Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC?

[Politesse]

AOC notes that Puerto Rican statehood won't mean automatic Democratic votes.

Add to that, it's about 75% white according to wiki - whiter than most states, especially southern "red" states. So it's mysterious that Republican legislators are dead set against it.
Maybe they're afraid of the domino effect - PR today, DC tomorrow (where Dem senators would be a near-certainty). And of course Guam would be out of the question since it's less than 8% white.

Conservatives have an on-again off-again relationship with "Hispanic" people, a term which is often used to denote a collective race as they see it. Only occasionally and selectively are "Hispanics" treated as whites. Most of the time, the Spanish language is treated as a sign of foreign culture and inherent threat to American life, which must be expunged or assimilated. Puerto Rico is either "white" or "hispanic", or as "American" or "foreign", depending on who is talking and in what context.



Perceived race is more complicated than genetic ancestry. Eighty years ago, all Mexicans were considered "Whites" under the law unless they had African ancestry. Today, they are treated as wholly other, and Latinos of any kind have become the greatest bogeymen of conservative poltiics, the supposedly teeming horde of invaders that will overrun "our" country and destroy "our" culture. Catholicism, likewise. Puerto Ricans get tangled up in this because of their language and common culture/religion/etc regardless of their apparent skin color.

 

[steve_bank]

There was a violentt nationalist group responsible for bombings. Statehood may bring that back.

I recall a Navy base was removed under pressure , creating local economic bust.

Outside of USA and Canada stable liberal democracies do not exist in the hemisphere. There is no historical foundation for it.

Given climate change PR may not be sustainable in the long run.

 

[TomC]

I didn't question whether there was anything to discuss, only your diagnosis that what was truly needed was a more drawn out process. What is another thirty years of argument going to add that the past century has not?

Who said 30 years? Did you just make up that number? I think you did.

I would feel better if there were a process at least as involved as a U.S. constitutional amendment. That'll take a couple of years at least. Changing from status quo to US state or sovereignty is a big fucking deal. It's important that the final decision be supported by more than a slim majority, who only find out the reality afterwards. Like what happened in Great Britain over Brexit, or the 2016 U.S. presidential "election".
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Conservatives have an on-again off-again relationship with "Hispanic" people, a term which is often used to denote a collective race as they see it. Only occasionally and selectively are "Hispanics" treated as whites. Most of the time, the Spanish language is treated as a sign of foreign culture and inherent threat to American life, which must be expunged. Puerto Rico is either "white" or "hispanic", or as "American" or "foreign", depending on who is talking and in what context.

Those xenophobic tendencies and dynamics are certainly operative in PR. Race and language are the main features, but sometimes I question which way the causal arrows point.
Personally I think that granting statehood would elevate the social climate and could be a step toward mitigating the whole local syndrome. At least the tribal element of it could be challenged by creating a stronger common identity for Puerto Ricans. Or perhaps statehood would just become a power prize to be fought over by existing divisions. I don't know.

 

[Politesse]

Who said 30 years? Did you just make up that number? I think you did.

What you actually said was "long". So I ballparked something. How long is "long" to you?

I would feel better if there were a process at least as involved as a U.S. constitutional amendment. That'll take a couple of years at least. Changing from status quo to US state or sovereignty is a big fucking deal. It's important that the final decision be supported by more than a slim majority, who only find out the reality afterwards. Like what happened in Great Britain over Brexit, or the 2016 U.S. presidential "election".
Tom

On what basis? You're trying to overturn the rule of law in Puerto Rico, tell them they're not allowed to use a self-defined democratic process to make decisions. What gives you the right? You're appealing to the Constitution sort of, at least by your allusion to the amendment process, but that isn't what the Constitution says about how territories become states. All that is required is a petition and two majority votes.

 

[Jokodo]

There was a violentt nationalist group responsible for bombings. Statehood may bring that back.

Why would it? Did statehood historically mean massive increases in Californian or Hawaiian terrorist attacks?

 

[TomC]

There was a violentt nationalist group responsible for bombings. Statehood may bring that back.

Why would it? Did statehood historically mean massive increases in Californian or Hawaiian terrorist attacks?

Did either place have a history of such?


Suppose they did and being forced into The Union caused an upsurge. Could the U.S. government still employ the tactics they could freely use back then?

I doubt it. The world is very different now.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was a violentt nationalist group responsible for bombings. Statehood may bring that back.

I recall a Navy base was removed under pressure , creating local economic bust.

What happened is they demanded the removal of a bombing range. They were then unpleasantly surprised when the airbase that used the bombing range was closed as it's reason for existence was to practice bombing.

 

[Politesse]

There was a violentt nationalist group responsible for bombings. Statehood may bring that back.

Why would it? Did statehood historically mean massive increases in Californian or Hawaiian terrorist attacks?

Hawaii: no.

California: yes, beyond doubt. The seeming respectability of being semi-official "militias" of the US government, coupled with the masisve population boom that followed statehood, resulted in emboldened posses murdering thousands of indigenous people, sometimes entire villages slaughtered overnight, in a campaign of terror that lasted for almost thirty years. This was a unique situation, in that the territorial claims of California included vast swaths of land whose inhabitants still considered themselves independent nations, never having been conquered militarily, but which contained lucrative mineral and lumber resources that American developers were urgent to establish rights to as quickly as possible. It's worth observing that unlike Puerto Rico, California was only a territory for three years and only a small portion of its populations was enfranchised to vote.

Puerto Rico: I see no reason why it would. The Cold War is over, and FALN doesn't even exist anymore.

 

[TomC]

There was a violentt nationalist group responsible for bombings. Statehood may bring that back.

I recall a Navy base was removed under pressure , creating local economic bust.

What happened is they demanded the removal of a bombing range. They were then unpleasantly surprised when the airbase that used the bombing range was closed as it's reason for existence was to practice bombing.

This is the kind of "unintended consequences" that makes me prefer that the decision process is more involved than just a first past the post election years ago.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

People want benefits when it suits them like disaster aid. They assert independence otherwise.

Independence for PR is best all around.

 

[lpetrich]

New bill on Puerto Rico status introduced by Reps. AOC, Velázquez, Sen. Menendez

Democrats in Congress introduced legislation Thursday to get the ball rolling on determining Puerto Rico's future status, including possible statehood, and its relationship with the mainland.

The measure, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021, calls for creating a "status convention" made up of delegates elected by Puerto Rican voters. The delegates would be responsible for coming up with long-term solutions for the island's territorial status — statehood, independence, a free association or other options beyond its current territorial arrangement.

...
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who introduced the House version of the bill along with Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., said the measure is as much about allowing Puerto Ricans to assert their political identity as it is "about the identity of the United States."

"If we want to consider ourselves a democracy and live up to our values, it is fundamentally incompatible for an open democracy to have subjects," Ocasio-Cortez said.

She has called the US-PR relationship "colonialism".

"A colony is incompatible with democracy, it's incompatible with full citizenship, and we should all be able to enjoy the right to vote for our leaders," Ocasio-Cortez said. "We should all be able to enjoy the right to equal treatment, and self-determination is how we can accomplish that in a process that is respected by all."

AOC and NV introduced a similar bill last year. I checked congress.gov and this new bill is still not on record there.

PR's Congressional delegate Jenniffer González objects:

In a statement Thursday, González accused supporters of the self-determination legislation of trying to "silence the majoritarian vote and the will of the people of Puerto Rico."

"It should be up to the people, through their vote, to determine their future," said González, who is also a leader of the local political party in Puerto Rico that promotes statehood. "This is not what the bill introduced by Velázquez and Ocasio-Cortez does, which instead ignores the will already expressed by our people and intends to impose their own views upon us."

 

[lpetrich]

Francis Chung on Instagram: “Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) hold a press conference on the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, which they reintroduced into Congress today.”

Rep. NV describes her bill:
Rep. Nydia Velazquez on Twitter: "After over one hundred years of colonial rule, ..." / Twitter

After over one hundred years of colonial rule, Puerto Ricans would have a mechanism to determine their own future.

This bill introduced just now would provide a democratic option by giving the Puerto Rican people a chance to make their voices heard in two open elections.

And I am proud that we are introducing it with over 70 co-sponsors, and I am confident that even more Members of Congress will join on in coming weeks.

In 1787, the founders of this country met to form a constitutional convention to decide how America ought to be governed. Now, 123 years after the U.S. government invaded Puerto Rico, we must ask the people of the Island the same question.

AOC explains:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "We support a process of self-determination for Puerto Rico. Why? ..." / Twitter

We support a process of self-determination for Puerto Rico. Why?

1. Statehood isn't the only option. There's also independence or free association.

2. It's not clear which of these options a majority of Puerto Ricans support.

A 2017 statehood ballot referendum had 23% voter turnout (it's usually 80%) after a boycott by all opposition political parties.

The 2020 referendum got 52% support, but asked a single yes-or-no question: Should P.R. become a state? Which is not representative of other options.

3. Congress imposing any one option on Puerto Rico would be the culmination of colonization.

Choosing for the Puerto Rican people rather than letting them determine their own fate.

4. The issue of D.C. & Puerto Rican statehood are not the same.

Puerto Rico was annexed as a colony in 1898. Puerto Ricans have a distinct cultural identity and the island has fought against colonization since it was acquired by the Spanish.

5. A process of self-determination, and specifically the bill we put forward, was informed and driven by grassroots groups on the Island.

It's also supported by more than 80 progressive groups across the country.

Here's how self-determination would work:

1. Puerto Ricans elect delegates to a 'status convention,' where they come up with a solution for the island’s territorial status - whether that be statehood, independence, a free association or anything other than its current status.

2. A 'bilateral negotiating commission' consisting of several Congress members & the presidential administration will provide advice to the delegates.

3. A referendum vote will then be held on the island to allow Puerto Ricans to vote on the delegates' recommendations.

4. If the referendum is approved by the people of Puerto Rico, Congress shall ratify their choice.

Our bill is status-agnostic. If after undergoing the process, the triumphant option is statehood, we will not oppose.

 

[lpetrich]

The House bill:
H.R.2070 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): To recognize the right of the People of Puerto Rico to call a status convention through which the people would exercise their natural right to self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for congressional consideration of such decision, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Introduced by Rep Nydia Velazquez, D-NY-07
It has 73 cosponsors, all original, including AOC herself.
Most of the "Squad" has signed on, and some Democratic Big Names also.


The Senate bill:
S.865 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A bill to recognize the right of the People of Puerto Rico to call a status convention through which the people would exercise their natural right to self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for congressional consideration of such decision, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Introduced by Rep. Robert Menendez, D-NJ
It has 7 cosponsors, all original, including Bernie Sanders I-VT and Elizabeth Warren D-MA.

All these cosponsors are Democrats with the exception of one Independent, a Democratic-adjacent one.

 

[steve_bank]

They already had a referendum.

 

[Politesse]

They've had four, actually.

 

[lpetrich]

In an IG Live in spring of 2019, AOC dismissed those earlier referendums as not much more that polls. Lots of people boycotted them.

From back then:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Puerto Rican politics | TheHill

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently proposed a federally mandated, self-executing, political status referendum in Puerto Rico between the alternatives of statehood and independence. She argued, correctly, that past referendums have not been legally binding and have been no more akin to polls. Her proposal comes out a couple of weeks after Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.) filed his improbable Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act of 2019 bill, which aims to have Puerto Rico admitted as a state within 90 days from its approval.

Ocasio-Cortez suggestions have been quickly contested by opponents of statehood, some who argue that any self-determination process must be preceded with the cession of sovereignty back to the people of Puerto Rico.

That press conference last Thursday:
Forbes on Twitter: "PUERTO RICO STATEHOOD: Rep. @AOC makes the case to make Puerto Rico a state: “A colony is incompatible with democracy. It's incompatible with full citizenship." (vid link)" / Twitter
Nice statement by her.

 

[TomC]

They've had four, actually.

I could be wrong.
But I suspect that AOC has a better handle on Puerto Ricans than you do.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

They've had four, actually.

I could be wrong.
But I suspect that AOC has a better handle on Puerto Ricans than you do.
Tom

How much personal expertise is required to count to four???

 

[TomC]

They've had four, actually.

I could be wrong.
But I suspect that AOC has a better handle on Puerto Ricans than you do.
Tom

How much personal expertise is required to count to four???

I'm not terribly impressed with AOC either, but I still think she knows more about Puerto Rican people than you know.
Tom