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

Great Debates
21

Posted by stuyguy:

Actually, stuyguy, there is no constitutional provision for allowing a state to secede from the Union, even if Congress agrees. That does not mean secession under such circumstances would be unconstitutional, only that it is something the Constitution does not explicitly cover, and it would be a novel question that has never come up before.

One thing nobody on this board has yet mentioned: Granting statehood to Puerto Rico would require the U.S. to make a public decision we’ve never really made before, about what kind of state we are or want to be: Are we a nation-state, or an idea-state?

Some liberal commentators proclaim that everything that is important about America as a country is in our laws, constitution and political culture; that we are an idea-state, like the Soviet Union, only based on a better idea. One (I forget who) even declared that an America populated entirely by Martians would still be America, if it still had our constitution, etc.

At the opposite extreme, Michael Lind argued persuasively in his book The Next American Nation* (Free Press Paperbacks, 1996) that we are, in fact, a nation-state, with a distinct national core culture that was formed by the experience of Anglo-Celtic settlers in North America, a culture that was already in existence long before we broke away from British rule. If the United States Constitution were scrapped, or other, equally momentous changes took place, America would remain America – just as Poland maintained its existence as an ethnocultural nation through all the centuries when there was no Polish national state.

Now, if we grant statehood to Puerto Rico, we’re crossing a line: We would be extending full membership in the American polity to a people who will never be full members of the American cultural community. We’ve never done that before. Even Hawaii was not granted statehood until its predominant culture was English-speaking American culture. Puerto Rico will never become an Americanized, English-speaking territory in that sense. Only the “idea-state” conception of American identity could justify taking them in.

22

JR, are you done?

3.8 million PR citizens moving to the US mainland? Fine. I have no problem with that. They are citizens fair and square. Those are the rules and I accept them. (And I, personally, live in NYC so the culture shock will be hardly noticed. The rest of the country will just have to deal.)

Death penalty? Why you and the others love to wave this around is beyond me, but you brought it up. If PR wants it or doesn’t want it, is no concern to me. Once they are a sovergn nation it is their business, not mine or the US’s.

Conservative, Bush-voting Puerto Ricans? What the F do I care about that?!?!?! (I did not vote for GB, but frankly that is none of your business.) You think I’m pushing a right-wing agenda and I am not. In fact my agenda is very, very liberal, a fact that seems lost on most of my opponents here.

Puerto Ricans being hard-working and patriotic? I have no doubt about it, but frankly it’s another non-issue. But all the more reason that independence should not be feared.

Unincorporated territories not in line for statehood? Okay. I overspoke there. But that doesn’t change anything. Statehood or no, I say let them go.

You don’t want PR in limbo? I absolutely, totally, 100% agree! Give it independence and put an end to the indecision once and for all.

Here’s the thing JR: I think the US should play by the rules of divestment. Furthermore, it should PAY – dearly if need be – for any future benefits it gets from it’s relationship with PR – just like with any other autonomous nation. Nobody should be “screwed” (a term you used in the first sentence of your post, which I frankly resent) by the process. It should be like a no-fault divorce.

The US should in effect say, "Look, Puerto Rico (and all the other territories, too), what do you consider a fair way to end this relationship? If it is reasonable we will give it to you. Even if it is a little unreasonable, we will give it to you. BUT BY SUCH-AND-SUCH DATE YOU WILL NO LONGER BE PART OF THE UNITED STATES; SORRY, BUT THAT PART IS NON-NEGOTIABLE AND OUT OF YOUR HANDS.

You are terrific in so many ways but we have no desire to make you a state, and we have no desire to be considered an imperialist power in our eyes and the eyes of the world any longer. As it is we have jerked you around far too long. We wish you well and hopefully we will remain allies, but of course that is up to your people to decide."

And then be done with it.

Karl: sorry about the Vieques spelling.

23

Stuyguy, the thing is that instead of complaining about Puerto Ricans, you should express your wishes to your government. You’re complaining about our government and our political leanings and ideals, when it is the US federal government you should blame (if someone) and demand action. Write to your Congressmen (they can vote and decide, after all).

24

Karl and JR, a question. My father, in his professional capacity (don’t ask :smiley: ) was quite involved in PR referendum talks in, I think, the late 1980s and his impression was that the independentistas were primarily a small group of middle-class Harvard graduates who weren’t particularly well in touch with Puerto Rican opinion on the ground. (Note he didn’t put it exactly like that, I’m just oversimplifying.) How true would you say that is?

25

[minor Boricua hijack]

Not really. The “Regular” 65th Infantry RCT was dissolved and colours struck after Korea. The US Army later revived the “historic” unit designation for two commands here – 65th Inf. Batallion of the PRNG (using the historic regimental colours) in the 70s, 65th RCOM of the Army Reserves (wearing the garita sleeve patch that identified the Old SJ USArmy garrison) in the 80s, thanks to a PR General (Félix Santoni). The unit involved this week was one of the transport companies of the 65RCOM.

[/minor Boricua hijack]

26

[minor Boricua hijack]

Not really. The “Regular” 65th Infantry RCT was dissolved and colours struck after Korea. The US Army later revived the “historic” unit designation for two commands here – 65th Inf. Batallion of the PRNG (using the historic regimental colours) in the 70s, 65th RCOM of the Army Reserves (wearing the garita sleeve patch that identified the Old SJ USArmy garrison) in the 80s, thanks to a PR General (Félix Santoni). The unit involved this week was one of the transport companies of the 65RCOM.

[/minor Boricua hijack]

27

Hmm… the hamsters are acting up. It has taken me most of the morning to post two lousy messages. This one goes out unpreviewed as “cannot find server” is starting to tick me off.

ruadh, if your father worked with the Bennet Johnston committee in the late 80s, he encountered the top echelon of the Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño (the “establishment” pro-independence party), Messrs. Rubén Berríos, Fernando Martin and Manuel Rodríguez-Orellana, among others.

And the assesment is, in broad strokes, pretty much what is the opinion of 90% of public opinion here: really, really smart, sophisticated, cultured, Harvard/Yale/Oxford “white boys” who have some very good ideas… and aren’t getting more than 5% of the vote in their lifetimes.

Which is kinda bad, since in case of independence I’d rather these guys be the ones in charge. At least they seem to be honest and have a notion of civilized government and respect for the rights of man – unlike the crop of ethnocentric, anarchic, neo-nationalists that have been popping up lately.

However, those of us living closer to the heat can tell that with much of the organized independence movement (a score of mutual-spinoff entities – Life of Brian was accurate on that), it is not so much “being out of touch with the opinion on the ground” but a position that the “opinion on the ground” has been skewed and tainted by colonial dependency, and if the people were properly enlightened they’d come about.

The PIP’s recent party line kinda parallels stuyguy’s : that statehood should be out of consideration as economically, socially and politically unjustifiable and the US “does not want us” so any serious status process will end up in inevitable Independence.
stuyguy:
You see, the ideas you pose NOW make a ton of sense, but let’s look at the tone of your OP:

Not Dale Carnegie, you must agree.

You were not presenting the proposition that as a matter of policy the US should divest from its various colonial accoutrements, and that it is not in the national interest to put it up to a voters’ choice. No. YOUR OP WORDS were themselves a “bitch, bitch, bitch” about what “Puerto Rico” (or rather, our blowhard politicians) say, do, and believe, and your proposal is stated as if in reaction to that, and with little sign of good will (“and wish them luck” doesn’t count, when immediately followed by an expectation that we fall into ruin – which would fit my definition of “get screwed”).
Shall we now make it a sensible discussion as to why the USA should divest its colonies, or absorb them, or whether the US should freeze out at the current level or less, and/or as BrainGlutton raises, what is the nature of the US-as-nation and whether that can hold up to annexations or seccessions? Including within that the discussion of specific cases?

28

What’s all this fuss I hear about making Puerto Rico a steak? Let me warn all of you: if you make Puerto Rico a steak, the next thing they’ll want is a baked potato—with sour cream and chives and little bacon bits._And then they’ll probably want a salad bar!_Why, they’ll be lined up for miles!

What? Oh. Never mind!

29

Heh… JRD said what I wanted to sayAlthough we are politically opposites.

stuyguy, there may or may not be good reasons for granting Puerto Ricans their independence (or annexation). Your original argument falls apart because what Puerto Ricans are doing (in those instances) are things that people in mainland US do! What, should the people of Puerto Rico be denied the right to speak their minds?

30

No, I did read your post, and I’m still looking for the common thread in your line of thinking. It’s not they should go “if they want to,” because as has been pointed out and you do not seem to disagree, most PRs wish to remain part of the US.

It’s not that we should get rid of only posessions, because you seem to think that States should go if they wish to, notwithstanding the fact that legally speaking, we already had this argument, and it’s been a settled issue since 1865 that there is no “constitutional process.”

As near as I can tell, you’re saying that having non-state possessions is bad in and of itself. If so, deal with reality. Nearly all major industrialized states have overseas possessions. Guam does not want to be independant, they aren’t big enough to be a state, but it seems to work well enough for both parties.

In some cases they are the result of historical oddities, and the patron states maintain the affiliation because they feel an obligation to not abandon people who have been loyal subjects (and as JRD points out, often more than merely loyal) for generations. You may wish to look up the Falkland Islands, the Netherlands Antilles, and St. Pierre and Miquelon for examples.
History counts,and in some cases paying the price for imperialist misadventures in the past amounts to more than just cutting a check and walking away.

I, and I guess most Americans, can live with the status quo for now. If you’re going to convince us otherwise, make your case as to what situation would be better for the US and PR. This is “great debates,” and just posting opinions doesn’t get very far.

31

KG, great minds think alike, even across our interminable divide (what the heck will we occupy ourselves with when it is settled, there’s another deep mystery…)

32

From a cold-blooded, objective point of view here’s why we should dump PR:

  1. Puerto Rico is an economic drain on the USA, not an asset. No, I do not have a cite, but I have heard this charge for many years and have never heard anyone offer a substantive rebuttal. I am certainly willing to listen to one here.

  2. There is little or no valid military importance to PR now that the Vieques range is being closed.

  3. Our holding on to PR is a vestige of shameful, ill-conceived imperialistic motives. (BTW, the silence of so-called liberal thinkers who decry our other imperialistic tendencies is DEAFENING. How about it guys? A little support here please.)

33

The charge is probably made because Puerto Ricans don’t have to pay Federal Income Tax. (At the time PR became a U.S. territory, Income Taxes were a minor part of Federal revenue, so the U.S. didn’t object to putting a “no income taxes” clause into whatever contract or treaty they signed to territorialize PR.)

34
  1. Agreed
  2. Agreed
  3. Just the opposite. Our occupation of PR was imperialistic, etc. But colonialism isn’t like breaking someone’s window, where you can pay for the damage, say you’re sorry and walk away. What is damaged is not property, but the people. It’s more like kidnapping an infant from an unattended stroller, raising the kid for five years, and then deciding that you feel guilty about it, so you’re going to dump the kid back off at the parking lot where you found him.

PR is not a nation in any sense; they do not have experience with self-governance, they do not have the infrastructure, and no matter how big a lump-sum payment they get, they will likely not have a sustainable economic base. Most importantly, they are not psychologically a nation. Maybe that’s a good thing, maybe it’s a bad thing.

For now our penance is helping them develop. If they move towards independence (as the Phillipines did), godspeed to them. If they want statehood, they can make their case like everyone else did, and good luck to them. But we owe them the time and space to make up their own minds.

And if your concern is how it makes the US look to the rest of the world, won’t it look a whole hell lot worse if we ignore the wishes of 95% of the population, decorated war vets and all, kick them out, take their passports, and watch from a distance as the place turns into Haiti with beaches?

35

Dude, I object to you saying we are not a nation We are a nation psychologically, but we are not a nation in terms of having an autonomous government. And your description of the infrastructure and economic base of the island is worse than reality.

Stuyguy, c’mon, Vieques was not the only one of the military bases in the island. Offhand, I can think of three more, Ramey in Aguadilla, Buchanan in the metro area, and Isla Verde near Old San Juan. And isn’t there another base near Ceiba (or in the eastern side of the island, JRD sorry may know better)?

36

Just out of curiosity – -- if anybody knows – if the Puerto Ricans were required to pay federal income tax, how many of them would have incomes high enough to be taxable? How does median income there compare with median income in the 50 States?

37

BrainGlutton, the per capita income is lower than that in Mississippi, if that helps you…

38

OK, catching up on various details:

  1. The “money drain” issue: it is a little bit more complicated than it seems at first.
    (a)For one thing, you would have to exclude from the funds transfers those moneys that go to people who have earned it – VA benefits, US pensions, Social Security & Medicare
    (b) For SocSec and Medicare we DO pay the taxes in full (even though we don’t get the Medicare bennies in full)
    © Many of us DO pay federal taxes (e.g. I have to fill 1040s) due to technicalities about our jobs and sources of income
    (d) Perhaps more importantly, depending on who’s counting “cost” may not be a straight matter of US Treasury disbursements vs. intakes. A large amount of the PR GDP ends moves in the direction of the US in such forms as payments, repatriation of profit, offshore corporation dividends, etc. Although not taxed when the wealth was created in PR, it eventually does get taxed at some point when it circulates in the US economy. (Though claims by some pro-independence commentator a couple of years ago that US “takes out” $45 billion a year from PR and “puts in” 13, should be taken with a pound of salt)

  2. I do NOT have beforme me a copy of the latest Planning Board Statistical Report, which would enable me to provide you the specifics of median family income AND of the Federal Transfers vs. GDP outflow. If the thread is still alive by next week, I may be able to get something on it. If regular work allows.

  3. KG, the US Military bases in PR, except for Roosie, are not exactly mighty bastions of power:
    Active, Regular:
    a) Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba/Vieques. Navy, Marine, Army Special Ops Forces, USCG, + Reserves. Absorbed Ft. Bundy, the other area base you mention, some years back.
    b) Ft. Buchanan, Guaynabo. Army + SOF + Reserves + PRNG. HQ until this year of ArmySouth.
    c) Pt. Borinquen CGAS. Coast Guard (duh) + Reserves + PRNG (Ramey AFB shut down in 1975, Point Borinquen is what remains, at a smaller scale)
    d) San Juan CGS. CG + Navy/Marine Reserves + PRNG.

The following are active use by various services but are administered by the PRNG/PRANG:
a) Pt. Salinas Air Defense Radar Station, Toa Baja.
b) Ft. Allen, Ponce/JuanaDiaz. Army, Navy, SOF + Reserves
c) Camp Santiago aka Salinas Training Area, Salinas. Army, Reserves, SOF.
d) Muñiz ANGB, San Juan. Reserves, Army Aviation, PRANG HQ

Sabana Seca Naval Comms Station, Toa Baja, closed in 2001

The largest “frontline” active-duty unit in PR is USCG Greater Antilles, with at most 6 cutters (4 or 5 110’PBs, sometimes 1 WMEC, and 1 tender) and 2 helos.

  1. However, KG… what we are as a polity is anthropologically or sociologically a “nation” in the classic sense (people in a defined geographic space sharing a history and a culture)(*), BUT we are an incomplete nation. **furt ** does have one good point on the “psychological” side: that a large proportion of this population, even those who instinctively say “yes, we’re a nation” has NOT quite wrapped its mind around everything that it means to be and live as a sovereign nation (or, on this side of the divide, as part of a greater nation). To them, and again it includes people of all the political stripes, it would be a shock that could lead to a collective panic attack, damaging the newborn state. It goes even beyond the independence issue. (OK, OTHER DOPERS, HERE IS SOMETHING FOR GENERAL AUDIENCE: ) From 1898 to the mid-80s, the US policy was to avoid PR Independence at all cost, to suppress any consideration of it by means fair or foul, and to richly reward expressions of US loyalty. And then when it finally looked like Statehood was inching towards the majority… a reversal. The last 15+ years, it’s been find any excuse to avoid the issue of PR statehood, and bend over backwards to accommodate nationalism.

Getting the unspoken message that the US Congress does not intend for us to be the ones who decide anything, means too many people here have not had to seriously reflect on what it is they really want for a future and what price they are willing to pay. So it can’t happen overnight (in either direction!) and succeed.

JRD

(*)And, needless to say, I do NOT subscribe to that every single blessed ethnocultural grouping needs to have its own sovereign nation-state, not that sovereign states need to be mononational.)

39

Puerto Rican Nationalist here! I think PR ought to be independent, and damn soon. First:
-continued “commonwealth” status has been bad for both Puerto Ricans and Americans; the fuzzy status of PR means that investment in the island is limited and limited to firms that get huge tax abatements.
-the huge costs of maintaing almost 1/3 of the islands inhabitants on welfare are becoming onorous for the US taxpayers
-the islands labor costs , boosted by the huge amount of political corruption tolerated by the ruling elite, make coffee, sugar, and banana production totally uncompetitive-this is why the island actually IMPORTS FOOD! (While it has someof the most fertile farmland in the world!)
In short, the 103-year relationship between PR and the US has been bad for the citizens of both countries…the sooner the knot is severed, the better!

40

Ralph, explain why independence would improve your third item: political corruption of the ruling elite. I should think that actual independence would intensify the power of the ruling elite, in the all too familiar pattern of Latin America.