Yes, I did. Thanks for the correction!
Well, maybe it has something to with “the dole”. In the 1800s, if an immigrant came to the US without skills or a trade, there was no “dole” to go on.
What is your proposal? Open the boarders to anyone in the world and allow those who can’t find work to be supported by the state (ie, people already here and working)? Frankly, I wouldn’t have a problem with open boarders provided we:
-
Could effectively screen for criminals (including, of course, terrorists).
-
Had an effective way of ensuring people did not come here and go on the dole.
#1 is doable. Very difficult, but not impossible. #2 would require taking a hard nosed approach that I don’t think our society has the will to enforce.
Negative, sir. ** At NO point has the U.S. Congress ever put “a good faith offer of statehood” to the vote in any of the 1898 territories.** In any case, historically statehood is not “offered in good faith”, it is applied for by the territorial population (or business interests), whereupon the Congress then decides if they put it to the vote; else it had already been politically decided as a foregone conclusion even prior to conquest (e.g. California & Texas).
In Puerto Rico, the US-Congress-sanctioned vote that established the Commonwealth in 1952, under US Public Law 600 of 1950, was a yes-or-no, take-it-or-leave-it vote on constitutional home rule, it did not offer statehood or independence as alternatives. The 1967, 1993 and 1998 referenda were purely local initiatives that did not bind the US Congress. It is true that in almost every single decade of the 20th Century a process of some sort of officially presenting a multiple-choice binding vote to PR was started in the Congress, but it has never made it all the way through. The most recent, in 1989-91 and 1998-99, barely made it past the House and then died in the Senate w/o becoming law, in both cases in great measure due to reluctance to bind the Congress to grant a request that, realistically, would at most have a hairsbreadth’s majority. Brain Glutton gives a pretty good description of the politico-ideological issues involved.
The latest referenda, elections and polls show support for Statehood at 46 to 47%, for Commonwealth either as-is or with modifications at 48 to 49%, for outright Independence at 4 to 6%. It is commonly suspected that a majority of of the nominal Commonwealth supporters really aspire to either eventual independence or eventual statehood but believe in first straightening out our economic and social issues before making the political choice.
BTW: My creds: Technical staff, Office of Legislative Services, Commonwealth of PR, 1993-94; Legislative Aide, Office of the Speaker, PT House of Representatives, 1994-99; Platform committee, New Progressive Party, 1999-2000 and 2002-03. My sources for “before my time”: “100 Years of Political Struggle” by Reece Boothwell (UPR Press 1979), “The trials of the Oldest Colony in the World” by José Trías Monge (Yale University Press 1997), “The Disenchanted Island”, by Ronald Fernandez (Praeger, 1992), “Breakthrough from Colonialism, an interdisciplinary study of statehood” by the Puerto Rico Research Group (UPR Press 1984).
Let me put it another way then, JRDelirious. Is there any reason to believe that, if PR DID in fact vote a referendum for statehood, that the US congress would turn them down? Thats more the key question than the mechanics of inclusion in the union, IMO. Because thats kind of what the OP was getting at. My understanding (which was appearently flawed to begin with) was that if PR voted for inclusion they would pretty much be included in the union as the next US state. Is this incorrect? Do you have any cites?
-XT
Cite the SPECIFIC instance in which Mexico petitioned to lose its sovereignty and become part of the United States of America. What you talk about is far different. Cite the SPECIFIC INSTANCE in which Mexico petitioned for entering the USA and was denied.
And? Cite the SPECIFIC request made by Puerto Rico. Go ahead, I challenge you. Put up the evidence that they have asked and been turned down. No US territory has ever been “forcibly” admitted to statehood. There has always been a petition by the inhabitants.
Indianapolis accepts Mexican Consular IDs, which are issued by the Mexican Consulate here–and the Consulate doesn’t care about “illegal” vs. “legal” emigre status.
But Aeschines, what has that to do with the situation nowadays? American immigration policy might not be quite as open-door as you would like, but it no longer discriminates against some nationalities in favor of others – all that was done away with in the 1960s.
Y’know, most good non-partisan references on PRican political history are either not online or in Spanish or usually both. In this case, my above-referenced “Breakthrough from Colonialism” (which is in English but not online) will be the main source of this post. The authoring think-tank (since dissolved) did have a bias, namely to prove that statehood IS possible and feasible, but their primary source was the Congressional Record so it’s checkable.
The only reason to believe a PR vote for statehood would necessarily be turned down is the opinion of whoever makes that proposition, based on their estimation of the political climate, and on historic precedent, namely that Congress has a record of seldom if ever admitting a state upon first request or upon the territory’s initiative. But that has been mostly a matter of delaying and of temporal politics. None of the US territories that have actually applied for statehood with clear popular mandates have been flat out refused – just told they were “not ready yet” at worst.
You are right in this: If the US Congress enacted an Enabling Act as Federal Law to give PR or Guam or wherever the choice to start the admission (or secession) process, and the motion obtained a majority mandate, then the Congress would be bound to act within the framework of said Enabling Act. This is commonly suspected of being the reason why the 1989-91 Bennett Johnston-sponsored and 1998-99 Dick Young-sponsored bills died in the US Senate: a refusal of the Congress to bind itself ahead of time to enact a result that was expected to be at best a paper-thin win for either statehood or a new-improved-guess-who-pays-for-it version of commonwealth.
The Enabling Act has been the method used for a majority of the 37 admitted states. Some states did not even have a popular vote on the issue until after an Enabling Act was in place, and according to the book Wisconsin and Colorado actually held votes against it before the EA was passed.
And quite a few, starting with Tennessee and ending with Alaska, did not wait for the EA but directly elected a local Assembly, drafted a Constitution, elected “shadow Senators”, and presented to Congress of their own initiative a “demand” for statehood.
IF there were a groundswell of pro-statehood feeling in PR, leading to repeated 66%-75% votes for the Statehood Party locally (and almost as importantly, a majority of the stateside PRican residents of the Congressmen’s districts being OK with it), it would be damn hard to muster the political will to hold out against passing an Enabling Act. But passing an Enabling Act is still a political decision. The US Congress has done with its territories’ political status everything from guaranteeing instant statehood upon annexation (Texas) to taking almost 50 years and 5 bills after the first statehood bill to finally get around to it (Alaska) to conditioning admission of one state upon admission of others (Missouri Compromise) to imposing specific legal terms and conditions (Louisiana, Utah) to just plain not accept the local popular mandate (Guam’s Commonwealth Constitution).
I never meant to imply that Mexico was denied statehood, etc. I meant merely to reflect on the fact that it is now considered (unconsciously, mostly) that they should ever become a state or states–but not so Canada! because they are like “us” (mostly white, English-speaking, and moderately wealthy!).
considered absurd, that is
Thanks for the info! And if you want to put in the spanish web sites or cites, please do so. Its my native language…I do much better with it than english. 
-XT
Neither is any more absurd than the other. Indianapolis–yes, in Indiana–has closer economic and cultural ties to Mexico than it now does to Canada, simply by virtue of all the folks moving northeast, getting jobs, settling down, buying houses, paying taxes, etc.
Maybe you just live someplace less progressive than Indiana.
Huh, whah? I’m FROM Indiana.
But I don’t see how whacha said relates… at all…
All right! At last we’ve got something in this thread we can debate instead of merely discussing!
Why, Aeschines, are you against the attitude that assumes Canada is a much, much better prospect for union with the U.S. than Mexico (or, for that matter, Puerto Rico)? Are we Americans not an English-speaking people? Is that not our heritage? Is that not one of the things that defines us as a natural culture? Why should be consider making such a fundamental change in our national identity? Or do you hold with the view that the U.S. is fundamentally an “idea-state” rather than a “nation-state”?
And why shouldn’t we Americans be more amenable to uniting with a country like Canada, which is indeed moderately wealthy and has very few social problems, than with a country like Mexico, which is desperately poor in many parts and has a great many social problems (thoroughgoing traditional corruption at all levels of government, just to start with) which would become our responsibility after union?
You have ten minutes, begin now.
Good points. Oh, there is no doubt that merging with Canada would be much better for US citizens than merging with Mexico. No doubt at all. The trouble is that the US doesn’t even know itself what kind of country it is or wants to be. We are not self-aware. The point of the OP was to emphasize that part of what we are, whether we like it or not, is a system for preserving wealth for ourselves and not sharing it with others–whether they admire our “democracy” or not.
We are both a nation state and an idea state at once, and neither at once.
Personally, I think we should be more of an idea state, and more of a country that reaches out to others. Language should not matter. We have states where a lot of people speak Spanish as their native language, and there are places where one really ought to know Spanish to get along: Miami, parts of CA, etc.
The one big thing I tend to crusade against is lying to oneself, especially when such lies preserve a dysfunctional or self-serving self-image. And boy! does the US have such an image! Look at the campaigns: pure propaganda, completely empty mental calories. No real vision for the future, no real understanding of America’s place in the world today. Just same tired flag-waving, eagle flapping, and phrase dripping.
Who are we now? Who are we now! This, I ask. Are we a country that could be attractive to a poor country like Mexico, a helper that could lift up the disadvantaged and bring them to our level. Or are we a rentier economy, essentially satisfied that other nations are disadvantaged and must do our dirty work?
Sadly, I think the latter is the case.
But Aeschines, every independent sovereign state, regardless of its culture or its system of government or its level of economic development, is organized to, among other things, preserve wealth for itself and not share it with others. that is one of the reasons national borders exist.
Well, the historical and current status of this “reason” is by no means clear. After all, it used to be that anyone could cross the Rio Grande and live here, trade here, etc.
The same was mostly true of the European powers, so long as they were not at war. Only in the 20th century did things really change. (John Derbyshire in a recent NR column said that the English borders were essentially open until WWI.)
I would say, rather, that the main reason borders have existed was for political control–by the same token, emperors and dictators were constantly trying to expand their influence and their borders. So did the Soviet Union. So did China. More was better.
Name all states that are not “a system for preserving wealth” for itself and its citizens. Name all states devoted to giving all their wealth other states. Name them all. Here, I’ll do it for you:
1.
Short list, isn’t it?
And annexes them no matter what they want? How many of these countries that you want to annex actually WANT to be in the USA in the first place?
Pretty typical of most political campaigns, worldwide.
First, list all countries that want to be annexed by another country at all.
Son, it’s not as simplistic as you would like to think. The borders were not as open as some dogmatics (counting on complete ignorance of history) would have us believe. As long as there have been import/export taxes, there have been customs. Historical porousity of borders has been more due to inability to patrol them efficiently than it has been due to unwillingness to tighten things up. As for the “borders” of England–until WWI, England thought that she had the perfect border patrol–the English Channel. It’s not like the Wabash River–bit tricker to cross.
And you wish the USA to adopt the same policy. After all, you’re complaining that we aren’t expanding our borders, and that this is an evil thing. Me, I prefer no more border expansion. I’m not a fan of imperialism.