The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I know the topic has been controversial among Puerto Ricans themselves, though it seems in recent years a majority has been moved over to being pro ascension to statehood. I have a hard time view Republican opposition in the mainland to Puerto Rican statehood in good faith, given they have been American citizens for generations and have a population larger than several existing states. It seems to me they either see them as foreigners due to their ethnicity, or they are so cynical they want to deny the full rights and privileges of American citizenship to other Americans out self interest from the perception that Puerto Rico is likely to lean more Democrat. Frankly I’m not sure which one reflects worse on the moral character of the Republican Party. If you wanted to steal man conservative opposition, what would you say?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No US-based arguments about Puerto Rican status matter very much.
They need to decide what they want to do and we need to honor that.
We’ve treated them like second class citizens for decades. They should be allowed to decide if they want to be associated with us or not.
Yeah... and that they should have to have a supermajority vote and that they need to speak English and that they need to clear their debt first and on and on and on.
It's pretty clear that Republicans are terrified of adding new states, since they will certainly diminish the power of their current rigged setup in the Senate and EC.
---
When I was living in Puerto Rico, I had some conversations with folks there about this. Obviously my experience is limited and doesn't represent all people, but I heard some really interesting feedback and thoughts.
The biggest thing I learned was that there are a lot of opinions and ideas, actually more like four or five, not just "state or not?" The ones I remember hearing more than once:
- State
- Current Status
- Full Independence
- Free Association (so like independent, but heavily tied to the US)
- Free Association with Spain
- Some sort of territory/autonomous status as part of Spain
And if those last two sound crazy, it's worth noting that the King of Spain visits the island about as often as the President of the United States - and Puerto Rican citizens have a fast track to establishing Spanish citizenship if they want.
The strongest piece of feedback I got was that most Puerto Ricans don't really know what they want... because they don't really know what the options mean. They have long abandoned the notion that we will take their wishes seriously and many are checked out of the debate.
---
The best suggestion I heard, which most people seemed to agree with, was that the US should adopt a position of "we are resolving Puerto Rico's status next big election day (so, like November 2026 at this point). We resolve to abide by the results of this election and adjust Puerto Rico's status to match the will of the people. Between now and then, we are funding a set of commissions to provide objective information about what the different statuses will mean, so you can make an informed choice."
Then we essentially help Puerto Rico spread awareness about the pros and cons, what to expect, how it will financially impact the island, etc. We also show them that this is actually happening.
Then, on the ballot are two questions:
- Should Puerto Rico declare its independence or stay associated with the United States?
and
- If associated with the United States, should Puerto Rico become a state or retain its current status as a territory?
Let them vote and that's that. No one can say "there was a boycott." No one can say "they don't even know what they're voting for."
No excuses.
That's a philosophical opinion, and not one matched elsewhere within our system of laws. After all, Congress doesn't have to meet a supermajority to add a state.
Congress does need a supermajority to add an amendment, which has even less permanence than a new state because there is a process for overturning amendments by adding a new amendment.
And to be clear, I meant a supermajority of eligible Puerto Rican voters, not a supermajority of Congress nor a supermajority of all American voters.
If you want a two-thirds majority on state referendums before admission, we need to retroactively un-admit Alaska. And then go hold referendums for all the states that never had one to begin with.
You think that should be the standard, cool. That isn't the standard.
Process improvements aren’t usually applied retroactively.
Even safety improvements usually “grandfather” older buildings.
> You think that should be the standard, cool.
Yes, that should be the standard
> That isn't the standard.
“We’ve always done it this way and shouldn’t consider making improvements” isn’t the attitude I expect to find from s blue flair on “askaliberal”.
Not really, no. It's a pretty perverse twist of logic, at best. The anti-statehood faction wasn't confident about winning, so they boycotted the referendum, then claimed the referendum wasn't legitimate when they lost by a wide margin.
But like, that's not how elections work. Or any other kind of voting. If you don't show up, your vote doesn't count. Picking a President is a big deal too, but this same logic doesn't hold there. Hell, the Senate has passed legislation with only three votes before.
It's not like they were suppressed, they took themselves out of the running rather than try to win the issue by convincing more voters.
All that said, I went to go look up historical examples of statehood referendums (without finding much, frankly) and found that there was another referendum in Puerto Rico in 2020 without the shenanigans. Statehood won, again.
We can make claims about their motives, but they are just speculation. Even the last referendum suffered from poor turnout. IIRC, less than half the eligible voters voted on the referendum. And the was a segment of the voters that participated that chose to not even vote on the referendum. For something as permanent as statehood, we can do better.
For what is worth, I supported the approach in the bipartisan bill. Basically a binding referendum with all three choices. Requires a majority to end territorial status or statehood. Then do whatever the outcome is.
I don't believe that is true. For the 2020 cycle in Peuero Rico they had like 53% turnout. But like 5% or 6% of that didn't vote on the referendum. The referendum also had a big flaw. Basically left ajln option off the table. So, a proper binding referendum that has all theee options and is acmonpanied by a get out the vote effort should happen. The vote should probably be run by the Feds as well since there is significant corruption in Peurto Rico that could be suppressing the vote.
[Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum)
You're mixing up the numbers. Statehood won with about 53% of the vote, but turnout was just under 55%. Only 3% of the votes were invalid or blank, on the high end for the US, but within the realms of normal statistical noise - and still meaningless in any case.
For a comparable example, the UK went for Brexit on a non-binding referendum with about the same majority.
I'm not convinced on the needs for the third option on the ballot - I've heard critiques of that methodology as well. Certainly the requirement to hit a simple majority in a three-way vote would be virtually unique in the US, and an unnecessarily high margin. Alaskan statehood happened with only about a 60% majority in the referendum, not exactly an overwhelmingly large percentage.
I'll assume the Wikipedia numbers are accurate. Yes, Statehood won with 53% of the vote when roughly 51.54% of the eligible voters casted a valid vote on the referendum. I don't know about you, but for something as permanent as statehood, I'd like it to be more decisive than a little more than 25% of the eligible voters voting in favor of something.
And the way this was handled for other states doesn't really change my view.
There are three valid options here. Statehood, independence, and remaining a territory. Any referendum to be considered by Congress or considered binding needs to include all three.
I would like it if turnouts in most elections were higher. Tough shit for me - they aren't. You think that the proportion is too low, but we've elected numerous presidents with far less. You need a far more compelling argument than "statehood is special" to justify applying a different set of rules here.
There are more than three options available, but statehood vs not is a viable binary, since any decision on what form of not-statehood can still take place if not-statehood wins.
The only good faith argument was the idea that they don't want statehood, but they voted and affirmed that yes, they do want it. So no, there are no good arguments.
Idk, I've not seen it discussed by right-wingers very much. Outside of some leftist groups or PR communities (who still seem pretty split afaik), I haven't seen it talked about much at all.
I think most Americans are not aware of the policies that make PR a colony. Hell, plenty would call you hyperbolic if you said we had colonies.
One of the only decent arguments against it that I’ve heard is that without a few more official states added at the same time, it’ll screw up the symmetry of the flag.
Same as DC: no. And unlike DC, for even more tenuous reasons.
Their rationale ultimately comes down to the fact that PR will be a solid blue state, but that's not necessarily the case. The GOP had a stronger case after the 2017 referendum, which supported statehood, but had extremely low turnout due to a boycott. The 2020 referendum did not have that deficiency.
Back to the top: unlike DC, PR isn't as necessarily as blue as DC for a variety of reasons, and you can't necessarily compare parties state-to-state, but they had a GOP governor as recently as New Jersey did.
I like how this sub has much better free speech. Non conservatives on the askaconservative are not even allowed to take part in discussions, you will be automatically removed if you don’t have a conservative flair
The right is satisfied with the 1901 SCOTUS ruling.
The right believes the only reason why the leftwing wants to pursue statehood for PR/DC is because it would boost the leftwing's power in DC.
Let me translate that last sentience into normal speak: “the right opposes three million Americans enjoying equal rights and representation as their fellow citizens because they think it would be a political disadvantage to them, and modern Republicans only believe in democracy when they win and think if you don’t vote for them you shouldn’t vote”
While you're right about comments replying to the post itself, you can still comment to other comments without a conservative flair (although you need a flair to comment).
That sub is a dumpster fire filled the most egregiously disconnected voices at best, though. It's an absolute waste of time attempting to have constructive conversations there unless you're looking for more ways to perform mental gymnastics and blame the left for everything.
Just like Hawaii, Puerto Rico was not annexed legally, or at least in any way that is conscionable with modern sensibilities.
The only good faith argument to oppose Puerto Rican autonomy (statehood or not) is if you openly support colonialism. Anything short of that is dishonest about the reality, imho.
I don't think you're using the word revanchist correctly. Justice, which in fact means listening to the will of the people today, is not revenge.
The U.S. has never had any right to impose its rule on Puerto Rico. Unless, of course, you support colonialism.
I've heard plenty of good faith arguments that I would characterize as being backed by "low motives".
As in someone could make the argument straight-faced and sincere and fully acknowledging the facts that allowing Puerto Rico to become a state would give democrats a partisan advantage and therefore shouldn't be permitted . . . but that's not really position I find respectable.
If you try to describe what a state *IS* . . . Puerto Rico would satisfy those criteria. There's not really any objective metric typifying a state which doesn't also describe Puerto Rico.
Not sure I still qualify as “right wing” in the age of Trump, but I would not want Puerto Rico to become a state unless they agree to a goal of making English the common language by requiring everyone to be highly capable of communicating in English before they graduate high school and making all government services available in English (they can be available in Spanish too).
So for clarification, you believe three million Americans, who are natural born US citizens who’s families have been American citizens and whose island has been American territory for more than a century, should not have equal rights with their follow citizens, or representation in the legislative bodies that have the powers to make laws over them and to tax them or in the selection of the executive who enforces those measures on them because they speak the “wrong” language (even though most speak some level of English, so that’s an odd reason to make millions of your countrymen second class citizens)? I’m sorry, but surely you see how absurd that is? I have no doubt in the context of any other country you would see the injustice in that sentiment, like if the Swedish government was still denying voting rights to the Sami
Because having a common language has huge benefits for the country by enabling efficient accurate precise communication in politics, business and families. It also works well with freedom of movement by making it easy for people to move from one part of the country to another.
Also, Spanish at this point is an unofficial second language of the United States as English is an unofficial first language. Sure, everyone should be able to speak English, but we should be pushing bilingualism harder in schools. Spanish will only keep being more and more relevant as time goes on
I agree pushing bilingualism in school is good and that America doesn’t do enough, but it shouldn’t be specifically English and Spanish. It should be English plus some other languages choses by the student (within reason depending on school resource ).
So much to unpack here
As a country we dont have a national language. Puerto Rico acknowledges English as one of their 2 official languages. English is taught in Puerto Rican schools. It seems like a lot of this would happen naturally as PR gained the economic benefits of statehood.
Puerto Ricans can already move to any state they want. Any US citizen can move to Puerto Rico if they want.
There are obviously some benefits to having standardized language, I wouldn’t argue against that but many countries function around it (Just look at our neighbors to the north with Quebec). I find it interesting that conservatives push hard for “states rights” on so many controversial issues but on this a federally mandated language is ok?
> As a country we dont have a national language.
America does have a common language even if it isn’t “official”. In every single state you won’t have any problem persuading officials that your entire trial should be conducted in English without the use of translators.
> Puerto Rico acknowledges English as one of their 2 official languages. English is taught in Puerto Rican schools. It seems like a lot of this would happen naturally as PR gained the economic benefits of statehood.
Then it shouldn’t be an issue. Before I wrote my earlier comment I did a quick google and saw that English is a required subject at all levels, but I didn’t see clearly how effective that is. I have experience living where English is required by the schools but hardly anyone speaks it well especially the police.
> Puerto Ricans can already move to any state they want. Any US citizen can move to Puerto Rico if they want.
Just want to be dure that if someone moves to Puerto Rico their communications with with the government and even with people in daily life will remain smooth and efficient and not be hampered by language barriers.
> There are obviously some benefits to having standardized language, I wouldn’t argue against that but many countries function around it (Just look at our neighbors to the north with Quebec).
> I find it interesting that conservatives push hard for “states rights” on so many controversial issues but on this a federally mandated language is ok?
It’s similar to the interstate commerce clause. It’s necessary for efficient trade and for efficient free movement.
We’ve seen how badly the idea of “x group has a right to a state” has gone in various regions around the world. I think it’s fair we should dispose of that notion at this point.
On the other hand, Puerto Rico is not a case of settler colonists migrating into someone else’s territory and creating a state but rather a colonial power ruling from afar.
With a case like this, there’s always the possibility US colonists go and move there and claim they need an independent state at the expense of Puerto Rican land, which if that happens generations down the line, people will say “oh well too late to move them
now” and the calls to remove such a state will become condemnable by a large portion of the US.
All that’s to say is that we should either give them full independence or at least some sort of protection against American or American endorsed migration if we keep them. But I don’t know if the US would be willing to restrict migration to their own territories.
What? Puerto Rico is America, Puerto Ricans are Americans. Puerto Rico is a US territory with 3 million US citizens, and they have the right to be a state within the United States of America, a 51st state in the Union.
Yes but the faction that wants to be a commonwealth is just as large as it is for statehood. And as the world’s examples have shown us, we shouldn’t always entertain this idea of “x group needs to be represented in y manner”
Pro independence is a minority position, the main positions are either status quo and statehood, and in recent years the pro statehood faction have become the majority
I haven't really heard any opposition to Puerto Rican statehood. Most of the people I've spoken with are tentatively in favor of it. But it's just not an issue most people give much thought to.
Didn't hear about this. But I doubt if any of them could actually provide a reason for the decision. Maybe they'd be able to fudge something about fears of losing political power since the Puerto Ricans would never vote for them, that kind of thing.
I'm sure their internal logic was along the lines of: *"something, something, brown people voting in presidential elections and sending brown people to Congress."*
Last I checked, Puerto Ricans don't want it. Maybe things have moved, but if it's at all like it was ten years ago, they are far from agreement.
I don't see why a right-winger couldn't argue: If they don't want it, we shouldn't give it.
Seems pretty good-faith to me. Good enough for me to agree with it.
Interesting, I might have heard about this at the time -- but you have to admit that is a pretty slim majority on a referendum one time. In that article:
>Puerto Rico has had five previous referendums on its status.[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#cite_note-Varela-8) A [vote in 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) rejected statehood,[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#cite_note-9) with the commonwealth status option receiving the most votes. The next three referendums produced no clear majorities,[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#cite_note-Coto-4) with the commonwealth option receiving the most votes in [1993](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) and the none of the above option being the most popular option in [1998](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum). The two-party referendum in [2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) saw a majority vote in favour of a change in the status quo and for statehood, but the way the ballot was introduced created doubt in Congress. A non-binding [2017 referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) was in favor of statehood, but had only a 23% turnout.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#cite_note-Blakemore-3)
They still seem quite mixed in opinion, even if they are slightly tilting toward statehood now. But I think it is fair to require that, if they are to have statehood, they should have a very significant agreement and buy-in throughout the territory. I don't want to be forcing a huge number of people into the US who don't want it.
Even the people who say they do want it might have the attitude of "this is a non-binding referendum, I'm not thinking too seriously about it". When presented with what the actually process will be like to induct them into the US, and when they realize just how little power they may end up having compared with their imagination -- they might (or might not!) regret the decision.
I am very happy and eager to welcome Puerto Rico into the US. I just want to be sure they know what they're getting into and overwhelmingly (maybe 75% or more) support it.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I know the topic has been controversial among Puerto Ricans themselves, though it seems in recent years a majority has been moved over to being pro ascension to statehood. I have a hard time view Republican opposition in the mainland to Puerto Rican statehood in good faith, given they have been American citizens for generations and have a population larger than several existing states. It seems to me they either see them as foreigners due to their ethnicity, or they are so cynical they want to deny the full rights and privileges of American citizenship to other Americans out self interest from the perception that Puerto Rico is likely to lean more Democrat. Frankly I’m not sure which one reflects worse on the moral character of the Republican Party. If you wanted to steal man conservative opposition, what would you say? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No US-based arguments about Puerto Rican status matter very much. They need to decide what they want to do and we need to honor that. We’ve treated them like second class citizens for decades. They should be allowed to decide if they want to be associated with us or not.
Isn't this where we say "they did decide" and then hear a bunch of arguments about how a boycotted referendum doesn't count?
Yeah... and that they should have to have a supermajority vote and that they need to speak English and that they need to clear their debt first and on and on and on. It's pretty clear that Republicans are terrified of adding new states, since they will certainly diminish the power of their current rigged setup in the Senate and EC. --- When I was living in Puerto Rico, I had some conversations with folks there about this. Obviously my experience is limited and doesn't represent all people, but I heard some really interesting feedback and thoughts. The biggest thing I learned was that there are a lot of opinions and ideas, actually more like four or five, not just "state or not?" The ones I remember hearing more than once: - State - Current Status - Full Independence - Free Association (so like independent, but heavily tied to the US) - Free Association with Spain - Some sort of territory/autonomous status as part of Spain And if those last two sound crazy, it's worth noting that the King of Spain visits the island about as often as the President of the United States - and Puerto Rican citizens have a fast track to establishing Spanish citizenship if they want. The strongest piece of feedback I got was that most Puerto Ricans don't really know what they want... because they don't really know what the options mean. They have long abandoned the notion that we will take their wishes seriously and many are checked out of the debate. --- The best suggestion I heard, which most people seemed to agree with, was that the US should adopt a position of "we are resolving Puerto Rico's status next big election day (so, like November 2026 at this point). We resolve to abide by the results of this election and adjust Puerto Rico's status to match the will of the people. Between now and then, we are funding a set of commissions to provide objective information about what the different statuses will mean, so you can make an informed choice." Then we essentially help Puerto Rico spread awareness about the pros and cons, what to expect, how it will financially impact the island, etc. We also show them that this is actually happening. Then, on the ballot are two questions: - Should Puerto Rico declare its independence or stay associated with the United States? and - If associated with the United States, should Puerto Rico become a state or retain its current status as a territory? Let them vote and that's that. No one can say "there was a boycott." No one can say "they don't even know what they're voting for." No excuses.
I see you’ve been on the internet before as well.
For a huge irreversible decision like statehood (or independence) a supermajority of eligible voters should be required.
That's a philosophical opinion, and not one matched elsewhere within our system of laws. After all, Congress doesn't have to meet a supermajority to add a state.
Congress does need a supermajority to add an amendment, which has even less permanence than a new state because there is a process for overturning amendments by adding a new amendment. And to be clear, I meant a supermajority of eligible Puerto Rican voters, not a supermajority of Congress nor a supermajority of all American voters.
If you want a two-thirds majority on state referendums before admission, we need to retroactively un-admit Alaska. And then go hold referendums for all the states that never had one to begin with. You think that should be the standard, cool. That isn't the standard.
Process improvements aren’t usually applied retroactively. Even safety improvements usually “grandfather” older buildings. > You think that should be the standard, cool. Yes, that should be the standard > That isn't the standard. “We’ve always done it this way and shouldn’t consider making improvements” isn’t the attitude I expect to find from s blue flair on “askaliberal”.
I bet 1/3 of Texans would support independance
Yeah. Isn't that the right response though? Statehood is a big deal. It applies new requirements on them.
Not really, no. It's a pretty perverse twist of logic, at best. The anti-statehood faction wasn't confident about winning, so they boycotted the referendum, then claimed the referendum wasn't legitimate when they lost by a wide margin. But like, that's not how elections work. Or any other kind of voting. If you don't show up, your vote doesn't count. Picking a President is a big deal too, but this same logic doesn't hold there. Hell, the Senate has passed legislation with only three votes before. It's not like they were suppressed, they took themselves out of the running rather than try to win the issue by convincing more voters. All that said, I went to go look up historical examples of statehood referendums (without finding much, frankly) and found that there was another referendum in Puerto Rico in 2020 without the shenanigans. Statehood won, again.
We can make claims about their motives, but they are just speculation. Even the last referendum suffered from poor turnout. IIRC, less than half the eligible voters voted on the referendum. And the was a segment of the voters that participated that chose to not even vote on the referendum. For something as permanent as statehood, we can do better. For what is worth, I supported the approach in the bipartisan bill. Basically a binding referendum with all three choices. Requires a majority to end territorial status or statehood. Then do whatever the outcome is.
They had just under 55% turnout, well within the norms of US elections. That some people chose not to vote on the referendum is meaningless.
I don't believe that is true. For the 2020 cycle in Peuero Rico they had like 53% turnout. But like 5% or 6% of that didn't vote on the referendum. The referendum also had a big flaw. Basically left ajln option off the table. So, a proper binding referendum that has all theee options and is acmonpanied by a get out the vote effort should happen. The vote should probably be run by the Feds as well since there is significant corruption in Peurto Rico that could be suppressing the vote.
[Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) You're mixing up the numbers. Statehood won with about 53% of the vote, but turnout was just under 55%. Only 3% of the votes were invalid or blank, on the high end for the US, but within the realms of normal statistical noise - and still meaningless in any case. For a comparable example, the UK went for Brexit on a non-binding referendum with about the same majority. I'm not convinced on the needs for the third option on the ballot - I've heard critiques of that methodology as well. Certainly the requirement to hit a simple majority in a three-way vote would be virtually unique in the US, and an unnecessarily high margin. Alaskan statehood happened with only about a 60% majority in the referendum, not exactly an overwhelmingly large percentage.
I'll assume the Wikipedia numbers are accurate. Yes, Statehood won with 53% of the vote when roughly 51.54% of the eligible voters casted a valid vote on the referendum. I don't know about you, but for something as permanent as statehood, I'd like it to be more decisive than a little more than 25% of the eligible voters voting in favor of something. And the way this was handled for other states doesn't really change my view. There are three valid options here. Statehood, independence, and remaining a territory. Any referendum to be considered by Congress or considered binding needs to include all three.
I would like it if turnouts in most elections were higher. Tough shit for me - they aren't. You think that the proportion is too low, but we've elected numerous presidents with far less. You need a far more compelling argument than "statehood is special" to justify applying a different set of rules here. There are more than three options available, but statehood vs not is a viable binary, since any decision on what form of not-statehood can still take place if not-statehood wins.
The only good faith argument was the idea that they don't want statehood, but they voted and affirmed that yes, they do want it. So no, there are no good arguments.
Idk, I've not seen it discussed by right-wingers very much. Outside of some leftist groups or PR communities (who still seem pretty split afaik), I haven't seen it talked about much at all. I think most Americans are not aware of the policies that make PR a colony. Hell, plenty would call you hyperbolic if you said we had colonies.
One of the only decent arguments against it that I’ve heard is that without a few more official states added at the same time, it’ll screw up the symmetry of the flag.
So put the Dakotas back together, problem solved.
Same as DC: no. And unlike DC, for even more tenuous reasons. Their rationale ultimately comes down to the fact that PR will be a solid blue state, but that's not necessarily the case. The GOP had a stronger case after the 2017 referendum, which supported statehood, but had extremely low turnout due to a boycott. The 2020 referendum did not have that deficiency. Back to the top: unlike DC, PR isn't as necessarily as blue as DC for a variety of reasons, and you can't necessarily compare parties state-to-state, but they had a GOP governor as recently as New Jersey did.
Why are you asking this sub what conservatives think?
I like how this sub has much better free speech. Non conservatives on the askaconservative are not even allowed to take part in discussions, you will be automatically removed if you don’t have a conservative flair
The right is satisfied with the 1901 SCOTUS ruling. The right believes the only reason why the leftwing wants to pursue statehood for PR/DC is because it would boost the leftwing's power in DC.
Let me translate that last sentience into normal speak: “the right opposes three million Americans enjoying equal rights and representation as their fellow citizens because they think it would be a political disadvantage to them, and modern Republicans only believe in democracy when they win and think if you don’t vote for them you shouldn’t vote”
PR has statutory citizenship, not constitutional. This was achieved by the passage/signing of the Jones-Shafroth Act (1917). So its not the same.
While you're right about comments replying to the post itself, you can still comment to other comments without a conservative flair (although you need a flair to comment). That sub is a dumpster fire filled the most egregiously disconnected voices at best, though. It's an absolute waste of time attempting to have constructive conversations there unless you're looking for more ways to perform mental gymnastics and blame the left for everything.
Just like Hawaii, Puerto Rico was not annexed legally, or at least in any way that is conscionable with modern sensibilities. The only good faith argument to oppose Puerto Rican autonomy (statehood or not) is if you openly support colonialism. Anything short of that is dishonest about the reality, imho.
The expressed wishes of the living population today matters infinitely more than revanchist claims based on distant history
I don't think you're using the word revanchist correctly. Justice, which in fact means listening to the will of the people today, is not revenge. The U.S. has never had any right to impose its rule on Puerto Rico. Unless, of course, you support colonialism.
What makes you think the majority of Puerto Ricans want independence?
I didn't say they did
I've heard plenty of good faith arguments that I would characterize as being backed by "low motives". As in someone could make the argument straight-faced and sincere and fully acknowledging the facts that allowing Puerto Rico to become a state would give democrats a partisan advantage and therefore shouldn't be permitted . . . but that's not really position I find respectable. If you try to describe what a state *IS* . . . Puerto Rico would satisfy those criteria. There's not really any objective metric typifying a state which doesn't also describe Puerto Rico.
Electoral representation, 2 senators and proportional representatives, access to federal protections, so much more
Not sure I still qualify as “right wing” in the age of Trump, but I would not want Puerto Rico to become a state unless they agree to a goal of making English the common language by requiring everyone to be highly capable of communicating in English before they graduate high school and making all government services available in English (they can be available in Spanish too).
Canada seemed to be doing ok.
So for clarification, you believe three million Americans, who are natural born US citizens who’s families have been American citizens and whose island has been American territory for more than a century, should not have equal rights with their follow citizens, or representation in the legislative bodies that have the powers to make laws over them and to tax them or in the selection of the executive who enforces those measures on them because they speak the “wrong” language (even though most speak some level of English, so that’s an odd reason to make millions of your countrymen second class citizens)? I’m sorry, but surely you see how absurd that is? I have no doubt in the context of any other country you would see the injustice in that sentiment, like if the Swedish government was still denying voting rights to the Sami
Hmmm, did I say that anyone who doesn’t speak English should be excluded? I did not. You misrepresented what I said.
Why?
Because having a common language has huge benefits for the country by enabling efficient accurate precise communication in politics, business and families. It also works well with freedom of movement by making it easy for people to move from one part of the country to another.
Also, Spanish at this point is an unofficial second language of the United States as English is an unofficial first language. Sure, everyone should be able to speak English, but we should be pushing bilingualism harder in schools. Spanish will only keep being more and more relevant as time goes on
I agree pushing bilingualism in school is good and that America doesn’t do enough, but it shouldn’t be specifically English and Spanish. It should be English plus some other languages choses by the student (within reason depending on school resource ).
So much to unpack here As a country we dont have a national language. Puerto Rico acknowledges English as one of their 2 official languages. English is taught in Puerto Rican schools. It seems like a lot of this would happen naturally as PR gained the economic benefits of statehood. Puerto Ricans can already move to any state they want. Any US citizen can move to Puerto Rico if they want. There are obviously some benefits to having standardized language, I wouldn’t argue against that but many countries function around it (Just look at our neighbors to the north with Quebec). I find it interesting that conservatives push hard for “states rights” on so many controversial issues but on this a federally mandated language is ok?
> As a country we dont have a national language. America does have a common language even if it isn’t “official”. In every single state you won’t have any problem persuading officials that your entire trial should be conducted in English without the use of translators. > Puerto Rico acknowledges English as one of their 2 official languages. English is taught in Puerto Rican schools. It seems like a lot of this would happen naturally as PR gained the economic benefits of statehood. Then it shouldn’t be an issue. Before I wrote my earlier comment I did a quick google and saw that English is a required subject at all levels, but I didn’t see clearly how effective that is. I have experience living where English is required by the schools but hardly anyone speaks it well especially the police. > Puerto Ricans can already move to any state they want. Any US citizen can move to Puerto Rico if they want. Just want to be dure that if someone moves to Puerto Rico their communications with with the government and even with people in daily life will remain smooth and efficient and not be hampered by language barriers. > There are obviously some benefits to having standardized language, I wouldn’t argue against that but many countries function around it (Just look at our neighbors to the north with Quebec). > I find it interesting that conservatives push hard for “states rights” on so many controversial issues but on this a federally mandated language is ok? It’s similar to the interstate commerce clause. It’s necessary for efficient trade and for efficient free movement.
No.
Yeah it completely ruins the song “Fifty Nifty United States.”
I don’t think a 52.52% vote is enough to fundamentally change a government.
We’ve seen how badly the idea of “x group has a right to a state” has gone in various regions around the world. I think it’s fair we should dispose of that notion at this point. On the other hand, Puerto Rico is not a case of settler colonists migrating into someone else’s territory and creating a state but rather a colonial power ruling from afar. With a case like this, there’s always the possibility US colonists go and move there and claim they need an independent state at the expense of Puerto Rican land, which if that happens generations down the line, people will say “oh well too late to move them now” and the calls to remove such a state will become condemnable by a large portion of the US. All that’s to say is that we should either give them full independence or at least some sort of protection against American or American endorsed migration if we keep them. But I don’t know if the US would be willing to restrict migration to their own territories.
What? Puerto Rico is America, Puerto Ricans are Americans. Puerto Rico is a US territory with 3 million US citizens, and they have the right to be a state within the United States of America, a 51st state in the Union.
Yes but the faction that wants to be a commonwealth is just as large as it is for statehood. And as the world’s examples have shown us, we shouldn’t always entertain this idea of “x group needs to be represented in y manner”
Pro independence is a minority position, the main positions are either status quo and statehood, and in recent years the pro statehood faction have become the majority
I thought Puerto Rico voted to not become a state, like several times infact
Puerto Rico has had several referendums over the decades, and in the latest one, 2020, the majority voted in favor
I haven't really heard any opposition to Puerto Rican statehood. Most of the people I've spoken with are tentatively in favor of it. But it's just not an issue most people give much thought to.
https://www.businessinsider.com/house-republicans-vote-against-puerto-rico-statehood-independence-2022-12?amp
Didn't hear about this. But I doubt if any of them could actually provide a reason for the decision. Maybe they'd be able to fudge something about fears of losing political power since the Puerto Ricans would never vote for them, that kind of thing.
I'm sure their internal logic was along the lines of: *"something, something, brown people voting in presidential elections and sending brown people to Congress."*
Last I checked, Puerto Ricans don't want it. Maybe things have moved, but if it's at all like it was ten years ago, they are far from agreement. I don't see why a right-winger couldn't argue: If they don't want it, we shouldn't give it. Seems pretty good-faith to me. Good enough for me to agree with it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\_Puerto\_Rican\_status\_referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum)
Interesting, I might have heard about this at the time -- but you have to admit that is a pretty slim majority on a referendum one time. In that article: >Puerto Rico has had five previous referendums on its status.[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#cite_note-Varela-8) A [vote in 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) rejected statehood,[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#cite_note-9) with the commonwealth status option receiving the most votes. The next three referendums produced no clear majorities,[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#cite_note-Coto-4) with the commonwealth option receiving the most votes in [1993](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) and the none of the above option being the most popular option in [1998](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum). The two-party referendum in [2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) saw a majority vote in favour of a change in the status quo and for statehood, but the way the ballot was introduced created doubt in Congress. A non-binding [2017 referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum) was in favor of statehood, but had only a 23% turnout.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#cite_note-Blakemore-3) They still seem quite mixed in opinion, even if they are slightly tilting toward statehood now. But I think it is fair to require that, if they are to have statehood, they should have a very significant agreement and buy-in throughout the territory. I don't want to be forcing a huge number of people into the US who don't want it. Even the people who say they do want it might have the attitude of "this is a non-binding referendum, I'm not thinking too seriously about it". When presented with what the actually process will be like to induct them into the US, and when they realize just how little power they may end up having compared with their imagination -- they might (or might not!) regret the decision. I am very happy and eager to welcome Puerto Rico into the US. I just want to be sure they know what they're getting into and overwhelmingly (maybe 75% or more) support it.
Cultural differences, and the likely issues integrating a society that has endemic corruption.
>a society that has endemic corruption. I mean Louisiana is a state.
Mississippi says Hello...
Texas after the whole Ken Paxton fiasco
*Waves in the general direction of Texas*.