House approves bill to let Puerto Ricans vote to become 51st state

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My bet is that it will be voted down again because the Puerto Ricans are smart enough to know that they don't want to start paying income taxes to the Federal Govt. This comes up every 8-10 years and it is always the same with 52-53% voting against statehood. What would we bring to the table for the people of PR that would be value added?

Well lets see if this measure even gets pass the Senate. And the referendemes have also been nonofficial ones organized by the government of the Commonwealth.

[AnotherKD]

It just seems kind of shitty to me that we just fought a losing battle for trying to get DC statehood, and now about a week later, the House is like, Hey, Puerto Rico! Wanna join us?

We never got that opportunity. I'd like to see what the numbers would be if DC residents had a vote as to whether or not to become a state.

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Well lets see if this measure even gets pass the Senate.

It won't.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Something I wonder, though, is whether "Puerto Rican" considered an ethnicity or a nationality?

It's considered both.

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Spanish is the most commonly spoken language in PR. Despite the number of different ancestral roots of its residents - European, African, Asian, Native American, many people consider Puerto Rican people as "Hispanic". How accurate is that? Is it simply because of language? Spain - a European country - isn't "Latin American".

"Hispanic" to describe people of Spanish-speaking countries in and of itself is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to consider people from Spain "hispanics" because those are the people the word originally was designated for.

Spain is really an anomaly when it comes to designating "hispanics" or "latinos" even considering it a "Latin American" country. They have their heads so far up their own asses that it's just better to leave them out. They think themselves FAR superior than any other Spanish-speaking country.

[Little Dragon]

The approval of this bill will change nothing.

Things to consider:

* The bill will probably not pass in the Senate. If it does, then…

* The bill was introduced by the non-voting delegate from PR in Congress. He is a member of the statehood party, which has never won a referendum on the island. So, he decides to create an artificial majority. None of the alternative groups has 50+, but the largest group is the one that wants status quo (47%-48%). In this bill, a first referendum would create an all-against-status-quo group which will surely win. In the second referendum, the statehood option is the largest group and will likely win, since the Independence group is small, and the status quo gets divided into two groups: Associated Sovereignty or Status quo (due to internal problems of this option). Result: Statehood will win second referendum. What will happen?

* There are 4.1 million Puerto Ricans stateside (which I won´t include for the count) and 4 million Puerto Ricans on island. If PR were to become a state, with a population larger than 23 states, it would have 7 Congress delegates. These 23 state will lose voting power. Before I forget, that is 4 million inhabitants, out of which only 30% speak English.

If statehood wins, it´ll go back to Congress, and because of what was said in the previous paragraph, it will probably won´t pass.

In addition,

* The expression "Puerto belongs to, but it is not part of the USA" summarizes the US govt position regarding the island. Puerto Rico status, as per recent federal court decisions, is the same as Guantanamo Bay.

* Puerto Rico is a unicorporated territory of the USA. This means that when Puerto Rico was acquired by the US in 1898, its status was that of non incorporation. Unlike Hawaii and Alaska, which were incorporated territories and went on to become states, that option has never being in the table for Puerto Rico since day one. Non-incorporation is a territory not on path to statehood.

* If PR were to become a state, the new state would have a 45.4% (2006 U.S. Census) of the population below poverty levels, 15.3% (2009) unemployment, $3.3 billion government deficit. With the amount of capital that the US would have to invest on the island, I don´t think this would pass Congress.

* Not to add the monopoly and monopsony that the US industry has in PR, and this would create a large lobbying move against statehood.

Because of these, I don´t think anything will change, although some things should change as today´s Puerto Rico being ruled by a President and a Congress for which Puerto Ricans have no vote is as undemocratic as it goes.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by epchick

"Hispanic" to describe people of Spanish-speaking countries in and of itself is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to consider people from Spain "hispanics" because those are the people the word originally was designated for.

Spain is really an anomaly when it comes to designating "hispanics" or "latinos" even considering it a "Latin American" country. They have their heads so far up their own asses that it's just better to leave them out. They think themselves FAR superior than any other Spanish-speaking country.

I see Spanish (from Spain) artists on the Latino Billboard/Premios/Awards Shows/etc...so they're at least not shy about lumping themselves in with Latin Music.

Why would you consider the use of "Hispanic" for people of Spanish speaking countries inaccurate?

If you want to go right to the root of these designations, Latino could describe someone Mexican, Brazilian, or even Italian and Portuguese, because it means someone who speaks a Latin-based language. I know someone will probably argue with that, but I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade.

Meanwhile, I had no idea WTF to put for my husband on the census. There was a question about being "Hispanic", but then the next question was about race, and it said that Hispanic was an ethnicity not a race (you can't tell them that, though - iLa Raza!). I finally ended up settling on "Native American - Zapoteca". I looked it up later, and technically, that's not off-base, because he's a Mesoamericano - which are people indigenous to middle Mexico-Central America, and are therefore Native Americans (even if they're not Native (NORTH) Americans.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Why would you consider the use of "Hispanic" for people of Spanish speaking countries inaccurate?

Because of what you said next:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

If you want to go right to the root of these designations, Latino could describe someone Mexican, Brazilian, or even Italian and Portuguese, because it means someone who speaks a Latin-based language. I know someone will probably argue with that, but I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade.

Most of us prefer you call us by out ethnicity (Mexican, Cuban, etc) but if you don't know it, "Latino/a" would be more accurate, and more accepted, than Hispanic. I personally hate being called 'Hispanic.'

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Meanwhile, I had no idea WTF to put for my husband on the census. There was a question about being "Hispanic", but then the next question was about race, and it said that Hispanic was an ethnicity not a race (you can't tell them that, though - iLa Raza!).

Is Mexican (I know you mentioned Zapotec, but I know they can go down through several countries). That's strange that the census didn't have that option--mine did. I put Mexican, or Mexican-American, under ethnicity and 'white' under race (i believe).

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by epchick

Most of us prefer you call us by out ethnicity (Mexican, Cuban, etc) but if you don't know it, "Latino/a" would be more accurate, and more accepted, than Hispanic. I personally hate being called 'Hispanic.'

I think that might be kind of like the Black/African American debate - some prefer one, some prefer the other. Some have a STRONG preference, and others it doesn't mater as much. I hardly ever hear my husband call himself Latino - he usually calls himself "Hispano". He wouldn't be offended, though, if someone called him Latino. He would only be offended if someone called him "gringo".

Originally Posted by epchick

Is Mexican (I know you mentioned Zapotec, but I know they can go down through several countries). That's strange that the census didn't have that option--mine did. I put Mexican, or Mexican-American, under ethnicity and 'white' under race (i believe).

Yes - I marked Mexican - I was talking about the race...are Hispanics/Latinos/Mexicans really considered Caucasian? I would also probably throw in there that my husband is 100% indigenous, and his skin looks more like Sammy Sosa (BEFORE he went all Micheal Jackson with the white-boy drugs) or India Maria than Cameron Diaz or Edith Gonzalez.

[AGDee]

Yes, they are considered Caucasian. Back in my day, they taught us there were three races... Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. That was what every school child learned.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Yes, they are considered Caucasian. Back in my day, they taught us there were three races... Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. That was what every school child learned.

Funny you should mention that. My grandfather was considered Black.

[Ooh La La]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

It just seems kind of shitty to me that we just fought a losing battle for trying to get DC statehood, and now about a week later, the House is like, Hey, Puerto Rico! Wanna join us?

We never got that opportunity. I'd like to see what the numbers would be if DC residents had a vote as to whether or not to become a state.

Considering the DC license plate says, "Taxation Without Representation," I'm sure DC residents would be thrilled to become a state.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

He would only be offended if someone called him "gringo".

Me too, MOST DEFINITELY!! I guess your husband more so, since he doesn't look 'gringo' at all. Yeah the whole Latino/Hispanic debaucle is very similar to the Black/African-American thing, and it really is about preference. On the one hand, I don't like being called "Hispanic," but on the other it doesn't really bother me enough to correct people. Latino & Hispanic are interchangeable, so its not really worth getting upset or defensive over.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Yes - I marked Mexican - I was talking about the race...are Hispanics/Latinos/Mexicans really considered Caucasian? I would also probably throw in there that my husband is 100% indigenous, and his skin looks more like Sammy Sosa (BEFORE he went all Micheal Jackson with the white-boy drugs) or India Maria than Cameron Diaz or Edith Gonzalez.

I believe so. I know that I am more Caucasian than I am black. But my mom is very similar to your husband (in skin tone) and I remember on my BC, they labeled her as "white."

[RU OX Alum]

Slight hijack: What does gringo mean? Does it mean simply "outsider" or does it mean specifically white anglo?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

Slight hijack: What does gringo mean? Does it mean simply "outsider" or does it mean specifically white anglo?

Wiki's Answer

I've really only heard my husband use it in regards to white people, but Wiki says Mexicans use it for any US Citizen.

My dad said there was an old Army story about the Mexican-American war where the American armies were wearing green uniforms, and the officers would send them into battle by yelling "Green Go!", but I think that's just a story. It's similar to one of the Wiki proposed etymologies, but not the same.

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by Ooh La La

Considering the DC license plate says, "Taxation Without Representation," I'm sure DC residents would be thrilled to become a state.

We actually get the choice to have "Taxation Without Representation" on our license plates. It is the default, but those who are against it can choose to have "A Capital City" on their plates, and while I don't see many of them, they are around.

Aside from repealing the 23rd constitutional amendment, what others also argue is that the new state that would be created would also have to take on the responsibility of policing/guarding all of the embassies and figuring out what to do with the federal areas, such as the Capitol Building, the White House, and even places like the memorials on the Mall. DC gets about $600,000,000 per year from the federal government because it hosts a lot of these things (even though we do have the highest federal tax rate per capita). We wouldn't get that money if we were to become a state. States that border us (MD and VA) tend to not support our creation of a state because they would lose money due to commuter taxes. The federal government part of the state would be impacted by the state's interference in certain issues (simply by way of physicality) and also DC's dependence on it, as we are a town that thrives on government work. The framers of the constitution envisioned a seat of government, and DC is quite small in the scheme of other "big" cities.

So, I guess that's some of the arguments that people around here can make.