a statehood vote in PR?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I've known a lot of PR people and have one friend who lives in Arlington from PR. I knew quite a few in the USMC that served and became citizens. They all said that they prefered the way things are; i.e., being a territory. Why would our govt try to force a statehood vote in PR?

Votes

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Why would our govt try to force a statehood vote in PR?

Puerto Rican statehood would add two liberal Democrats to the senate.

[Laurentius]

PJ and the Captain have it right.

Me? I advocate giving Puerto Rico full independence as its own sovereign nation.

Why? Because they take more tax money than they contribute. Since they have not been admitted as a state yet; we are just "engaged" not married.

Call off the wedding. Give Puerto Rico her independence.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

Why? Because they take more tax money than they contribute.

Which is why these votes in PR keep failing. As a state, they (and the US companies with subs there) would be subject to US income taxes, which they currently aren't.

[John Bull]

Do the current leaders of Congress have no shame? How stupid do they think we are?

Guess we all know the answers to these questions.

[pyramider]

The push for statehood used to come from the PR.

[TexTushHog]

The vote, as I understand it, is in two phases. First vote asks if they want a change is status quo. Second vote ask for what kind of change, assuming first vote says change.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Now I understand that the bill, H.R. 2499, being volleyed around in the house (passed, now senate debate) is not a vote for PR statehood, but could force PR to make a vote. Isn't that in and of itself forcing our govts will on a sovereign territory?

I've known a lot of PR people and have one friend who lives in Arlington from PR. I knew quite a few in the USMC that served and became citizens. They all said that they prefered the way things are; i.e., being a territory. Why would our govt try to force a statehood vote in PR?

First of all, PR is a US Territory, not a sovereign state, much like the US Virgin Islands. Residents of PR are US citizens (so, DFW5, they did not need to become citizens unless they started out as citizens of another country other than the US/PR). They have non-voting reps in Congress, as do the US VI, and Guam and other non-state Territories or protectorates. They serve in the armed forces, and in times of conscription, are required to serve.

I lived in PR in 1961 and again in 1969. Whether or not PR should become a state has been an issue in PR easily for 50-100 years. And because the population is split about 50-50, no change either to statehood or independence has ever occurred. And, I strongly suspect that it will not change.

Remember, it is not just our Congress that must approve statehood or independence, but also PR. So, even though you might worry about statehood, I think the situation will continue to be static for the foreseeable future.

[offshoredrilling]

If US Congtess wants PR to become a independence State or a State in the union. Why stop at PR, ask the same form the other Territories also.