Let's debate the future of Puerto Rico

Great Debates
1

Puerto Rico (pop. 3.9 million) is one of the last remnants of the United States’ period of experimentation with European-style colonial imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. At present it is a U.S. commonwealth or territory, which means it is neither in the U.S. nor out of it. On the one hand, Puerto Ricans (living in Puerto Rico) have no representation in Congress and no votes in the Electoral College and pay no federal taxes. On the other hand, Puerto Ricans are considered U.S. citizens from birth, meaning they have the right to live, work and vote anywhere in the United States. The U.S. dollar is PR’s currency. PR does not have its own military or foreign policy; it does enjoy the protection of the U.S. armed forces should anyone, for whatever reason, try to attack it.

Puerto Ricans are divided over whether to be satisfied with this relationship. The main three political parties are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_political_parties):

The New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico – which wants PR to become a full state of the Union.

The Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico – which wants PR to remain in its present status as a U.S. commonwealth.

The Puerto Rican Independence Party – which wants PR to become an independent state.

My impression is, the PDP has slightly more popular support than either of the other two mainly because it stands for keeping PR’s options open. The U.S. has granted independence to territory possessions in the past (e.g., the Philipplines), but never to a state of the Union. If PR becomes a state of the Union, it will never, ever be independent. By the same token, if it becomes independent it will never be a state of the Union. The status quo, such as it is, preserves both statehood and independence as future possibilities.

Issues for debate:
Independence:

  1. How, if at all, would independence improve the lives of the Puerto Rican people?

  2. Would they be stripped of their U.S. citizenship? Or would those now citizens remain so, while children born in PR after independence would not be considered U.S. citizens?

  3. If PR had its own foreign policy, how would that differ from, or conflict with, U.S. foreign policy?

  4. From the point of view of the U.S., is there any reason not to grant them independence? For what, exactly, do we need PR? What use has the island been to us?
    Statehood:

  5. What would PR get out of statehood? How, if at all, would it improve the lives of the people?

  6. If PR were a state, how would that affect the balance of power in Congress and in the presidential elections?

  7. Would PR statehood put any additional financial burdens on the federal government? Would new federal tax revenue from PR be enough to offset this?

  8. Many U.S. territories have been admitted to the Union in the past, but only after they had been thoroughly Americanized by American settlers, and had become predominantly English-speaking. That will never happen to Puerto Rico. It is already fully populated. Its people are Spanish-speaking Catholics who, culturally, have far more in common with the people of Cuba or Mexico than with the people of New York or Georgia. If we grant statehood to PR, that means extending full membership in the American political community to a people who will never be full members of the American cultural community. Is that a step we should take? What does it mean to the way we define our national identity?

2

I can’t see how idependence wouldn’t have more downsides than upsides for PR. And if PR became a state, that would almost surely mean 2 more Democrat senators.

3

I don’t know about that. Both the Democrat and Republican parties have Puerto Rican chapters but their political presence is marginal. At present the pro-statehood NPP at present is aligned with the Pubs, the pro-commonwealth PDP is closer to the Dems, and the pro-independence PIP apparently shuns both of them. The PIP might be a factor we can discount; it got only 2.4% of the popular vote in the 2004 elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Independence_Party). I would expect PR to be a politically competitive state, at the federal level.

4

Puerto Rico has officially been a US commonwealth since 1952, and if my Puerto-Rican students are at all representative of the feelings of other Puerto Ricans, it will remain a commonwealth for a long time to come. Every year, when I discuss the acquisition of Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War, I discuss the island’s current status as a commonwealth, as well as the other two options you mentioned (independence and statehood). My students favor the status quo by almost unanimous margins each year. Maybe people who actually live in PR feel differently.

5

Can’t say. Apparently, neither can the Puerto Rican people.

I’d allow an dual citizenship for those born U.S. citizens, only P.R. citizenship after the split.

Again, can’t say. Wouldn’t be any of my business really.

If P.R. chooses indepencence, there is no reason not to grant it.

As with the previous #1.

I disagree with your answer to rfgdxm. I think the granting of statehood would realign the parties and P.R. would become a leaning Democrat state. Just a gut feeling - could be wrong.

Dunno, and I would consider it irrelevant.

It would mean a lot, and this is where my quibbles begin. Though extremely culturally diverse, the U.S. culture as a whole guides and contains all of the cultures within it. P.R. would eventually be absorbed if it became a state. If that is what it wants, fine. If it wants to become a state and fight absorption every step of the way, that’s not fine - it should either remain a territory or become independant.

6

By “be absorbed” do you mean “replace Spanish with English”? Because that’s the one thing I’m sure will never happen in PR no matter what happens politically.

7

No, that’s not it, though I do believe that would happen, though not in our lifetimes. Honestly, it’s kind of hard to put into words. I think I’m comparing it to immigrants to the continental U.S., only it would be the state as a whole rather than individuals. The following generations of immigrants become more absorbed into the U.S. culture, each a little bit at a time. I believe that if Puerto Rico decided to fully cast its lot with the U.S. and become a state, that would happen in time; and I believe that is part of the uncertainty.

8

But, how would that work? Immigrants became absorbed into American society by living among Americans and being exposed every day to American English in the streets and, later, by being immersed in the all-pervading outputs of the American mass media. But Puerto Rico is an island with its own culture, its own media (I presume), and with only a small minority of non-Puerto-Rican American residents. Statehood would not change that. It would mean only that Puerto Ricans would now be represented in Congress and would be sending taxes to Washington; but it would not mean any influx of mainland Americans, because there isn’t room for them. Nor would American media likely have any greater market penetration in PR post-statehood than they have now.

9

Well, the influence on the island of the Puerto Rican communities in New York and Florida, especially, cannot be totally discounted.

10

I’m making the assumption that if P.R. chose to become a state, they would do it with their eyes wide open and with the full realization that they are choosing to join the U.S. culture. Assuming that, all that I’ve stated follows. If my assumption is wrong, then of course all my statements fall flat to the ground.

In the 1800’s, western territories made their case for statehood by attempting to become like the eastern states. “We’ve got universities, we’ve got prisons, we’ve got schools, we’ve got wives and children.” They gained political influence and statehood by demonstrating similarities. I have to assume that P.R. will follow the same route by a different path. If not, then they should not become a state. (I did mention quibbles earlier, didn’t I?)

11

Never say never, lest we forget the Lone Star State.

Dear Mr. President:
There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
PS I am not a crackpot.

  • Grandpa Simpson
12

…the Commonwealth status has been bad for both the USA and puerto Rico. The fact is, the adoption of the us Federal welfare system has made Puerto Rico a very difficult place to live in. Food stamps circulate at a volume equivilent to US currency, and the island has gone from a farming food exporter to an importer of food. Plus, with no jobs, a good percentage of the young people leave the island to come to the USA.
What should be done? phase in independence 9over 50 years). But make it clear: after 2055, Puerto Rico goes it alone.

13

Could you flesh that out a little? How, for instance, has PR’s commonwealth association with the U.S. undermined its agriculture? And how does federal welfare make PR “a very difficult place to live in,” as opposed to a very easy place to live in?

14

Simple: Puerto Rico used to have lots of farms, and they produced very good coffee, pork, sugar, etc. Now, the US Government provides welfare payments, so it makes no sense to work a farm-half of the island lives on welfare and food stamps. So the land is idle, and people don’t work. Second, we have not required the islanders to pay income taxes, and have subsizized the jobs that exist. that’s fine, as long as the USA taxpayers are willing to put up with it. but tell that to a guy who’s lost his job to a plant moving to PR-and he’s paying for it to boot! the whole commonwealth thing is a mess-either make it a state , or cut it loose!

15

Puerto Ricans tend to be poor, and are obviously a minority group. Such should tend to favor the Dems.

16

I don’t believe the US can cut PR loose unless they agree to such.

17

Are you sure?

18

Check out some of the people who’ve been voting Republican ever since Reagan. It scares me, I believe that they’re voting to screw themselves over, but it does mean the GOP can reach them, electorally.

Besides, Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico are not a “minority” so they may not have the same POV, specially with a considerable middle class. You have to remember to adjust for standards-of-living and the such, even if by US-Census nimbers there is a small majority “under the poverty line” it does not mean that in this environment they all live as “poor”.

FWIW, the middle-level leadership of the pro-statehood party ID’s itself as “Republican” for Federal-politics issues at a better than 2-to-1 rate. Plus it’s generally a socially-conservative society (not quite fundamentalist-puritan, but just a wee bit phariseeic insofar as appearances).

LEGALLY they can. There is absolutely NO legal disposition under the US Constitution or International Law that gives Puerto Rico a veto. You cannot have statehood without the approval of both parties, but the US Congress can freely legislate to the effect that in X years Puerto Rico will initiate transition to independence, and after Y years’ transition on P-day they’ll just hand over the keys and leave.
POLITICALLY they didn’t want to for the first 80 years or so, and now they don’t dare to: the disruption to various economic interests and to the lives of the earlier-referenced PR communities in the mainland (accounting for ANOTER 3.8 million people, and these DO have the vote for Congress) of a unilateral severance not negotiated in advance would be of such a scale that many Senators and Congressmen would have to run for their lives. PLUS you have the issue of nearly 4 million US citizens and at the first sign that their US citizenship may be endangered(*), anywhere from one to one and a half million will show up at their relatives’ doorsteps in FL, NY, and elsewhere, pissed off and with a right to vote.

(*)Advocates of “sovereignty” assuage us with assurances that US citizenship is irrevocable and inheritable. But that’s disingenuous – sure, extant citizenship cannot be removed w/o just cause, but inheritability of citizenship is conditioned, you can’t have 4 generations of people who’ve never set foot in America being citizens; and running a nation where the entirety of the population is citizens of an entirely different one would be a pain, if not impossible.
OTOH, for those first 80 or so years US interests fomented or at least allowed the idea that statehood was a tantalizing possibility, as independence had to be stopped. However when it began looking like statehood had realistic chances to prevail, The Powers That Be began looking badly upon it. The DC establishment mostly wants us to shut up, take what we’re given and do what we’re told. The commonwealth party have been masters at playing that into some sort of grand accomplishment in autonomous rule, but by now they’re running out of room, ammunition and ideas to keep that up.

Meanwhile the statehood party squandered the momentum it built up during the late 80s and early 90s and has spent the last 10 years suffering, and inflicting, a stupendously self-destructive caravan o’ sleaze in High Places. Even so they managed to win a legislative majority in November because the commonwealth party’s administration was just lame.

And the “mainstream” pro-independence party is a ghost of its former self, a club of well-meaning highly educated intellectuals who are admired for their commitment and their brilliant minds but could not get mass support if they offered the Free Beer Amendment to the Constitution.
The commonwealth not only has created a culture of dependency but a culture of risk-aversion that not only does this make the economy suck, it also paralyzes many areas of government and business (“If I don’t make a decision, I can’t make the wrong one, and maybe the issue will become moot before I have to”) and contaminated the long-term political discourse. Why?

Because the commonwealth supporters used fear of change:
(A) “If there’s statehood, you’ll be forced to speak English! You’ll have to pay MORE taxes! You’ll be assimilated! Your Grandchildren won’t call themselves Boricuas! You’ll have to call Borinqueña a state song instead of a national anthem! Did I tell you about more taxes?”
(B) “If there’s independence, we’ll starve while Fidel Castro takes us over! We’ll have to raft our way to the USVI! Wait 20 years in line for a Visa just to visit Mom!”

So now the electorate, rather than seeking to understand the fundamentals of full sovereignty v. full integration, want instead to see up-front guarantees that whatever the proposal, it’ll have only 100% net gains, no costs: That independence will have dual citizenship, total free movement between the two countries, and US aid equal to the current funding level for years. Or that statehood will be in Spanish, keeping the Olympic Basketball Team, the taxes will be phased in over years but the benefits will be up to full parity tomorrow. And that we can back off either way if we start not liking it. Unrealistic at best. (Of course, commonwealthers also propose an “improved commonwealth” in which we get the power of Nullification of federal law and the full US funding is released from any mandate and left for us to use as we please. That always gets a laugh in DC) Historically, territories first decide they want to be states or independent nations, THEN they negotiate terms, and they take the best deal the can, nevermind what they wanted.
It’s a quandary. As things are, down here we are NOT going to move from the current deadlock in the foreseeable future to show up in DC with a true PRican consensus proposal. The atmosphere on the issue is just toxic. And though perfectly legal and ethical, it would be politically unprofitable for the Congress to force the choice upon us. Heck, if the US were to propose an “independence v. statehood” vote with both choices guaranteed the best terms and conditions, a party representing 47% of the electorate would sue, claiming they’re being disenfranchised by not being given a choice they like… and half the population would believe that’s right.

19

Can you give us a cite for this?

20

No. I guess this would be a matter for the courts. However, if legal I can’t imagine it would be politically viable for Congress to say to PR: “Get lost, we don’t want anything more to do with you.”