Let's give Puerto Rico its independence. (And good riddence.)

Great Debates
1

I read in the NYTimes today that the good people of Puerto Rico are all upset that the federal government is seeking the death penalty in a case in their courts. Apparently they don’t like the death penalty there.

Fine. This thread is not about the death penalty, anyway, it’s about PR. Why don’t we just let them go? What in God’s name is the benefit of keeping them in the US fold?

Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch is all you ever hear from PR. Hell, back in the 50’s some goons thought that PR was so oppressed by “the man” they decided to spray the US congress with bullets. Nice.

Then a couple of years ago there was that big stink about Viequez. (Fucking morons. Like other parts of the country don’t contribute territory for military excercises?) Ok, so now they got their way: no more excercises on Viequez. Good for them.

But why stop there? We should sign the divorce papers and wish them luck. Then they can enjoy their status as an impoverished third-world country and fend for themselves. “Viva la Revolution!” I say.

2

Yeah, let it become another Cuba. That ought to make the USA happy.

It seems the USA cannot stop itself from intervening in the Caribbean and Central America and South America and . . . well, you get the idea. So, what better way to intervene in PR than have PR as part of the USA? Or do you mean you want the USA to keep intervening in PR but without any obligations or limitations?

3

The major problem with giving Puerto Rico its’ independence is this: 90-95% of the Puerto Rican electorate has consistently opposed independence whenever it has been proposed.

4

Puerto Rico is a beautiful place with beautiful people.

And many full-blooded Americans wanted to do the same thing during that time. In fact, some of them actually carried out their antics. We lost a president and a senator to those fanatics. Nice, indeed.

PR has been by and large a peaceful, non-rebellious, US-friendly territory. A violent uprising fifty years ago does not mean PR is full of ingrates.

There are states where the Navy drops bombs on civilians? Civilians who have suspiciously high cancer rates? Really?

Even if there are, at least people in “other parts of the country” can vote. They can let their voice be heard. Puerto Ricans do not have a vote in Congress. I’d be complaining too if bombs were dropping down on me and I had to just grin and bear it.

Please explain how they haven’t been fending for themselves.

5

This is a total myth. The range was some distance away from the inhabited portion and the citizens of Viequez do not suffer from abnormal cancer rates. Some protestors used a few set years in their history to claim that, but the thing is, that the population is so low that even a slight year to year variaton creates what looks like massive highs or lows in the cancer rates. Taken over a 10 or 30-year period, the island has no unusual cancer rate.

6

Actually there’s a little more to it than that. The last referendum help on the subject was in 1998, at that time voters in PR were given 5 options as follows:

Petition 1, “Territorial” Commonwealth, 993 (0.1%)
Petition 2, Free Association, 4,536 (0.3%)
Petition 3, Statehood, 728,157 (46.5%)
Petition 4, Independence, 39,838 (2.5%)
None of the above, 787,900 (50.3%)

The percentages indicate the number of votes each option got. The “None of the Above” option won, partly because the leading party in the island favored commonwealth status, but objected to the term “territorial”, and campaigned for the “None of the Above”. This kind of makes that election meaningless, however in 1993 there was another referendum, which went like this:

Statehood, 788,296 (46.3%)
Commonwealth, 826,326 (48.6%)
Independence, 75,620 (4.4%)

I think this is more indicative of the actual wishes of the PR electorate.

7

Some of you guys aren’t getting me. I want to pull OUT of PR, not get more involved.

I say we GIVE IN to their complaints. Cry “uncle.” Say, “You win, we lose. Congratulations – here, you can have your island back. You sure did get the better of poor stupid ol’ Uncle Sam.”

No more bombings? You got it. Boot out our military? They’ll be gone in a week. Want legislative representation? You can give frogs the vote in your new country for all I care. Want to turn communist? No probleeem-o, by me.

Cut the strings. Good luck. Everybody wave buh-bye.

8

>> Want to turn communist? No probleeem-o, by me

Yeah, that’s why the USA is on such friendly terms with Cuba and why it has never intervened in any latin American country which was going communist.

I guess you would also want to kick out of the Union any other State where people protest against the death penalty?

9

stuy, it depends on what the definition of “their” is. According to the polls, most of “them” do not wish independence at all. The vocal minority is just that, a minority.

So, why not stop our nuclear power plants, and development of medicines via use of animals, due to the complaints of a vocal few? The increase in power costs, economic decline, and human deaths are a small price to pay for keeping the wackoes happy, eh?

10

OK, someone has to say it: cite? :smiley: In other words, show me any credible information you have that demonstrates that a majority of Puerto Ricans actually want complete disengagement by the USA.

I would like to point out to the OP, not that I think about this all the time, but you know, I, like, read an entire actual newspaper article on the subject, Puerto Rican opposition to the federally-imposed death penalty in this specific cased grows out of two factors, 1) a well-known incident in the 1920s in which a number of impoverished peasants were put to death by the US government in what was considered a travesty of justice (I’ll need to look this one up for further info) and 2) the fact that since Puerto Rico has no congressional representation at the federal level, it has no say in the making of laws that may affect it but which are not in line with majority opnion, such as the death penalty.

The article I read went on to say that the Puerto Rican people are taking this position even though aware through extensive media coverage, and generally agree, that the defendant is most certainly guilty of a heinous crime. So the situation, IMO, is just a little less cut and dried than the OP’s presentation of a bunch of whining freeloaders trying to stick it to the US.

11

This has to be one of the stupidest OPs to come down the pike in a long time. And BTW, Vieques has been the scene of “accidents” where shells have landed in people’s homes and people have been killed. So it’s not llike they are complaining for the fun of it. http://216.219.216.204/issues/2001/vol5n28/PRR528-en.shtml

12

Also, the majority of Puerto Ricans are Roman Catholic, and as such are opposed to the death penalty of moral grounds.

I think a lot of death penalty proponents in the United States do not have the least idea of how contrary their views are to the vast majority of people in the Western world. We are basically in the same category as Iran, Cuba, China, and (Ba’athist) Iraq when it comes to the government killing people. Puerto Ricans are not being a bunch of spoiled brats, they are simply within the norms of the modern civilization that we Americans like to imagine ourselves being the guardians of.

The United States annexed Puerto Rico (and a lot of other bits of land) without any consideration for the feelings of the people already living there. And now you want America to pull out after a hundred years or so of interdependence and migration (not only are there many Puerto Ricans on the mainland, but a population of mainlanders in Puerto Rico)… over the use of the death penalty in disregard of the public sentiment of Puerto Rico?

13

I’m pretty sure we can find more than a few folks hanging out in the Circle-K parking lot in Cour d’Alene that would like to secede and form the Free Republic of Idaho, or Redneckistan or something, based on a very long list of what they see as justified grieveinces.

Would you support them as well, or would you ignore them as a lunatic fringe and instead listen to the vast majority of fine Idahoans who wish to remain U.S. citizens? If you would not support them, why not?

14

Yes. Why not? There are plenty of countries we have strong relations with that we don’t OWN, so why would PR be any different?

Besides, the whole arrangement stinks of imperialism – the sooner it ends, the sooner we can distance ourselves from the indictment. And making PR a state won’t put an end to the charge – look at Hawaii where some nativists want out of the US. (FYI, I say let them go, too.)

Though you do not believe me, as I said in my first post, this is not about the death penalty. This death penalty thing merely revived a sentiment I have long held. (Search the archives and you’ll find I mentioned it once before, about 6 months back – and got slapped by Manny for using a swear word. Oops.)

I formed this opinion back during the Viequez business. Those of you from NYC will recall that that nonsense turned our town upside down for weeks on end – such absurd political pandering as you ever did see. I got to thinking, “What do we need this crap for? Let’s go. Let’s get the F out of there. Cut our losses. Declare defeat and go.”

It really boils down to this: What is to be gained by keeping PR as a possession or as a state? If we want naval bases and such, let’s sign treaties or pay rent. No big deal, we can afford it. If American corporations have a problem with it, well screw them. They should pay their frieght too.

No more White Man’s Burden, I say! Be free, my island brothers! Toss off the yoke of evil war-mongering Uncle Sam! Control your own destiny, I say!

15

furt, the Idaho nutjobs stay.

But all our possessions, territories, commonwealths and whatever else we’ve got in the waiting room to statehood go.

As for Hawaii, personally I’d say good-bye and good luck. (And by the way are you interested in renting us a naval base? We’ll pay top Yankee dollar!) Unfortunately, that is inconsistant with my Idaho response, isn’t it? So, I guess Hawaii would have to stay until they asked to go and the rest of the US let them (which I would favor, BTW.)

Just call me “stuyguy, the Liberator.” I send the imperialist dogs running.

16

On what basis do you make the selection? It’s obvious you aren’t interested in what the people who live there think, and you have no problem cutting loose a admitted state with vital strategic value. Should we divest ourselves of all islands? What about Alaska?

17

Furt, the board is slow, so I assume you did not read my last post before posting yours.

To answer your question anyway, states that are in stay in until they go through the constitutional process of being cut free. Personally, if I’m a senator or congressman and another state can muster up the votes to apply for sucession, I will not stand in its way and vote to let it go.

All those other possessions and such are another matter. Do I care what they think? Honestly, no. They are applying to join the club; they get no vote.

But is it right to keep them dangling for a hundred years? No. Let’s decide the question once and for all: in or out?

I vote out.

See, very simple.

18

Well, the US hold on to PR in the beginning in part because it wanted to have a military presence in the Caribbean. Look at PR in a map, it’s more or less in the middle of the region. I’ll have to reread my history again, but that is just one reason.

Another thing. It is Vieques, not Viequez… sorry, minor nitpick but I’m a bit pedantic about that…

Oh, and the people that attacked Congress? That’s one reason the US didn’t want PR to be independent, they thought we could become like Cuba, and that was a bad idea under the Cold War. And they attacked Congress because they were condemning the way the US had treated Puerto Rico in the previous decades.

Other things:

Referendums: The proposition is tricky, since many of those who vote for the “let’s stay this way” would really prefer statehood or independence, they just vote in the middle because they don’t want the others to win. In fact, the party that now accepts the Commonwealth was originally a pro-independence party, it changed its platform in the 1950s and has evolved to its current middle of the road platform. Still, there are many old people that believe the first ideals and original platform of the party, and keep voting for the party because of those, despite the changes.

Now, to make a referendum truly “Yes” or “No” would be difficult because you have to make sure all the parties agree with the definitions and possible outcomes, and to convince the leading party of something it does not believe is going to be a wee bit hard. That’s why they voted on “None of the Above”. The pro-status quo party did not believe the definition of Commonwealth was correct, and moved its people to vote for the “None of the above” option.

Death penalty: Puerto Rico had death penalty under Spanish rule, and during the first decades of US occupation (before Puerto Ricans could elect their governor). Along with murderers, many political prisoners were killed. When Puerto Ricans decided to vote on their own Constitution (which BTW, was approved by your federal government in the US), they decided death penalty would be unconstitutional.

19

stuyguy also overlooks the small detail of 3.8 million born US citizens just packing up and showing up at his doorstep the moment it looks like the US Congress is about to screw them. 3.8 million citizens that have 3.4 million of their relatives living in various congressional Districts. So, sorry, the people who count, DO care what we think about it. NOT so very simple, see?

You say it’s not about the death penalty, but let’s face it, all your arguments about the specific case of PR boil down to taking some sort of offense that our loudest blowhards, the ones who make the news, do not fit the profile of the average FoxNews audience. Well, too bad, the USA is a heterogeneous smorgarsbord of opinions, ideas and expressions. (There are, what, seven, eight states w/o capital punishment?) The numbers clearly show that almost half the population of PR actually wants to become a State, and you can bet that a good bunch of the other almost-half that wants some sort of relation are good hard-working conservative folks who would vote for George W any time. And quite a few of them are probably right now taking potshots in the name of the Nation along with our stateside brethren. Remember that ambush yesterday of a Transport Coy. that left one American dead and 3 wounded? 'Rican unit, 65th RCOM.

Oh, BTW… all the remaining territorial entities are NOT “in line for statehood” . The SCotUS, in a case IIRC Downes v. Bidwell back in the early 1900’s, created (in a crass case of Judicial Legislation) a condition called “unincorporated territory” which is NOT “in line for statehood”, and essentially shoved everything not settled mainly by Anglos into that category. We CAN opt for statehood, it’s just not automatic. Now, we happen to agree we should not be “left dangling” for another 100 years. That’s swell. Offer us the choice: State or Independent, with all the relevant consequences of each – but with the US also *guaranteeing * they will not back off on their end.

As to how does it profit the USA to leave us in limbo to argue five-fold permutations of alternatives, I don’t think the Chicago Reader would appreciate a hijack of the board for a 5-volume 2,000 page dissertation.
JRD

And anyway, we have no way of ensuring that after you go through the process of cutting of all the noncontiguous territories with no pause to ask for opinions as well as any states that apply for seccesion…the country you end up with will be worth ending up with.

20

The 65th is still active? The same unit who has an avenue with its name?