this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
1321 points (98.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
1112 readers
748 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Puerto Rico should be it's own country.
Personally, I think we should force the island to choose its fate. We can't keep the status quo going forever. The idea of a nation like the US maintaining a colony with millions of people on it is a historical anachronism. It was a mistake to ever create the colony in the first place, and it's a mistake to keep it going. We should force the Puerto Ricans to make a choice. A new binding referendum. Pass a statehood bill that grants statehood to PR based on the results of a final binding vote. And that referendum has two and only two choices on it - statehood or independence. They're either all the way in, or all the way out. The choice is theirs.
I know in principle that, from a self-determination perspective, that Puerto Ricans should have a full menu of choices available to it, including staying a territory. But it's high time for the US to get out of the colony business. US territory status should be reserved for holdings that are so sparsely populated that they would never possibly make a viable state. But Puerto Rico is just way too large to justify holding as a territory.
We need to solve this problem. And I think we should have a final binding referendum, one where statehood or independence will automatically happen based on the results of that referendum.
We have tried to vote and indicate whatever desire we have for statehood or independence. Y'all (as in US Government, not citizens) just use the results to wipe your asses.
Slight edit: I'm Puerto Rican
PR has held referendums on this multiple times. During the five major referendums (not including the sixth one where voter turnout was like less than 20%) three of them -- the majority of the five major referendums -- resulted in not wanting statehood. Another had incredibly high levels of abstention, and the most recent one resulted in wanting statehood by only a 2% majority.
For such a long-term action with wide-ranging effects, I think it's reasonable to expect Puerto Rico to clearly make the preference known by an unquestionable 2/3rd majority since it effects everyone on the island. Shoving through something so dramatic based on a slight majority is disrespectful to the half of the island that doesn't want to become a state. Whether that would pass through congress is unknown, but certainly not in the current moment. But an irrefutable desire for statehood coming from PR itself seems a necessary first step before anything else is done, and that has not yet occurred.
There's also the fact that a lot of people in power in Puerto Rico (and in mainland U.S.) are making a lot of money off of the grifty laws under which the territory is governed. So when these referendums come up the propaganda machine starts to do its work on the populace.
this is a critical point. any chance of a meaningful positive change for Puerto Rico runs the risk of being overrun with corruption at very high levels, especially corruption coming from the U.S. i would guess the island has a better chance if they become a U.S. state, because federal law on corruption in the states is strict, or at least more strict
I understand your point, but at the end of the day those that vote are the ones that "count". I personally am one of the many that didn't vote in those referendums due to feeling insulted by them.
The general consensus of this is that why would you vote in this when it won't change anything? Congress didn't approve it, so nothing will come out of it. There are some other reasons, of course, but this one of the most common ones.
You think the people that vote are the ones that count, but you were insulted by a domestically initiated internal referendum asking you to vote on the future political status of your community, so you didn't vote..? Without a clear mandate from Puerto Rico itself, you seem to be saying you'd prefer congress to decide the status of Puerto Rico for Puerto Ricans.
If so, you got exactly what you asked for, and I see little room for complaining about it.
It's a complicated situation, many people were upset due to the status consultation process being used as fear mongering for some national concerns and as leverage to have people vote a certain way to "guarantee the right choice" by multiple political parties.
This reason is why so many people abstained from voting in these last two.
I personally don't believe Congress will ever grant statehood to Puerto Rico, but my opinion is hardly relevant to this particular situation.
Tldr of why I didn't vote is very simple. If Congress won't acknowledge the multiple results of past referendums and the local parties use the referendums for fear mongering...not a worthwhile effort.
But that's my point. I think you have the order of operations wrong. The multiple results of past referendums have been, in general, against statehood. The most recent showed a bare majority. Without an unquestionable majority of Puerto Ricans making clear what they want for Puerto Rico, asking congress to take unilateral action on the political status of the island -- whether it's statehood, commonwealth, or independent nation -- is just a rehearsal of the same domestic-dependent imperialism that made Puerto Rico a commonwealth in the first place. The fact that congress not doing anything means PR stays a commonwealth is a result of that being the current status quo. If the people of PR want a change in the political status of PR, they need to initiate that and make it clear.
You can't say that the referendums don't count, that internal politics influences the results, and that it's just fear-mongering because PR wouldn't be able to be economically stable as an independent nation -- all internal problems that don't need congress's involvement to be remedied -- and then simultaneously criticize congress for not doing anything. That's a wildly colonized mindset. Not doing anything is precisely what congress should be doing, if they have any respect for the self-governance and desires of the Puerto Rico itself.
Why not a state? Seems silly to think they'd want to build up their own military and international relations.
I can see why some would want to be independent. There are downsides to being in a fixed currency union with the US. Inflation that's driven by a booming economy on the mainland can drive up prices in PR, even if there isn't a corresponding economic boom there to justify it. Puerto Rico currently has to endure the Jones Act, which substantially drives up the price of goods shipped there from the US mainland. They wouldn't be subject to it if they were an independent country.
You mention a military, but as an independent country, they wouldn't actually have to field a big military. Look at the other states in the neighborhood. The Dominican Republic is a good model. They currently spend about 0.7% of their GDP on the military, the US spends about 3.5%. And that's what they spend sharing a giant land border with Haiti, a completely failed state. Most of their military is on that land border trying to keep people from coming across. As a whole, military spending in Central America and the Caribbean is quite low. The whole area is in the US's backyard, and the US is never going to accept some other nation going on a warpath through the Caribbean. If tomorrow some later-day Napoleon takes over the Dominican Republic, and they decide to invade island after island in some grand imperial war, the US is not going to sit back and just let that happen. For the independent nations of the Caribbean and Central America, the US's generations-long policy, overt or covert, is, "don't worry too much about overt military threats from your neighbors. If anyone actually threatens your borders, we'll stop them. Stay in our trading sphere and don't ally with adversarial powers to the US, and your security is assured."
Realistically, an independent Puerto Rico would have zero external military threats to worry about. What limited military it would need would mostly be spent protecting its territorial waters from illegal exploitation, or in preventing migrants from coming in from nations undergoing severe political discord. But if anyone ever tried to invade them, the US would certainly step in.
In fact, their only serious threat from invasion would come from the US itself. If an independent Puerto Rico decided for some reason to seriously ally itself with China, and let the Chinese Navy set up a huge base on the island, or something similar, they could end up as a second Cuba.
But as long as they don't do that, they would face few security threats. Realistically, like other island states in the area, an independent PR would need very little military spending. Hell, the US would likely pay for the entire PR military through generous security assistance grants provided in exchange for letting the US keep military bases on the island.
If the citizens of PR want to go full Cuba - seize all the tourist and other assets held by mainland investors, become friendly with Russia/China, go fully overt socialist or Communist? In that case, independence would likely turn out very badly for the future of the island. But if they want to become independent, but just take on a roll very similar to the other independent island states in the area? - Remain friendly to the US, keep trading with the US, largely rely on the US for protection from overt military threats, etc? They could actually do quite well by independence.
Of course, there are advantages to statehood as well. Having your citizens fully eligible for all forms of federal assistance, when your population's average wealth and income is well below national averages? That has some advantages. It would allow PR to give welfare benefits to their poorest people at a level of generosity that they could never afford to do as an independent state. Plus having representatives and Senators can't hurt. Smaller states often are able to divert federal spending to within their borders in exchange for a vote in the Senate.
So really, I can see valid arguments on both sides. But personally, I think it's time we settle the matter. I'm in favor of Congress passing a law which directly forces the issue. Pass an act that grants either full statehood or full independence to Puerto Rico - and make it entirely contingent on a final binding referendum. I think territories like PR are an anachronism in this day and age, and I think the US needs to get out of the business of holding heavily populated territories. I think our territories, at least those with any more than a trivial number of people on them - should either be granted independence, be fully integrated as proper states, or be folded into existing states. I don't mind some tiny rock with 5 people on it remaining a territory indefinitely, but we shouldn't have territories where thousands of people live on them without full representation. I'm in favor of passing laws that force the issue on all of our present territories. Personally I would be fine giving the US Virgin Islands the choice - join PR in statehood or become independent. For the ones in the Pacific, the choice could be - join Hawaii or become independent. Or maybe we could just fold all the remaining non-Hawaii states into a single new state called "The State of Outlying Pacific Islands". I'm sure the first act of that state's legislature would be to come up with a better name for the place.
Especially since Puerto Rico is right in hurricane alley. This is going to become increasinly relevant, fast.
Also, it seems like such a huge issue to force unless there's a giant majority one way or another, which would only happen if there was some MASSIVE benefit or detriment to becoming a state (which is totally possible). If they marginally decide to go one way, and the next years the population realizes it was a huge mistake due to changes, they're screwed.
Just as an example, the U.S. could actually go mad, and Peurto Rico would want nothing to do with them. If they were already a state... that would suck. Alternatively, maybe we hit some climate tipping point sooner than expected, and hurricanes become such an existential threat that they need federal help to deal with them. If they became independant, well, that's not an option anymore. Both very possible scenarios.
I don't see them as even tangentially American. It's a totally different place, people, language and culture. They are as American as Barbados, Jamaica or Cuba.
Speaking as a Floridian and general Southerner... could not disagree more.
That's how I feel about Dakotans. Not even close to American.