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

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

...but still no statehood (or referendum) for DC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...pid=sec-nation


By Jim Abrams
Friday, April 30, 2010

The House on Thursday approved legislation that could set in motion changes in Puerto Rico's 112-year relationship with the United States, including a transition to statehood or independence.
The House bill would give the 4 million residents of the island commonwealth a two-step path to expressing how they envision their political future. It passed 223 to 169 and now must be considered by the Senate.
Initially, eligible voters, including those born in Puerto Rico but residing in the United States, would vote on whether they wish to keep their current political status or opt for a different direction.


They've tried a couple of times before (at least in 1993 and 1998), and each time it has been turned down. I wonder how it will fare this time.

Residents of PR already pay federal taxes (FICA, but not federal income taxes). They ARE considered US citizens, and natural born citizens CAN be president (provided they meet all other criteria). I don't believe that PR has Congressional representation on the federal level, but can serve in appointed roles in the federal government. If they allowed the Commonwealth to become a state, the rights (to vote, etc.) would become inherent.

Something I wonder, though, is whether "Puerto Rican" considered an ethnicity or a nationality? There is an indigenous Native American tribe who also populated other islands (DR, Cuba, Haiti). Spaniards came in the 1700s and married into the tribes, then later brought slaves from Africa. Immigrants from China, Italy, France, Germany and Lebonon arrived as well. Americans also came over in numbers around the turn of the 20th century. Though Spain lost control of the area, Spaniards continued to move there. In the 1960s, an influx of Cuban refugees arrived, and more recently, people from the DR.

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".

----

As for residents of DC, I have tried to understand the issues, but I can't quite grasp the constitutional barriers to statehood and/or residential representation and voting rights. The case of "taxation without representation" is valid here. If anyone can shed some light on that for me, it would be great. Of all the reading I have done, I just am not grasping the reasons against statehood or voting rights.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

I don't believe that PR has Congressional representation on the federal level, but can serve in appointed roles in the federal government.

They have non-voting delegates, like DC.

As for residents of DC, I have tried to understand the issues, but I can't quite grasp the constitutional barriers to statehood and/or residential representation and voting rights.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution authorizes Congress "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States." So under the Constitution, DC isn't a state, and therefore it has none of the rights of a state. The Constitution only provides states and state's residents with the ability to elect members of Congress.

The 23rd Amendment allows residents of DC to vote for President and Vice-President, but they cannot elect more electors to the Electoral College than the least populated state, even if by population they could send more electors if DC was a state.

[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.

[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."

[thetygerlily]

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.

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.

My husband is Brazilian and boy does he get riled up if he's every referred to as Hispanic or even Latino! The Hispanic objection is because they speak Portuguese and not Spanish. The Latino objection I have not gotten a clear answer on, I think it's more of colloquial usage usually assumes Spanish speaking and not the Latin-based roots.

We've had several people take the liberty of checking the Hispanic box for him on mortgage applications and the like. 1- don't assume based on looks and 2- people aren't required to provide that information, so it should be up to him. He gets even more riled up about that one!

Since there isn't a "Brazilian" box, I just check "Other" He would probably check Caucasian out of defiance but he isn't filling out the forms, so...

And back to your regularly scheduled programming... I'll be curious to see this one play out. I've always thought that (albeit a very small) part of the reason Puerto Rico, Guam, etc aren't states is because they don't want to deal with changing the flag. But that's the cynical part of me coming out.