Puerto Rico heading for referendum on constitutional status
March 9, 2010 by Andrew McLeod · 14 Comments
Puerto Rico. Picture: Oquendo
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, is expected to introduce a bill this week that would granting Puerto Ricans a referendum on the island’s future status.
Puerto Rico has enjoyed a special relationship with the United States as a commonwealth since 1950, and residents have rejected a change in status in previous plebiscites. This time, critics say, the proposed referendum has been carefully crafted to push the statehood option through.
The Puerto Rico Democracy Act (HR 2499) is sponsored by Pedro Pierluisi, the Democratic Party commissioner in Puerto Rico to the US Congress. While Pierluisi says the referendum would be non-binding, critics say a US congressional seal of approval might make the transition to statehood unstoppable.
The Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association (PRSSA), which advocates Puerto Rico’s self-determination and “the enhancement of US citizenship through statehood”, is so confident that the bill will go through the House with ease that it is already seeking support from US senators.
“No other representative has ever garnered as much support for self-determination as Congressman Pierluisi,” said Raúl Vidal, president of PRSSA. “Because of this, we feel absolutely confident in attaining House passage and have decided to focus our time and resources on informing Senate members of the importance of self-determination and the virtues of this bill.”
The bill is not without its opponents on the US mainland. “While the bill is technically non-binding, in the sense that no legislation binds future Congresses from changes, it is hardly morally non-binding,” wrote Tim Schultz, director of government relations for US English in National Review Online.
“Puerto Ricans are born with US citizenship, and Congress would scarcely react to a vote for statehood in a congressionally sanctioned election with a shrug. If Congress issues what amounts to an invitation to vote for statehood now, only to change the terms of the deal later, it would be a slap in the face of American citizens that would draw international outrage.”
The Washington Times said in an editorial: “Rigging an election is nice work if you can pull it off. That’s what the Democratic majority in the US House of Representatives appears to be trying to do as it votes on the misleadingly named Puerto Rico Democracy Act, which is designed to confer statehood on the island commonwealth by hook or crook.”
The Times said that, because Puerto Rico leans towards the Democratic Party, “congressional Democrats pine after the two new senators and perhaps six new House members who would be added to their caucus if statehood passed. The Democrats’ solution is ingenious – and underhanded”.
The newspaper suggested the wording of the referendum was designed to confuse Puerto Ricans into opting for statehood rather than the status quo. It added that there was “nothing wrong with letting a free people occasionally reanalyse their governing status. Everything is wrong with dishonouring that free people by rigging the very democracy statehood is meant to celebrate”.
In the National Review Online, Shultz pointed out a language barrier to the granting of statehood to the island: “The deeply rooted preference for Spanish makes Puerto Rico’s 1993 elevation of English to ‘co-official’ status practically irrelevant … Congress should condition statehood on making English the sole official language, which would still allow Spanish translations for a population in transition while insisting on acceptance of the lingua franca of the Union”.
Related posts:
- Obama wins on healthcare but may lose in elections President Barack Obama was today revelling in an historic victory...
- Bush ‘to blame for US deficit’ em>The New York Times has hit out at Republican criticism...
I’d like to see a novel set in 2025, where Westminster (or “The Dis-UK” as it calls itself then)has a referendum to become the 52nd State.
Their ageing “Life President and Holy Czar” is The Venerable Anthony Blair. His son Ewen is First Minister of Dis-UK. Its probably a one-Party, one-Religion state – with wee statuettes of the much-lamented “Our Lady Cherie of Lucre” strategically placed arounf the City.
Up until the Referendum, Westminster was part of the “New Confederation” – a loose union of the 4 states (Westminster, Lichtenstein, Monaco and Vatican City) thrown out of the EC, the IMF and the UN in 2020 for offences against humanity and money laundering. Viewed as Pariah Rogue States by the civilised world, their economies collapsed following rigorous sanction in place for the past 5 years.
You heard it predicted here first …………………
Report This Comment
Already done Peter Preston “The 51st state” A good yarn even for an old leftie!!!
Report This Comment
Anything from other newspapers, which aren’t part of the conservative fringe press? What does, for example, the much more reputable (i.e., not founded by a cult-leader) Washington Post say about the matter? What about the New york Times? What does Time magazine say?
Your choice of source material is bizarre.
Report This Comment
So rather than quoting from the “conservative fringe press”, you want comment from the liberal press instead? More reputable? Was it not the New York Times that was caught making stories up?
The New York Times, the New York Time, and the Washington Post are all usually cheerleaders for whatever the Democrats (sic) want to do.
Report This Comment
Actually, the Washington Post has been described as a neo-conservative newspaper, and has been very critical of the current Presidency. Perhaps you last read the post in the 80s?
I don’t mind using source material from either side of the spectrum. After all, we want to hear a balance of moderate opinions, liberal or conservative. What’s important is that that material is reputable, and not simply a mouth piece for one or other party (the Review), or (in the case of the Washington Post) a global cult.
Report This Comment
First, National Review is anything but a mouthpiece for the Republicans. It is a journal for conservatives, which is not the same thing at all.
Second, I agree with you that there should be a balance quoted. In that the article was deficient. However, it needs to be recognsed that what is seen as “mainstream” media in the US by some analysts in this country e.g. New York Times, New York Time, have a decided liberal agenda and are not neutral or objective.
Thirdly, are you not partially confusing the Washington Post (the paper of Woodward and Bernstein) with the Washington Times (founded by Moonie leader)? I would agree that the Post has moved more to the centre since its days in the 1970s and 80s when it was unashamedly liberal in nature. In fairness it is now more balanced (it endorsed Obama and supports the war in Iraq, for example), and space is given both to liberals and conservatives. My earlier criticism was perhaps unfair.
Report This Comment
On your third point, yes, I was mixing up the Post and the Times. I’ll just reiterate, for clarity’s sake that the Post is the more reputable paper, the Washington Times less reputable, and it is the Washington Times that has been quoted in this article.
—
I think we may have to agree to disagree when it comes to liberal agenda in mainstream press, and also the status of the National Review.
—
I guess i want to read about more interesting issues around Puerto Rican statehood, such as the practicalities of incorporating a state where the GDP per capita is $5000 less than the poorest state, and half that of the US as a whole, which I expect other newspapers might address.
Report This Comment
I read each edition of New York Time and National Review, and they are a mirror image of each other. However, National Review makes no pretence at being other than a conservative journal, whereas New York Time still pretends to be balanced. It has the occasional token conservative or Republican piece, but the liberal attitudes of its staff writers shine through its so called new or analysis pieces.
So far, the print versions of both have ignored the referendum, although I seem to recall NR pointing out the politcal opportunism of the Democrats when they tried to do a similar thing for Washington DC.
Like you, I would like to see the practicalities of incorporating Puerto Rico discussed. I must confess when I heard about the recent Haiti earthquake, and the calls to rebuil, my first reaction was to incorporate Haiti in the US on a similar basis to Puerto Rico currently has. No idea if that would be popular in Haiti.
What is interesting about the bill and the proposed referndum wording is how similar it is to Alex Salmond’s proposed referendum question for Scotland.
Report This Comment
“Congress should condition statehood on making English the sole official language” (Tim Schultz)
That would be a rather odd condition given that there is no de jure official language in the US, nor in 21 of its constituent states.
However, this sort of statement is to be expected from a senior member of a lobby group for the use of English. I don’t see why his reaction is noteworthy or newsworthy — it certainly has little material relation to the proposed bill.
Report This Comment
Viva La Gringos!!!
Report This Comment
They could always hire the British Labour Party to rig their referendum.
Report This Comment
Statehood for Puerto Rico NOW!!!
Report This Comment
There’s a mistake in this article. It refers to us Puerto Ricans as “free people.” We aren’t. We’re colonial subjects and will remain as such, regardless what Puerto Rico votes for in a referendum.
Report This Comment
No matter what the politicians want, citizens of Puerto Rico are happy to continue living off the US taxpayers…Not meant to be controversial; just factual…:)
Report This Comment