Stunning statistic disqualifies Puerto Rico from US statehood

[Monty]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

For reals. I wouldn’t worry about it too much, though; you basically have to have obtained naturalization by fraud in the first place, or become a communist.

I thought that becoming a communist thing no longer was grounds for yanking one’s Yankship. Bar to getting it in the first place, yes; but revoking it, no. Am I mistaken?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Monty

I thought that becoming a communist thing no longer was grounds for yanking one’s Yankship. Bar to getting it in the first place, yes; but revoking it, no. Am I mistaken?

If you become a member within 5 years of naturalization, you are deemed (under the Immigration and Naturalization Act) to have been…

…not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization as having been obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation…

So Congress is effectively saying your citizenship was obtained fraudulently because becoming a communist is evidence that you were already a communist when you applied. There is no case law on whether proving that you had no communist tendencies until after your naturalization is sufficient to avoid revocation.

[pancakes3]

Natural born citizens can also issue affidavits declaring their citizenship whereas naturalized ones cannot. A friend of mine couldn’t find his passport for a cruise and they asked if he was a natural born citizen or a naturalized one. A natural born citizen can sign an affidavit and get on the boat but a naturalized one couldn’t.

[leahcim]

@JRDelirious

Fact: the last census figures for PR showed the unexpected result of a net loss of population, with as many as a half million of us having moved stateside in the last decade. Should have eased employment pressures, yes?

I was actually arguing that the effect should have increased employment pressures. In PR, like in all places, there is a number of able-bodied and upwardly-mobile people, and a number of disabled and/or unskilled chronically unemployed people. If a lot of the former group say, “opportunities are better for me in New York or San Fran – I’m moving there to seek my fortune” then, as a proportion of the remaining population, the latter group becomes larger.

Well, not really: the unemployment number is slightly better BUT workforce participation went* down*, to just** below 40%** in the last report. Survey says, those who left were mostly households headed by trained people in the prime productive group, seeking work opportunities elsewhere.

Other than the unemployment number being slightly better, this seems to coincide well with this concept.