When will anything move in regards to status? The answer is when all sides dare to deal with the status issue honestly and under the parameters of reality.

When all sides accept that Puerto Rico is a nation and that any status will have to recognize such reality then maybe real options can be put forth by Congress to the Puerto Rican people. And when all sides accept that Puerto Rico is currently under a territorial-colonial states then maybe we can all face the issues in question. Statehooders need to stop disguising our reality and pretending that our statehood would be as simple as that of the 50 states. None of those states were nations at the time of admission. Even Hawaii (which at one point was a nation) had diluted and blended into the larger Anglo-American melting pot when it became a state. Puerto Rican statehooders should be honest with themselves and have the nerve to petition for statehood under this reality. That is, ask Congress to accept a different kind of state, one that is a nation-state with a different language and culture. Congress shall then respond if they would accept a Quebec like state or if they will follow history and only admit territories that have been populated by north americans and have for the most part assimilated into the mainstream Anglo-America. My guess is Congress will follow history and will not venture into a new kind of Quebeq-like state similar to the one proposed by the PNP [jíbaro statehood].

Similarly commonwealthers should have the nerve to go to Congress and state that current commonwealth is unacceptable due to its territorial nature and demand the enhanced commonwealth formula they propose which. Congress shall then respond if they would accept this proposed commonwealth model. My guess is that, given the U.S. constitutional system, they wont venture into this enhanced commonwealth either.

So in the end we will probably only have two REAL choices:
1) statehood without nationality -that is, assimilating, in English (courts, public education etc) and admission will be acceptable only after Congress considers, as it did in Hawaii, that the territory was "American" enough to become a state.
2) Free Association as the only form of enhancing commonwealth - where Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation in association with the U.S. under a bilateral compact (similar to Micronesia, Palau).

Given these REAL options (no Jíbaro statehood or fictitious enhanced commonwealth) I believe Puerto Ricans, myself included, will chose Free Association. For most of us there is no sense in becoming a state if the end result will be a Caribbean Hawaii. Most Puerto Ricans would lean towards mainting our distinct nationality with some association with the U.S. However, this desicion can only be taken when Congress and P.R. political parties finally deal with the status issue in an honest way based on our reality. In the meantime we will continue to hear lies from both sides (ignoring reality and history) and Congress will sit back and continue its inaction in regards to our status.

whoever made the comment that our institutions are american institutions, and that our values are american values exclusively must live in shopping malls, eating at fast food restaurants. Myself, I attend Misa de Aguinaldos, Promesas de Campo and fiestas where they have puerco a la varita. Furthermore, our value of peaceful coexistance with our neighbors, is substantially different from the belligerant value of our NorthAmerican neighbors. How about the sensitive issues of cultural values. I imagine you are arguing we should adopt the anything goes mentality in the intimate issues of the bedroom.
Maybe you are refering to the value of the love to the almighty dollar. Democracy? (gringos do not have a patent on the institutions of democracy even if some statehooders may blindly believe so.)
Let me pose the following question?
Costa Rica and Chile, just to name two republics that are latino, have enjoyed a very satisfactory development in providing good quality of life for their citizens. Clearly if they become state of US their economic indicators would improve over what they presently have. Does anybody think that Costaricans or Chileans would like to have their country become a state?

My answer as a Puertorican first and foremost would be the same. It is not all about the dollars, the intangibles are more important. But we must work rowing together towards the same goal. Right now, unfortunately the majority in the legislature dominated by the most extreme right wing of the Pro-Assimilation Party are throwing grenades at our canoe. But I get the sense that will not be for long.

I would like to respond to Carlos comments, which are extremely ethnocentric. Belligerant North Americans is a phrase that catagorizes all Americans. Now if you want to say belligerant extreme Republicans. I would like to say to Carlos that I don't live in a shopping mall, I live in a house in New York to his dismay. My grandmother however lives in Aguada, and it is disgraceful to find out that she has to come back to New York because she needs to see a good dentist to fix her teeth. Puerto Rico's political institutions ARE American models, it is just a fact. Puerto Rico's bureaucracies ARE American models, including law enforcement and education for example. As your racist words put it, gringos don't have the patent on democracy, but give credit where credit is due in the invention of several democratic models. Your example of Costa Rica and Chile are cute but I'm sure that their independence vote isn't at 2% Carlos. Your right it's not all about the dollar, it's about our children's education and are senior's health. Your so close minded that you worry about nationality, when I worry about the deficit, education, health care, crime, etc. I care that people are being murdered in Puerto Rico and more cops are being killed in Puerto Rico then in Florida and New York combined. Since when do you have to sell out to provide the best for your children and parents. And to make a comment about a the legislature when the governor is one of the worst politicians I've ever seen goes to show that you should help yourself to a book. You selfishly care about your personal feelings and ethnocentric thoughts when you should be thinking about the well being of the children and seniors around you. If I live in a shopping mall you live in a hole.

Just one question, very brief b/c I know you have to get back to your shopping mall...What race are you referring to when you say my racist words? I will not school you about the definition of the word racism because I can surmise by your posting you are so well read.
But on more serious matters and to clear up misunderstandings, the example of Chile and Costa Rica is not meant to be cute, but as a reminder to those who think blue-eyed and blonde is better and that it should snow in Puerto Rico, that progress without the gringos is possible. That is all. Oh by the way I am a U.S. Marine and I understand belligerance very well, I can tell you that belligerance is a trait that is shared by more than just the Right wing extreme of the Republican Party. I am in the oven, you are speaking from the outside.
Sorry about your mother's medical situation. I am equally sorry that Rosello's medical reform could not provide for her.
Now I must go cause I got books to read. Oh by the way, caring about children's education in Puerto Rico. You heard of Troops to Teachers, that is what I will be doing when I finish this military obligation. I invite you to come back to Puerto Rico if you believe you have standing. Afterall it is easy to complain from the outside, come back to the oven and get your hands dirty.
Take care in NY and Hillary for 2008.

The use of the word gringo is unfortunately racist, even though it is used commonly. The race that it refers to is White. Godbless the accomplishments of the Costa Ricans and the Chileans in establishing stability in regions that are not known for stable governments, but you asked would Chileans and Costa Ricans want their nations to become a state? Those are two examples, however, that are not Puerto Rican. The Puerto Rican example, as shown in 1998, would show us that 46.5% of the population favored statehood. I am almost positive, judging from the last elections, that this number would increase if an election were held today. It is no more evident with Acevedo's refusal to sign the status bill earlier this year. He knows the direction Puerto Rico is going and he has known it for the last four years when he was selling out in Congress as resident commissioner. Progress is definitely obtainable without Anglo help, as seen with Japan and China. To this day I have not met someone of Puerto Rican descent that takes in Aryan ideology and thinks blonde hair and blue eyes is better. Furthermore, I have never met anyone that believes it should snow in one of the most beautiful climates on Earth. As a conservative Democrat I will tell you that there is no belligerance within our party. I'm conservative but most Democrats lean to the left. However, we believe in treating our neighbors with respect and oppose invasions of sovereign countries unless it is for a damn good reason. That reason better be good before we send peoples sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers into harms way. As a member of the armed forces I know you would respect this fact and also respect that Democrats value the trust of the men and women in the armed forces. Of course there are Republicans that share those same views that we do. However, the belligerance you talk about comes from politicians such as the president and others that dot the Republican party that believe they could feed corporate greed by invading countries under false pretenses. Attributing grandmother's medical condition due to Rosello's medical reform is a joke. I would credit her condition due to the fact that a good dentist that could have helped her probably relocated in central Florida. It's funny how you, and others as well, throw grenades at Rosello but complain when the legislature throws grenades at the most incompitent executive I have ever seen. I don't think Rosello is a saint, but you guys hammer this man and skip right over the previous administration who is to blame for todays problems. If your looking for belligerance Anibal can show you an example with how he dealt with the truckers. You shouldn't say that it is easy for me to complain from the outside when most of my family is on the inside. It is unfortunate I can't be in Puerto Rico today, but I don't need to be in Puerto Rico to help Puerto Ricans. Let not forget there is almost as many Puerto Ricans in the mainland as on the island. My attention is focused on the problems Puerto Ricans face. Whether it be in Puerto Rico or Osceola County, FL where Puerto Ricans are having trouble with civil rights. ..... Oh and I think Hillary will make a better president than her husband.

Puerto Rico's political institution are american model? Whoever states this is simply another uninformed individual who sees Puerto Rico just as another part of the U.S. without facing the realities of the nationality issue. See, in many people's minds the issue of nationality is reduced to flag waiving. They dont realize it encompasses deep and complex issues which are at the core of US-PR relations. You cant debate this issue by simply lumping Puerto Rico into to "american citizens" and "americans institutions"...it is clearly not the case. The blogger states "political institution are american"...Realy? Does this blogger know that our political process is more like the continental european parliamentary systems than the north american political system? In the US the political parties usually divide power since elections are held on a cyclical basis every two years so that there is an ongoing change in the government composition. In Puerto Rico, like most latin american and continental european countries, there is one general election every x number of years in which every position is up for re-election and usually one party sweeps the executive and legislative powers for the entire election cycle. Does this blogger know that our system of law is not based on the british "common law" which is in place in the United States? Rather our system is based on spanish "civil law". Our Civil Code is practically identical to Spain's civil code and Latin American civil codes. Does this blogger know that. All of these deep cultural and institutional issues are at the center of the nationality issue. Of course, to this we add the cultural matters which Carlos was talking about: our family values are completely different, the religion aspect is completely different in Puerto Rico etc etc. To state that Puerto Rico is simply "american" shows a lack of comprehension of the issues. Finding a solution to crime, health system, the deficit etc does not mean we should ignore the equally important issue of the defense of our nationality and way of life. Copying "american institutions" and "american concepts" does not in any way guarantee a solution to any of our problems. The only way we will solve our problems is coming up with solutions compatible with out reality. After all, if we give up our way of life in the process, then what is the point?

Mr. E,
You said it yourself, Puerto Ricans are having civil rights problems in Osceola Cty, Fl.
One of my wife's colleagues in Pediatrics was recently offered 185,000 a year plus a very nice housing stipend to work in a outpatient clinic in northern Texas. He turned it down and decided to stay in PR for about half of that. You know why, because this excellent doctor and caring family man is a native of Jordan and his last name happens to be Hussein. He is worried about the quality of life his children are going to receive somewhere in northern Texas.

That is not the US that the Constitution holds on paper. If you think for a minute that placing 6 or 7 Legislators in Washington DC and two Senators is going to change the mind of these people, I think your ambitions are a bit to elevated. I think we should focus at energy at home where we have enough problems just getting tribal leaders to smoke the peace pipe long enough to give citizens a respite from the present bickering.

I will not post much tonight because unfortunately I am drained out, but I'll definitely put something up tomorrow during the noon. Quickly to N, I would like them to please be careful of their statements on this post because with a degree in Political Science I know a lot about politics and I already see some of your information is absolutely FALSE. Lets stick to the truth here, your not pulling the wool over my eyes. As for Carlos, I am sorry to here about your friend. I too have been around people who were close minded and racist. These people unfortunately do exist, but I know a horde of others that are good people. People tend to forget God's people come in all shapes and colors. Fortunately society changes, and I'll post some statistics on positive changes tomorrow. ... I feel like if it's two agaisnt one guys

E...Which information that I've stated is false? Are you denying that Puerto Rico's legal system is based on Spanish Civil law? This is simply a FACT. I should know, I am admitted to the practice of law in Puerto Rico. If you desbelieve such assertion I suggest some courses at any of the island's law schools. Are you denying that a "shared government" like the one we have at the moment is extremely rare in Puerto Rico? This is simply another FACT. It has happened only 3 times in our history. In contrast to the US where the current situation (where one party controls executive power, senate and house) is what is rare. "Shared governments" in the US are very common, that is the way the US political cycle and system operates.
I agree with Carlos, sending 7 or 8 congressmen to DC wont solve ANY of PR's problems. We will still be without the necessary political powers to insert ourselves into the global economy (power to reach trade agreements with other nations, power to participate in regional organizations and associations, powers to open a succesful trading port etc).

To N: Puerto Rico's legislative branch is bicameral with each house having similar representation to that of the United States' legislative branch. The executive branch of the Puerto Rican government is a mirror image of the structure of the federal government. Bills are passed through government almost the same way in Puerto Rico as in the federal government. Puerto Rico's legislature doesn't resemble a parliamentary system. In the United Kingdom the chief of state is Queen Elizabeth II and the head of government is Tony Blair which is the leader of the majority party. In Puerto Rico the governor isn't even of the majority party. It is some times similar in the United States when one party controls Congress and the other party controls the White House. The legislative branch of the United Kingdom consists of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The most members in the House of Lords are not elected because they are life members. Name one Puerto Rican legislature that is a life member subject to no election. You said that Puerto Rico's government is like the parliamentary system, when these systems usually consist of a division of power among 3 or 4 consistent parties, sometimes more. In the United States the power is divided between Democrats and Republicans. The United States is what we call a two party system. In Puerto Rico the power is divided between the PPD and the PNP. So this means Puerto Rico is a two party system. You have third parties in both systems but they never win big elections. You stated that the United States is in a costant state of change every 2 years when there is barely any change in those elections. Most representatives hold firm grips over the districts. Every democratic nation holds an election every x amount of year. In the United States x happens to equal two or six for congress, depending on the house, and four for the president. In the United Kingdom that number is 5 years for members of the House of Commons. In the United Kingdom the government can dissolve and there can be an election at anytime. However, in Puerto Rico, as well as in the United States, you are stuck with who you elect until their terms expire. I am fully aware of the fact that Puerto Rican law is not the Enlish system, but are you aware of the fact that each of the fifty states has there own set of laws that are unique. N, the nationality issue is not an issue because the United States has many cultures that live in relative harmony. The United States has many cosmopolitan states within its' union. I'm not saying that Puerto Rican is directly American. Never once did I make that statement. I believe Puerto Rican is Puerto Rican and that would make it American because in America you don't have to give up your culture if you don't want to. I haven't given up my culture and nobody has come to my house to force me into any other form of culture. You attempt to make it seem as if statehood would result in Puerto Rico's culture being stripped away. This is a scare tactic used to selfishly pursue your own goals. You stated we should defend our culture and way of life but WHO is trying to take that from us. Nobody is giving up their way of life by pursuing statehood, but it is a CERTAINTY that more would be given up pursuing any form of independence. Now either your political intelligence is rather low or you are using this blog as posting of selfish propoganda. Whatever the case I'll have a rebuttal for any ludicrous posting you may put on this blog.

To Carlos: Yes Carlos Puerto Rican's are having the Civil Rights problem of fair representation in Osceola County but the federal government has intervened to rectify the situation. There are people in Texas, as well as in other states, that are a bit closeminded and can use 9/11 as an excuse to target people of Arab descent. Unfortunately I have heard of Puerto Ricans being a little rough on Dominicans in Puerto Rico (using as an example of our people doing it to another group). In all cases it is just wrong and there is no justification for it. Surverys in 1963 showed that 10% of whites thought it was ok for black/white relations. This number increased to 65% in 1994. From 1980 to 2003 there was a 22% increase in interracial marriages. Society is changing for the better in the United States. Sending 7 representatives to Congress will definitely have an impact. Are you aware of the fact that there are around 40 million Latinos in this country. What about the fact that there are 25 members of the House of Representatives that are Latino. The number is growing due to the concentration of Latinos in mostly ten states. You act is if Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico are alone in this world and forget about the almost identical number of Puerto Ricans in the states. You also forget that we are part of a Latino community that will consist of 25% of the country's population by 2050. I believe that would be an amazing sight to see representatives from Puerto Rico helping Latinos in California or Latino representatives from Florida helping Puerto Ricans on the island. My ambitions are not elevated Carlos there are just right considering the growing Latino representation in the United States. We SHOULDN'T focus on just our problems because I know our Latino community would take up our problems if we take up their problems.

E, I did not say that Puerto Rico had a parliamentary system of government. That is absurd. It obviously has a republican form of government so your efforts to instruct as to the differences between a parliamentary system and a republica style of government was wasted. If you read my post you will see that my reference was to the political/electoral nature of both places. In Puerto Rico, as in most Latin American and continental european democracies, elections are held every 4 or 6 years where all positions are up for re-election. Usually the result being a party sweep of executive and legislative control. Political parties in Puerto Rico and the rest of Latin America have a greater institutional role in the political/electoral process due to the nature of the systems. In fact, almost without exception the president of the political party is the candidate for highest office. In Puerto Rico one can vote for the party itself as an institution on the ballot. In the United States the electoral/political process is more focused on the individual candidates themselves and the parties do not have such institutional chareceter during the elections other than to serve as a candidate's affiliation. The chairman of the parties are unknown to most voters and the ballots are for individuals, not for parties.
You are incorrect in stating that Puerto Rico has a two party system. This fact just proves the information aforementioned. In the US individuals win seats in Congress irrespective of party affiliations. If all 50 elected senators happen to be elected republicans, so be it. Puerto Rican elecotral law calls for mandatory seats in the Legislature for all registered minority parties. The Legislature MUST have representation from all THREE parties irrepsective of election results. Puerto Rico is a three party system. In addition, to further my point, to have a place in the ballot under Puerto Rican election law a party must be registered and a candidate may not run under any non-registered party unless he accepts a partyless write-in nomination. All of this is greatly dissmiliar to the US electoral/political system and is based on our own political "caudillista" history and cultural dissimilarities with the US. A political party is a completely different term for an American than for a Puerto Rican. A party head is not comparable in each place. The election process and cycle in Puerto Rico is simply not 'American'.

As far as the nationality issue. It is not a scare tactic. The US moto is E pluribus Unum. "From many one". It is people from many cultures blending in to one mainstram anglo-american culture. You might be right in the sense that there are little cultural groups within the US, but these are usually imigrants whose culture cedes to the mainstream upon passing generations. Today you wont find many German or Irish speaking americans from old german and irish immigrantion waves. They have blended in. In America you dont have to give up your culture? Then if I may ask, what happened with Lousiana? Once french speaking and cultured, today completely anglo-american with the French Quarter architecture in the background as the only reminder. What happened to Hawaii? Once a polynesian NATION, today completely anglo-american with flower rings and a touristy commercialized "aloha" in the background. Less than 5% of "hawaiians" speak Hawaiian.

You ask, who is trying to take away our culture from us? STATEHOODERS who insist on denying our culture and language in the hopes of admission to the Union (which they know will not happen as long as we remain a Latin American Spanish speaking nation). They embarassingly replace our Spanish language with English (Guaynabo City Police, Bayamon City Hall, Hiram Bithorn Stadium), deny our nationality, try to hide our proud differences from the US, and begrudge "Puerto Ricannes".

Your comments reflect the typical statehooder who reduces his own nation to a mere "part of another", irrationaly fears sovereignity, glorifies the US to the point of absurdity, and denies our national reality. That is not only ludicrous but sad.

YOU KEEP STATING STATEHOODERS N, USE PNP. Please recognize the difference between me as a person and the PNP who advocates statehood. You can advocate statehood and not be a member of the PNP. The only reason why I ever defend the PNP is because some populares blame the problems of Puerto Rico on Rosello who hasn't been governor for almost 6 years. Both parties are flawed in Puerto Rico and people must not defend their party at all costs. Second, I am against English only and the assimilation of a group of people. Third, I do not glorify the United States, I am a huge critic of a good number of this countries policies. I would never reduce Puerto Rico, I only want the best for its' people. Last time I checked you need to receive 5% of the count to remained registered, is the PIP an exception to this? Since you have an extensive knowledge of Puerto Rican law I would like to know because I believe that I read that you needed 5%. I could tell that you are follow student by the amount of time we have on our hands to respond. I will check out that website and see if I could find something to agree with you on. This debate is tiring.

1) I do not defent my party at all cost. I often blast the PPD for not being bold enough to finally embrace free association which, if explained, would receive an overwhelming support amongs populares because it combines our aspirations as a NATION but maintains certain relations with the US which we believe are important (in a non-colonial manner)

2)If you are against the assimilation of a group of people you are in the wrong country. E plurbus unum: of many one. The history and culture of the US as a nation is one of immigrants assimilating into one big american family. Ask a Canadian what one of the biggest differences between Canada and the US is and they will reply that in Canada immigrants and groups retain their cultures while in the US they are assimilated into the mainstream.

3) By trying to reduce our status from a Latin American nation to a mere region of another you are in fact reducing Puerto Rico. By putting us in the same category as a New Yorker or a Floridian you are in fact reducing us to a simple geographical subdivision of another country. We are much more than a Wyominger or a Nebraskan...those are regions, Puerto Rico is a nation on itself (comaparable to the dominican nation, the mexican nation, the argentine nation etc).

4)You are partly correct as to the 5% issue. However, there are 2 ways under Puerto Rican electoral law that a party can register. First, by receiving at least 5% votes on the ballot for the PARTY itself (not the candidates). The second way is by obtainging an X amount of notarized affidavits and directly registering with the CEE (I cant recall the exact # but i think it is equivalent to what 5% of the electoral population would be, around 100,000). The PIP is no exception. They did not receive the 5% PARTY vote in last elections (although some of there candidates did) so they lost registrarion status. However, they re-registered in January after they gathered the required signatures and presented the affidavits to the CEE. Puerto Rico is NOT a two party system.

5) I hope you like the website.

Assimilation is not forced in America, so I believe I am living in the correct country. If you believe there is one gigantic American culture you are wrong. This misconception that people have is sometimes due to television (mtv, media, etc.) that portrays its' content in a certain way. The reality is that America is a grouping of regional cultures more than it is a gigantic culture. I invite you to visit New York or Miami and see if your statements hold up. I don't understand how your arguments are for defending a Latin American nation, but Puerto Rico has never been a Latin American nation. Your words are phrased to give an impression of something that was there and was now stolen. You are not defending a nation you just desire one. You forget that Puerto Rico is a part of the United States by choice. How is becoming part of the union a reduction of Puerto Rico instead of an improvement of the current situation? What cultural difference would statehood have that our current situation doesn't? We are U.S. citizens and our soldiers fight along side men from the states. What difference would statehood have when we have already maintained our uniqueness under the U.S. flag for over a hundred years? Our current situation can improve if we receive our fair share of grants that every state receives. Please do not cross your desire to become a nation with a reduction of Puerto Rico. More funding in vital areas is an improvement, not a reduction. Being able to vote for your head of state is an improvement, not a reduction. Continuing are cultural presence in the United States is not a reduction. I believe belongs, and makes a great addition to the cosmopolitan society of the United States. I believe Puerto Rico makes an excellent addition in the 2nd largest Latino population in the world. Puerto Rico would make a great state. I am sorry but these views cannot be seen as reductions.

Clearly you have no understanding of what a nation is. As with other statehooders you incorrectly associate NATIONALITY with SOVEREIGNTY. One has nothing to do with the other. You can have a nation that is not sovereign (nations without a state) and you can have a sovereign state without a nation. For example, Tibet is a NATION without a state. It is not sovereign because it is under Chinese rule, but it is a nation. The Palestinians are also a nation without a state. Quebeq is a nation without a state. On the other hand you have sovereign states, like The Vatican, that are NOT nations because they dont conform to the characteristics of a nation. Puerto Rico IS a nation albeit without a state. Our nationality has NOTHING to do with status or sovereignity
...nationality just is. We were a nation before the Americans arrived in our shores and we remain one today thanks to our resistance to assimilating to the Americans. And if the US handed us over to the Chinese tomorrow we would still be a nation. Claiming that Puerto Rico is not a Latin American nation is absurd. What makes the Dominincans more of a nation than Puerto Rico? What makes the Venezuelans more of a nation than Puerto Rico? Remember, sovereignity has nothing to do with natioanlity. Being Puerto Rican is the equivalent of being Cuban, or Mexican or Dominican. It is not the equivalent of being a North Dakotan or a Idahoan. Those are mere regionalities within a broader nationality: American. Categorizing Puerto Rico as a mere regionality of another nation IS in afact reducing its status because you are denying the existence of our nation.

I have been to NY many times and have travelled the US allover. You are dillusional if you think the US as a "nation of nations". It has its regional differences of course, but as I said before, you can be in Seattle, Miami, Honolulu or Anchorage and there is a common American element which is simply not present in Puerto Rico. You say there is no "american" culture?...I ask you, when do you ever hear a person say, "he has become kansasized" or "californianized"? Never. However, the word "americanized" is everpresent to describe a person who has adapted to the US way of life, culture, language and symbols.
Puerto Rico is a nation and will continue to be until Puerto Ricans see themselves as a part of a broader sociey. That happened to Hawaii where today hawaiian is simply a regionality, they have integrated and assimilated to the US nation.
You ask a person from florida, hawaii or utah "what is the flag of your country?" They will respond, the US flag. However, you ask a Puerto Rican, what is the flag of your country? They will say the Puerto Rico flag. That my friend is the clearest example of nationhood: identifying yourself as one group of people (distinct from all others) who share a history, a culture, a language and a common future. In the US people identify themselves as Americans and with the US as a nation, its symbols, its history etc. People see themselves as "americans", not as washingtonians or arizonas. Those are simple regional categories equivalent to saying san juanero or mayagüezano. The national identifying group for Puerto Ricans is Puerto Ricans. We dont see ourselves as part of any broader entity, we dont feel "we" have won when an American wins a sporting event, we dont feel "we" are at war with iraq, we dont feel "we" gained independence in 1776, we dont feel alluded to when others say "americans" (in fact we ourselves call people from the US americans to differentiate them from "us" Puerto Ricans) etc etc. Stating that Puerto Rico is not simply incorrect factually but it is another attempt by the statehooders to deny our reality ...as if they could cover the sky with one hand.

N, I know we definitely identify ourselves as Puerto Ricans, but in the U.S. who doesn't identify themselves. If you ask an Italian person in the states what they are, they will respond by saying they are Italian. This is similar to how Puerto Ricans will proudly respond as Puerto Ricans. However, Puerto Ricans do not want a sovereign status. I have been on the phone with my family, and as I said before people who have been for the commonwealth status are now in line with statehood. It was of no surprise that Acevedo-Vila vetoed the bill earlier this year. I am convinced that a sound majority of Puerto Ricans would vote for statehood once the commonwealth option is terminated. Your aspirations for Puerto Rico are honorable in their visions for Puerto Rico, but are not within the realities of Puerto Rico. Assaulting the statehood option on grounds of the reduction of Puerto Rico is wrong. Our status option leads to self determination, as well as yours, and is also honorable, as well as yours. It i

This is very enlightening. A couple of facts:
• a person born in Puerto Rico is American
• Puertorrican does not exist
• thousands of Americans from Puerto Rico have died for “Old Glory” and its way of life

So, in reviewing these facts the options are:
• teach English to every student at all levels
• eliminate the Macondo activities like Olympic Team, Miss Universe, etc
• become the 51st of the Union

I hate to be the one breaking the news to you, but the Populares and the Independentistas (and their purchased friends in Washington) have become millionaires at the expense of the people who live in Puerto Rico.

For those of us whom enjoy statehood, life is good and opportunities abound. For the ones that have stayed in Macondo life could be much better. I encourage you to join the rest of your countrymen: become a state, get voting representation in Washington, vote for the Commander in Chief, and leave behind the victimization by proxy mentality that the PPD and PIP have conditioned you to think.

Flag: The official flag of Puerto Rico is "Old Glory".

Nation: Puerto Rico's nation and nationality is the United States of America and American. (if you don't believe me, look at your passport)

And for those who don't identify with the Independence War (1776), the Civil War, the Pledge of Allegiance, and everything that makes you American, then I suggest you invest in an immersion course for you and your family.

To think there are Americans that prefer to think of themselves as something else defies logic. Every year millions of people from around the world risk their lives for the opportunity to one day have their children be Americans. That is the ultimate testament to what being an American is all about: sacrifice, commitment, and pride.

Be proud of your heritage, embrace it, and become one with your country. You are an American.

E, im sure in the US people describe themeslves as irish or italian etc. but they all consider themselves AMERICANS. Those are just backgrounds. In Puerto Rico people identify themselves as Puerto Ricans, period. Most do NOT consider themselves AMERICAN. Comments such as J's are exactly what I am talking about when I refer to statehooders. Most people in Puerto Rico laugh at those comments or feal a strange sense of embarassment for the person stating them. It is frankly pathetic and only a few in Puerto Rico (like Miriam Ramírez and Orlanda Parga) would ever say such embarassing remarks. If they did they would be mocked in radio, television, and newspapers because people would htink they are derranged and pathetic individuals who think they are actually americans. If you dont believe me there is even a radio character who comes on at 5 pm in one of the evening talk shows called "don eleuterio"...he is an eccentric old man who sees himself as an american, sings the star spangled banner (albeit with broken english), covers himself around the american flag, calls washington his "founding father", roots for the US teams against Puerto Rico, denies everything puerto rican (like J does) etc.
People laugh at this...it is fictional. That goes to show how (US passports or not) Puerto Ricans simply do NOT see themselves as Americans or identify themselves with US symbols, history or society. That is the truth, like it or not.
Polls have shown that 70% of Puerto Ricans consider their NATION to be Puerto Rico, not the US. (This obviously also includes many statehooders since they are around 45% of the populace). It is sad to see how some are so ignorant that they cant distinguish between nationality and citizenship. Sadder though is to see how statehooders will deny themselves as J just stated saying Puerto Rican doesnt exist. That is the sad state of statehooders, denying themselves and their nation. People like that in Puerto Rico are laughed at and called "don eleuterios".
J we will NEVER embrace the US as our nation. We respect the US as a neighbor and a friend of democracy and human rights...but it is simply not our nation. We dont identify with the US independence war because we had NOTHING to do with it. No course will change that. Like it or not Puerto Rico has its NATIONAL flag and NATIONAL anthem and you can see our flag flying proudly in international events like the olypimcs. It is the flag people wave when they feel patriotic. It is our anthem that is sung when our people triumph. You might not like it, but its our reality. Deal with it.

N., thank you for your comments. First, thank you for your service to the country. We Americans are grateful for your service. I also commend you in your plans on becoming a teacher to help educate our young men and women.

I read with interest your writings and noticed that, although emotional, you were unable to refute the facts I presented. You may call it pathetic, I call it reality. If you think you’re not an American, then renounce your citizenship. (Let me know how it goes – Juan Mari Bras did it and then couldn’t figure what I meant)

You mention that most people laugh at those comments; the reality is that most people in Puerto Rico don’t understand the differences because they’ve never been able to see anything else firsthand. Case in point: the people that have moved to Florida, when polled have a vast different opinion than they had when they lived in Macondo.

You said it’s ignorant to be unable to distinguish the difference between citizenship and nationality. So I did some research, in case I made a mistake. Here are the facts:

Nation:
a community of people or peoples organized under a single government
Citizenship:
the legal status of being a citizen of a country

Facts speak louder than words: Puerto Rico is organized under the government of the United States of America. Citizenship for those people born in Puerto Rico is provided by the constitution of the United States of America.

I agree with you that there is a sad state of affairs when we let emotion take over reason and facts. Although well written, you fail to present factual information when criticizing my comments. All I ask you to do is present factual points to counter mine, or at least say that although the facts are correct, emotionally you feel different.

It’s ok to feel that you are not an American. In fact, I support a process by which people who live in Puerto Rico can choose between statehood and independence. I do not support the “I respect you, you’re our neighbor, let us keep the passport, and let us decide the rest” mentality. Take it or leave it, but anything else is un-American.

Please give us facts that will help us see a factual counterpoint.

J

J, Thanks for yor comments. I welcome good debate. You conveniently only use one of the three possible definitions of thw word NATION. Most certainly a nation is a 1) "a community of people or peoples organized under a single government". A Nation is also defined as, 2) the government of a sovereign state. and three 3) A PEOPLE WHO SHARE COMMON CUSTOMS, ORIGINS, HISTORY AND/OR LANGUAGE TO THE DISTINCTION OF ALL OTHERS; nationality. Puerto Rico may not be a nation in the sovereign definition you mention but as you can see nationality is NOT only defined but sovereignity. Today many nations are usually identified with an independent state (a nation state). During the 19th and 20th centuries the idea that each nation deserved its own state gained momentum throughout the world and today most nations have a sovereign state. However, there are still today however MANY nations
without a state. Examples: The Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, Tibetans in China, Palestinians, Quebeqers in Canada etc. Many incorrectly use terms such as nation, country, and states as synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single independent government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state. In reality, however, a nation denominates a people in contrast to state which implies sovereignity.
This is not emotional, as you claim, it is just a fact. Only people who are not really informed of the international state of affairs would believe that the word "nation" is limited to sovereign states. Again, this has nothing to do with citizenship. I can renounce US citizenship, keep it, become a chinese citizen, become an australian citizen, or have no citizenship at all and I will still be Puerto Rican. From you research you should have seen this. Citizenship is "legal status", nothing more. It has nothing to do with ones nationality. Recently, Angelina Jolie became a Cambodian citizen. That does not make her Cambodian! She remains American (even if she were to renounce her US citizenship and keep the cambodian one). She just has the legal status of a Cambodian citizen.
Another correction, citizensip for those born in Puerto Rico is NOT provided by the US consitution. In contrast to those born in the US, whos citizenship is constitutionally derived, those born in Puerto Rico have citizenship derived from specific statutes of law, not the constitution.
People in Puerto Rico DO understand the concepts of nationhood and sovereignity. It is only some recalcitrant loones in the statehood party who go around claiming to be americans based on a passport. You mention this changes when they move to the US? That seems logical, they become americanized and create a bond with their new nation. They integrate. It happens to all immigrants across the world. In the US they are Puerto Ricans but they also feel American. In Puerto Rico we are Puerto Ricans, period. Not because we dont understand, but because it our reality.
Lastly, I dont know exactly what you mean when you say un-american. That means the same to me as saying something as anti-spanish, or anti-algerian. Who knows??...However, I dont why it is difficult to grasp that most of us Puerto Ricans have good feelings towards the US. We believe the US is a good country, vibrant democracy and a place that respects human rights and treats people with dignity (for the most part). However, this does not mean we consider it to be our nation, nor do we want to integrate further into it. Association, allies, close relationship..yes. Our nation? certainly not. Our flag? One, la monoestrellada. Our anthem? One, La Borinqueña. I always point to this example to illustrate this point to people who just dont seem to grasp this concept, or dont want to. If you ask a person in the US (any state, any race, any sex) "what is the flag of your COUNTRY?" they will quickly choose Old Glory. Ask that question in Puerto Rico and they will quickly point towards La Monoestrellada. This is a fact. And it is our national reality.

N, thank you. Since i was born and raised in PR, I can say to you that:
1. I'm an American
2. The Jones Act was an enabler for two things:
• The Spanish citizens living in PR would become Americans unless they informed the US Government otherwise
• All others born from March 2nd forward would be covered under Article 2 of the US Constitution
(if you don’t believe this, ask Juan Mari Bras why the US State Department reversed itself after grating his request to renounce his US Citizenship)
3. Because I was born in PR after March 2, 1917, I can run for President of the United States because everyone born in PR after that date is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. (if you don’t believe me, refer to the previous explanation)
4. no you can’t renounce YOUR the US citizenship and still live in PR (there are more than once case that establish this precedent)

By the way, the technical explanation for this is that the relationship is between the governments of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (Virginia is a Commonwealth of the Union). Given that fact, the unique situation relating to representatives in the US Congress and election for President apply to any US Citizen living in PR, regardless of that person’s place of birth.

You might ask: Why is all this important?

The choice for the Americans living and voting in Puerto Rico (not those from Puerto Rico) is clear. Become a State of the Union or be independent. Why? Because, the status quo in which the island has lived to date hasn’t worked, it’s not working today, and will get worse in the future.

Why isn’t it working: political leaders have used English language education (lack thereof) as a tool to disenfranchise the common people. You might say, “prove it”: All we have to do is look at the educational background of PNP, PPD, PIP, and PSP leaders to find the best schools money can buy from across the world (Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Stanford, Tulane) and all the local grammar, middle and high schools. So, they speak English well, have attended the best schools money can buy, yet get in power and make rules to keep everyone else from achieving the same goals. (of course, education is just one example)

Why not keep the “ELA”? The definition of insanity is that we do what we did before and expect different results in the future. So if it hasn’t worked by now, chances are pretty high it won’t work in the future.

Is there an answer to all this? Yes

The Americans who live in Puerto Rico must stand tall, and make some decisions for themselves. How can such thing be done? Challenge the status quo, elected people who are committed to a bright future, and let the rest of the world know what you want. If you decide to be a State, then lets start the journey. If you decide to be independent, let’s start that journey.

At the end, the “Ay Bendito” has to stop. It’s counterproductive and it’s creating a society of dependency that promotes crime, less economic opportunity, and second class citizenship.

I think you can agree that I’m only advocating the same thing you are (from an obvious different perspective); resolution of the century old identity problem.

Be proud of who you are: an American born in PR (no different than the one born in HI, AK, or NY), and help lead the undeniable right to choose and resolve the identity. At the end, help lead change to choose statehood or independence.

J

I am proud of who I am...a Puerto Rican, period. You should be as well instead of denying yourself by claiming to be American. You cant be Puerto Rican and American at the same time unless you reduce being Puerto Rican to a mere regionality of the US. (That is comparing being Puerto Rican to being a Nebraskan or a Floridian). I am clear that that is simply not an option for me. For me Puerto Rican is not simply a subdivision of another nation. It is the nation and I pledge alliegance to no other. Puerto Rican , period. And that has nothing to do with citizenship or not, it is irrelevant. Why are you giving facts about citizenship? As I mentioned to you before having US citizenship does not make you an American. If I became a Sweedish citizen tomorrow, which I could because my wife is Sweedish, it doesnt mean I am Sweedish or European. It means Im a Puerto Rican with a Europ passport. Just the same way with us, we are Puerto Ricans who at the moment happen to have US citizenship by statute.We are puerto ricans with US passports(different to residents of the US who are americans with american citizenship). As you well stated, maybe without knowing, Puerto Rico's US citizenship is derived from STATUTE, not constitutionallly. Meaning Congress can take it away simply be revoking the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act you just mentioned. Residents of states do not have statutory citizenship, their US citizenship is derived from the constitution. So before claiming to be more American than George Washington be aware of that fact.
I agree with you on one thing. The current ELA is absurd and it must be changed to a real Free Associated State (Free Association). Statehood is the exact same thing as the ELA only with 6 or 7 congressmen and the right to vote in US elections. I frankly have no interest in voting for the President of the US, or the president of Mexico, or the Spanish Primer Minister etc. You are out of touch with Puerto Rico's reality. Saying in Puerto Rico that we are "americans from puerto rico" would simply bring confused looks are plain mocking. You may claim we are "americans" but the truth is that is a hard sell even on many statehoders (who are statehooders just for the money, not because the feel american). Not recognizing this social reality is a big problem statehooders have beacuse they want to hide Puerto Rico's reality (tapando el cielo con la mano).

N, thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Congress can't take your citizenship away. You may not believe it, but the Jones Act only defines the relationship between the Federal and Commonwealth governments. (Facts are behind this legal reality, however, if you think otherwise, please present your facts) yes, I know the technical aspects of the Jones act, thus I present its facts. Your legal theory that US citizenship for those born in PR can be taken away by an act of congress is outright wrong. At most, Congress may pass a law that will separate Puerto Rico from the United States. (Congress is the only entity in the world that can make Puerto Rico a nation) Such law will likely contain provisions for the US citizens living in PR at that time, to decide which citizenship they would keep. (You see, if the decision is personal, then Congress is not taking it away, but it’s only providing the framework for people to decide)

I’ve proven this point to you with facts, but just to be sure here they are again: When Juan Mari Bras (the American University trained Socialist leader) attempted to make the case that he was Puertorrican and not American, by renouncing his US Citizenship and staying living in PR, the State Department laughed at him and said “Sorry pal, if you don’t want to be an American, move to another nation”.

What does that mean? It means simply one thing: if you were born in PR after March 2, 1917 you’re a natural born citizen of the United States and the citizenship is derived by Article 2 of the Constitution of the Unites States. (No, US citizenship for those born in PR is not derived from statue, if it were, Mari Bras would have been successful in his quest.)

You and everyone else born in PR after March 2, 1917 (including me) is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. An American. You don’t have to like it, you may call yourself Puertorrican, you may even think you are part of different nation, however, do not scare people into thinking they are second class citizens. Individual people may think that way of themselves, but that doesn’t make it a fact. And as a future teacher, you have the moral obligation to make sure the young minds you’ll influence have the facts and not your version of the truth.

I hate to be the one to inform you that Puerto Rico is not a nation. Puerto Rico is like any other state. Can Puerto Rico be independent? Sure, just like Texas can be independent.

I’d like to point out, that your well delivered thoughts do not address any of the facts I presented. They only address your emotions. Emotions are very important but they should not be used to, as you say, to “tapar el cielo con la mano” and spin personal desires and opinions into “truths”.

I believe your conviction to be sincere; however, that doesn’t make it true.

Frankly, I’m surprised that you think I’m out of touch with the political reality of Puerto Rico. I go to PR often, speak to a lot of people (not the rich and well to do), and have never had a conversation in which someone didn’t think that resolution of the political question of PR is important, that the politics of “Ay Bendito” have not worked, and that change must be achieved.

Now that we have dealt with facts, I’ll share with you my personal views:

Free Associated State (FAS) or the current ELA are convenient ways to have your cake and eat it too. Guess what, I’d be the first in line to tell congress that there are two options: Statehood or Independence. Why? FAS is a way to conveniently keep all the good things of the US (like the universally recognizable US passport that comes with the might and force of the United States of America) and conveniently renounce the ones that people don’t like (like being an American). From my point of view, FAS is a slap on the face to the millions of Americans (and some foreigners serving our Country), from across the country, which have fought and died to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States since 1776. I’ll be the first one to object to having my tax dollars support such aberration.

I say take it or leave it. My tax dollars are behind it. My political contributions are behind it. I’m an advocate for self-determination. The future is clear, the options are simple. Be an American or be Puertorrican. But Puertorrican by American citizenship. Nope, won’t support it.

J

J, I am not speaking on emotions, I have given you facts...But here are some more in correction of your arguments.

1. You are wrong in regards to the US citizenship of Puerto Ricans. Puerto Rico’s US citizenship is not equivalent to that of the US citizenship of the states and the Supreme Court of the US has ruled on this matter in numerous occasions. Here is the LEGAL reality of Puerto Rican citizenship with the facts you requested:
The present STAUTORY U.S. citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico does not arise from or exist by virtue of the Constitution, or the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act pursuant to which that local constitution was instituted (P.L. 81-600). Eligibility of persons born in Puerto Rico for U. S. citizenship results entirely from an exercise of congressional discretion. Statutory citizenship initially was prescribed by the Organic Act of Puerto Rico ("Jones Act", 39 Stat. 461 March 2, 1917). In 1940 Congress amended the territorial organic act by removing the provisions governing the citizenship status of Puerto Ricans and included that statutory citizenship in Section 202 of the Nationality Act of 1940. When the Constitution of Puerto Rico was being approved in 1952, Congress again revised the statutory U.S. citizenship provision for Puerto Ricans in Section 302 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The revision of U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans was codified at 8 U.S.C S 1402, and Congress has chosen not to amend that provision further since 1952.
The Constitution states under Article XIV " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Puerto Ricans have the right to acquire US citizenship based on birth (just like states) only because 8 USC 1402 (a statute) so states. U.S. citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico is a matter governed by U.S. laws enacted by Congress unilaterally. Congress CHOSE to allow US citizenship without further restriction than birth in the territory. The fact that Congress chose to provide citizenship to those born in Puerto Rico does NOT change the fact that such entitlement comes from a statute (8 USC 1402). Congress could unilaterally amend 8 USC 1402 to the effect that citizenship will no longer be established by birth Puerto Rico.

Furthermore, it is clear from a history of Supreme Court decisions that Puerto Rico is under territorial status and therefore the US constitution does not apply in full to the island.
Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957) - endorsed the incorporation doctrine, noting that certain constitutional safeguards were not applicable to the territories.
Harris v. Rosario - 446 U.S. 651 (1980) - held that the Territorial Clause governs the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico.The Court reasoned that Congress, pursuant to its Territorial Clause powers, can constitutionally provide less federal assistance to the Puerto Rican statutory citizens as compared to the United States constitutional citizens.

Even the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that "absent recognition of full and equal Fourteenth Amendment citizenship, the statutory citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico could be modified or by Congress." Unfortunately for you, the law is not on your side and you err when you compare Puerto Rico to ordinary Americans.

Nevertheless, these are arguments of citizenship and nationality issues. What you don’t seem to finally grasp is that irrespective of citizenship Puerto Ricans are a nation (contrary to US states). Congress has nothing to do with Puerto Rico’s status as a nation or not. You confuse sovereignity with nationhood. Nationality is a historical and cultural concept not restrained by political aspects of sovereignity and citizenship. As I stated before there are many “nations without a state” and these are so recognized by the international community and international law. Puerto Rico was already a nation when the US invaded and it remains today despite not having sovereignity. One thing has nothing to do with the other. That is why reducing Puerto Rico’s debate in comparing it with Nebraska or Idaho is unrealistic because these are not nations. Puerto Rico is.

2) When I meant you are out of touch with PR I meant you refuse to see that Puerto Rico’s case is not as simple as statehood for Alaska or Arizona. These were territories filled with Americans, in every sense of the word. They were not nations. The issues there were simply citizen’s rights. Puerto Rico’s case is completely dissimilar. It is a nation with a people inhabitting the territory long before the US possessed it and its identity, language, culture and national reality has not changed or adapted to the US. There is for the most part no attachment to the US or its symbols. The US has not dealt with a Quebeq like situation in any of its statehood petitions. Our national reality is a fact which statehooders need to accept and not hide.

3) FAS is just as valid as independence or statehood and the US has three FAS’s today! It is a mutually beneficial relationship, it is not one way. You might not accept it but then again I will never accept statehood or anything that will reduce Puerto Rico’s status further in the international arena and result in the death of our nation ala Hawaii . Am I willing to sacrifice US passports for FAS? You bet.

(By the way, Texas can not become independent. Once a state always a state. It is not a nation so it does not enjoy the international rights of self determination. Puerto Rico, as a nation, has the right to self determination and such issue is addressed at the UN each year.)

J, I invite you to read Marice Ferre's article that appeared today in El Vocero in regards to the issue of the Akaka Bill and Puerto Rico. You will be able to see how even some statehooders are clear on the issue of Puerto Rico's national reality. Some statehooders dont try to hide this issue, like you do, pretending we are ordinary "americans" and pretending that Puerto Rico's situation is comparable to anything that the US has ever had to face in previous statehood admissions. Some are aware of the unique Quebeq like situation Puerto Rico presents given this nationality issue (which is absent in any US state). However, he does not shy away from statehood and advocates the concept of a "nation-state" (different from normal states) whereby the political rights and responsibilities of statehood are achieved BUT only after US recognition that the P.R. is a nation and would enter the union as a different kind of state: a "nation-state". He believes that within the union there is room for a nation like Puerto Rico to achieve the status of a state, as a nation. In fact, he calls for the concept of "nation within a nation". Of course he recognizes that such proposition of Puerto Rico as a "nation-state" is not a given and it might be that the US will not embrace or venture into this new form of statehood. This is a statehooder with his feet on the ground. He accepts the OBVIOUS, Puerto Rico's status as a nation, and yet still advocates statehood based on this reality (not hiding it...as if one could anyway). Statehooders who demand statehood based on the recognition of our nationhood have my respect and admiration because they know their proposition will likely confront serious obstacles in Washington. However, they proudly accept Puerto Rico's national reality, they dont try to hide it, and they are willing to embrace statehood as long as it is under the recognition and understanding that we wont be just "another state", we would be a "nation-state". I'm sure if the US doesnt accept the proposition of the "nation-state" statehooders like Maurice would turn to other options (like free association) whereby Puerto Rico's national reality can be reconciled with a close relationship with the US. Accepting statehood by denying our nationality and embrasing assimiliation is simply not an option for them. That is an honest statehooder, with his feet on the ground, in touch with Puerto Rico's national reality, proud of his Puerto Ricannes, and unwilling to deny it for any status. Puerto Rican first, then status. To him my respects...

N, thank you for your notes.

Your description of the various laws and respective Congressional actions regarding Puerto Rico’s government is accurate. Your analysis of what it means is inaccurate. The laws and respective changes relate to the relationship between the Federal and Commonwealth governments. (you provide facts to support this point in your comments – and I agree with it) Those laws have nothing to do with citizenship once it’s obtained. Everyone born in a territory is a natural born citizen of the Unites States of America as defined in Article 2 of the Constitution.

So, we are in agreement that what’s required is change in the relationship between the Federal and Commonwealth government.

FAS is unworkable. I support whatever option those who live in PR choose from Statehood to Independence. But the “maybe I’ll be this, but don’t make me do that” mentality is not an answer I’ll support.

I commend you for you conviction and for feeling the way you do. If you and the others in PR don’t want to assimilate, that’s fine by me. In fact, Congress could pass a law, making PR a country, provide a mechanism for the US citizen living to contact the new US Embassy in the old RR Naval base, and establish whatever agreements are convenient to the US taxpayer. Treat it like any other third world country.

I’ll happy hanging out at Martha’s Vineyard and looking at the news of the Macondo Republic.

By the way, yes, Texas (or any other state) can undo their Statehood and become independent. However, no one in their right mind would do it.

J, I believe we are both in agreement as to the citizenship issue except we are looking at it from different angles. You are in fact correct in stating that once citizenship is obtained it will not be revoked because you were born in Puerto Rico. There are Supreme Court cases dealing precisely with this issue. It is understood that under any policy adopted by Congress, the US citizenship that has previously been granted to individuals already born in Puerto Rico cannot be regulated or terminated in violation of due process of law, and equal protection of other fundamental rights. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964). That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that Puerto Rico’s US citizenship (in the collective sense of the word, not in reference to individuals who already obtained it) is in fact revokable in the sense that Congress may prospectively limit the ways of acquiring US citizenship in Puerto Rico. For example, Congress may unilaterally amend the Nationality Act to read, for example, as follows: “from January 1, 2006 citizenship will not be acquired upon birth in Puerto Rico. Those born in the territory will acquire citizenship upon reaching the age of one year by transmission through their US citizen mother or father”. This is the clearest example that our citizenship is statutory because it is derived from a law (that is changeable), not the constitution (which is not changeable). The fact that right now the LAW that deals with citizenship for those born in Puerto Rico happens to equate the method of acquiring it to that of constitutional citizenship (i.e.by birth) does not change the fact that it is derived from a statute and not the constitution. A change in the relationship between the ELA and the federal govt is not required to change the Nationality Act which grants citizenship to those born in Puerto Rico. Congress can act unilaterally in its plenary powers in regards to governing a territory. Of course a change in the relationship is what most likely would bring about a change to the Nationality Act, but it not need be so. Given this reality constitutional scholares have long depated whether Puerto Rican's are considered "natural born" and if the would be eligible to run for president. This matter has not been decided by the courts and it is up for debate. In my view we are not natural born because the basis for our citizenship by birth is a statute (changeable) and not the constitution. However, I do recogize this argument is debatable and is not yet settled by the courts. The one thing that is a certain is the statutory nature of our citizenship.

FAS is very workable. In fact it is operational in Micronesia, the Marshall Island, and Palau and the compacts of FAS were renegotiated as recently as 2002. FAS it not “maybe ill do this, and maybe I wont do that”. If you read the compacts you will note that there is no “maybe”...Every aspect of the relationship is clearly detailed and negotiated between both parties. For example, the islands WILL, as agreed, provide their airspace to the US. The US WILL, as agreed, be responsible for defense. The islands WILL, as agreed, use the US dollar as currency. The US and the Islands WILL have free trade of goods. The island residents WILL be allowed to move freely between the islands and the US. The islands ARE sovereign. Etc. There is no MAYBE. It is all negotiated and governed by a compact, mutually beneficial to both nations. Under the compacts there is no “make me do this”, it is all bilateral and voluntary agreements. They are sovereign nations (not maybe) with a mutually beneficial association based on the recognition of sovereignty. But in the end it is not up to you to decide what PR’s options of status will be, and the fact that you don’t support FAS does not mean it is not a viable option just as valid as statehood or independence.

A third world country? Unlikely. With FAS we will have the sovereignty needed to develop our economy in this globalized international reality of the 21st century. When you see the news of our nation prosperous and booming and taking its rightful place in the Caribbean and the world Im sure you will feel a sense of pride even though you may have already adopted a new nation as your own. Im sure your patria will always have a place for you when you decide to return.

N, thank you.

You're correct. In fact, you make the point I've been illustrating. The issue has everything to do with the statue that creates the relationship between the Federal and Commonwealth governments. However, that does not mean that mine or your citizenship is by statue. In fact, citizenship (natural, nationalized) is only derived from the Constitution through the enabling legislations. Other than the 13 colonies, all citizenship is enabled by legislation (read states and territories added to the Union) and derived from the constitution.

I'm extremely familiar with the compacts you mentioned, and the workings to make this happen. The most important enabler is their strategic location to promote US interests.

I'm sure we can agree that in recent years PR leaders have bent over backwards to promote everything viewed as anti-US and pro special and different treatment. Thus, it may sound good to think of a compact, but the opportunity has come and gone for the foreseeable future.

Thank god it's not up to me to decide Macondo's future. People there couldn’t stand it:

• everyone would learn English, and at least three more languages from pre-k onward (why – to participate in the global economy – yes, English is the universal language of business, ask the Chinese)
• people would be in charge of the public school system (none of the centralized system that only serves the Blue, Red, and Green politics of the day)
• people would do things with pride (have you ever tried to get good service in Macondo?)
• a place where over 600 murders a year is no longer acceptable
• 12% true unemployment is not ok
• And many more

It’s a shame that such a great place is held hostage by a small band of blue, red, and green ideologues that get the best for them, and suppress the people.

Thank you for keeping me in mind for the future. I'm an American born in PR, and will visit as often as I can while in it's current political state or better (statehood). Anything less, I'll look out my window into the Atlantic Ocean and think of how good PR had it, and wonder why they screwed it up.

J

J, I think we are finally in agreement on some issues. However, I disagree that the issue is related to the statute that creates the relationship between the federal govt and the ELA. Law 600 (the federal relations act) which governs the relationship between the fed govt and the ELA is not the source for our citizenship. Our citizenship has nothing to do with the relationship between the fed govt and the ELA. It is based on a unilateral act of Congress and it is at the will of such body. As I mentioned, tomorrow Congress could unilaterally change the terms of US citizenship in Puerto Rico without altering the current relationships between the fed govt and the ELA. IT is highly unlikely this would happen but it is legally possible. This could not happen in a state where citizenship is derived constitutionally, not from Congress' unilateral actions. Congress may not alter citizenship in states, it can in Puerto Rico. Thus, Puerto Rico's citizenship (including yours and mine) is different for it is statutory. As you stated and as the Supreme Court has ruled, it cant be taken away to those who already obtained because of due process rights. This however, does not change its statutory nature and this is why it is still an open question whether one born in PR would be able to run for US president. The fact that that is still a matter of debate is the clearest example of the difference of our citizenship to that of ordinary americans.

In regards to the FAS compacts I disagree completely that the opportunity has come and gone for them. The US would benefit the most from this relationship because it would avoid the hassles of statehood for an island dissimilar in culture and language (like Quebeq) but retain its strategic interests in the region without the shadow of colonialism. Location is still Puerto Rico's strongest asset. By controlling PR's airspace the US controls the caribbean region.

PR's leaders have not promoted anti-americanism. This is were many statehooders do not see with clarity. For example, the fact that Quebequers pass "french only laws" or are adamant in their demands for recognition of their nationality and culture does not make them anti-canadian. It makes them pro-quebequers. Being pro-quebequer may seem anti-canadian only when Canada as a whole refuses to recognize the rightfull demands of Quebeqers. The same thing in Puerto Rico. Th fact that Puerto Rico demands to be treated differently and demands recognition of its nationality and international participation is not anti-american. It is pro-puerto rican. It only comes in conflict with the US when the US refuses to deal with us in respect of our national reality and circumstances. We cant be treated as simply another anglo-north american jurisdiction, just as quebeq cant be treated as just another canadian province. You call it anti-american to refuse to assimilate, most of us see it as pro-puerto rican. That is not anti-american, anti-dominican or anti-chinese. It is just a natural refelction of our national reality.

Finally, I do agree with you that education needs to change, services need to be improved, that unemployment is rampant and that many things in PR are a disaster. However, this is not fixed by any particular status. If you think copying the US will solve these problems you are dead wrong. For example, I see no problem in Puerto Ricans learning English and 3 or 4 languages. That is not the issue, the issue is when "statehood politics" get in the way and try to impose English in our government, our courts, our public signs etc. That has nothing to do with learning another language. That is an attempt to attack our nationality in an effort to assimilate us in order to pave the way for statehood. Lets all be bilingual or trilingual... Im all for that, but our government and institutions remain in Spanish, period.

I do agree with you that much of our problem are precisely the red, blue and green divisions. Once we are sovereign such parties will dissappear and we can focus on internationalizing and developing our economy.

Coincidentally, I keep finding my arguments in the Puerto Rican press. Here as an excerpt of an article from El Vocero by J.M. García Passalacqua:

Este mes cambió la historia del Caribe, y ese cambio comenzará el 1ro. de enero del 2006. Se hunde la última colonia, y progresarán las vecinas repúblicas. ¿Y nosotros? Desentendidos...

Los Estados Unidos de América aprobaron este mes en su Congreso un importante tratado internacional para las repúblicas centroamericanas y la República Dominicana (CAFTA-DR), uniendo económicamente un mercado de 44 millones de seres... Ya lo han ratificado El Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras, y lo ratificarán Costa Rica, Nicaragua, y la República Dominicana. Seis repúblicas. ¿Y qué de Puerto Rico? Nosotros, en babia colonial.
¿Se acuerdan de nuestro cacareado "mercado común" en el ELA? Ahora será de otros. El sistema económico colonial de Puerto Rico se hundió...La teoría de la Guerra Fría de Walter Rostow y Teodoro Moscoso –de que la atracción de inversión de multinacionales norteamericanas produciría un "punto de arranque" (takeoff period, en inglés) – resultó un fracaso. Nuestro crecimiento económico DEPENDIENTE no produjo nuestro desarrollo económico.
En Puerto Rico, nuestros economistas se vuelven locos tratando de diseñar un nuevo modelo económico colonial. No lo encuentran. Ninguno entiende que para salir de la crisis es necesaria la soberanía (y estar fuera de la Ley de Cabotaje americana), para convertirnos en el Megapuerto de las Américas entre Mercosur y la Europa Unida. Desentendidos, unos dicen que las agencias económicas del gobierno necesitan reforma, otros que hay que expeditar permisos de construcción. Y otros...nada...
A mal tiempo buena cara. El Gobernador y el Comisionado Residente recibieron sendas cartas de la Casa Blanca felicitándolos por su apoyo al CAFTA-DR. El Gobernador fue a la República Dominicana a reunirse con el Presidente de la República, quien vendrá a Puerto Rico el 19 de setiembre próximo a La Fortaleza. ¿Hablará del colapso del modelo de Puerto Rico? Hizo bien el Gobernador en agarrarse a la faldeta de la República Dominicana, para el futuro...
Los Estados Unidos nos concederán la soberanía, porque la colonia –se les pudrió.

N, thank you.

Just to be clear, the only people that ever obtained citizenship directly from Congress without an enabling legislation were the folks that lived in the 13 original colonies. Everyone else obtained their citizenship in the same way that the people in PR obtained their citizenship on March 2, 1917. This is a fact. You may not want to admit it (perhaps to help make your case), but it is what it is. The question about whether you (or I) can be President of the United States was a scare tactic used by the local political leaders, and the Washington lobbying machine (making millions of dollars by lobbying and doing side deals in PR) to scare the people in PR and elsewhere into making us different. Take note, that this question has been taken to the courts before and dismissed outright by the trial and appellate courts, with prejudice.

A long time ago, PR had a strategic role to play in the interests of the United States in the region. All the things that you say made the people of PR different were the things that made people in PR special and important to our national defense. That is no longer the case. The time has come and gone. The proof is that Roosevelt Roads was closed outside of BRAC, without much fanfare and little pain. If PR had been important, there would’ve been a long fight to keep it open. PR has become irrelevant to the national defense of the United States – not because it doesn’t have a good location, but because the leaders and people have presented a picture of being anti-American.

You may not think of it as anti-American, and may want to spin it as pro-PR. That’s certainly your prerogative; however, it obviates the facts. When the Governor of PR outright lies about her intentions (as with the Vieques circus she created – with the PNP backing of the previous administration) and violates the law (as in calling international governments and demanding Head of State treatment), that is anti-American. Imagine Sila’s face upon her arrival to the Dominican Republic when she was told she was not a Head of State. (She almost barricaded herself in her hotel room and refused to see anyone until she was received by the DR President. He never received her.)

If a vote is taken in PR, and people want to be a state, that’s fine by me. If the vote says they want to be independent, that’s fine by me as well. However, anything other than that is an illusion that will have absolutely no support of the Federal government. I and many others will help in either case. The FAS alternative you present does not solve any problems.

Let me put it this way; you want to be an American, great! You want to be Puertorrican, fabulous! You want to be Puertorrican, but some times carry the blue American passport when it’s convenient to me. Nope. That won’t work.

You’re smart; you know people in Congress have absolutely no reason to do anything for PR. PR is irrelevant to everyone but the people in PR. As someone said to me once “PR is such an energy drain… lots of input and very little output”… you know, as much as I hate it, he’s probably right.

J

Here is the differnce.
Irrespective of how the others received their citizenship it is now constitutional because Congress cannot alter it. Congress has plenary powers over Puerto Rico and the ability to change the STATUTE which is still the only reason why those born in Puerto Rico have US citizenship (the prospective right of citizenship to those born in P.R. is not protected constitutionally as you claim, only by statute). In fact, the Congressional Research Service's (who has far greater knowledge of US constitutiuonal law than we do)concluded in their legal opinion of March 9, 1989 that "...the limitation of... the Fourteenth Amendment would not restrain Congress from legislating about the citizenship status of Puerto Rico". That is, Puerto Rico's citizenship is NOT protected by the 14th amendment. It is not constitutional. Only statutory, changeable. Thus, the question of whether PR's could run for presidency is very much debatable and not a scare tactic.

Demanding rights as nation is no more a violation of the law than it is to use an island for navy practices by imposition without the people's consent. Demanding recognition as a caribbean head of state is not anti-american anymore than Greenlanders demanding "home-rule" is anti-danish, or arubans demanding sovereign rights is anti-dutch. This concept that we must happily be complacent with everything the US dictates of us ignoring the fact that we are also members of a Caribbean and Latin American community is absurd. It has nothing to do with being pro or anti american. It is being pro-puerto rican and wanting to have a role in the part of the world were we live! I applaud her for not leaving the room until the president saw her and demanding respect and recognition in her character as representative of a neighboring caribbean island. The leaders of all these islands can meet and discuss the regions future and we Puerto Ricans have to be reduced to meeting with second hand gov't officials? Is that the level of recognition that our island deserves? Are we somehow not worthy of receiving a dignified treatment as another caribbean island? This has nothing to do with the US, it has to do with ourselves and our place in the region.

Finally, Puerto Rico is irrelevant? Say that to the thousands of US companies who profit big time from the island. PR, with our small size and population, is the US 6th trading partner in the world! How is that for irrelevant? As I mentioned before, the citizenship issue is not that crucia. What Puerto Ricans are concerned with is not so much the "blue passport" but the access to the US without immigration restrictions (with or without citizenship). This is in place already in the FAS's of the pacific. FAS provides these gurantees that PR want and takes care of the guarantees that the US would need. Example: air space, ability for DEA to operate in order to prevent drug traficking from reaching US etc. But most important it solves the economic problems of P.R. What does not change anything is statehood which would condem is to a fictitious economy based on dependence. That is not beneficial for our nation or yours.

N, you keep using scare tactics to give the impression that statehood would not improve the economic situation. With the full integration of Puerto Rico into the U.S., Puerto Rico contributes to the U.S. instead of being ineffectively propped up. Puerto Rico gains the benefits of the elimination of all negative aspects of the territorial status. That is a situation in which both parties win. Puerto Rico's role in a global economy are nil with free association and you know it. The most strategic location that Puerto Rico has is in drug flow and it is destroying our society. Once again, sending 7 representatives to Congress is a drastic improvement. Voting for a president who is now accountable to the people of Puerto Rico is a drastic improvement. You have radical intent to create a sovereign entity in Puerto Rico. My friend Puerto Ricans acknowledge their flag but they don't acknowledge a drive for a sovereign entity. You have stated that I would reduce Puerto Rico under statehood, but it is YOU WHO WOULD REDUCE PUERTO RICO TO SATISFY A SELFISH DESIRE not shared by the majority of Puerto Ricans. These articles are written by fools who are probably stool pidgeons to the PPD. WHY WOULDN'T ACEVEDO SIGN THE BILL IN APRIL? The vote for statehood is one that is inevitable, but was prolonged in April by a lame duck governor. Enough is enough with the scare tactics.

J, as a Puerto Rican you should not be satisfied with observing Puerto Rico from Martha's Vineyard. It is important that selfish oriented minds do not succeed in destroying the sacrifice of many and the well being of our children and elders. Free association is just as bogus as independence. It is just something that the PPD needs once commonwealth status is wiped off the table.

E, how are my ideals selfish when I want the best for all Puerto Ricans? You cant actually be arguing that only statehooders are unslefish...I remind you that there are as many populares as statehooders and that we simply do not see statehood as an option. It is easy for you to believe and claim that we PPDs will support statehood when x or y happens. The truth is we PPDs belong to that party for a reason: we are autonomists, who reject annexation, who defend and reiterate our nationality as Puerto Ricans and want to achieve a sovereign political relationship with the US based on association, not integration.
In the same way you claim that PPD's will vote for statehood when this or that happens I can give you examples of statehooders in my family who will not support statehood if we are forced change our language in our government and institutions or if we are forced to give up our international representation in sporting events. They believe, like Maurice Ferrer does, that we could be a "nation-state" upon admission to the union. I disagree but it is their perrogative to fight for that.

You have a misconception of the word sovereignity and I doubt anyone in Puerto Rico wants to remain "un-sovereign" under the territoral clause. Under statehood we would be "sovereign" (to a point), under FAS we would be sovereign, and under indep we would be sovereign. What do you mean there is no movement to make PR sovereign? EVERYONE rejects the non-sovereign status quo as is. The difference is the way to achieve sovereignity. Some propose sovereugnity through statehood, others through enhanced ELA/FAS, others through independence. In my opinon, "sovereignity" under statehood does not solve any of our problems. Sending 7 or 8 reps and "voting" for US pres does not provide the tools we need to develop our economy. Things will prety much remain the same as with the current ELA, maybe we will get more welfare...On top of this we risk losing ourselves and assimilating completely to another nation as in the case of Hawaii. Most of us simply refuse this. You can debate that this would not happen under statehood but history is against you, all states who were culturally disimilar have assimilated (Lousiana, Hawaii, California, Alaska). Today they are just one more anglo-north american state. We PPDs will affirm and defend our nationality by impeding further integration into the US. These are not scare tactics, they are facts and they are history. You might think Puerto Rico's case will be different from the rest of the states but that is wishful thinking. I doubt the US has room for a Quebeq like situation which is realy the only way that many statehooders would accept statehood anyway.

FAS is not something the PPD "needs" like you claim. We embrace it naturally because our ideal is autonomism. There is a reason we are PPD's and FAS seems the best way to achieve such ideals.

N, thank you.

Finally, something we can sink our teeth into.

Here are the news. Don't want to be an American? No a problem. We will open a consulate in Macondo, assign the Ambassador from DR to also represent us in PR. If you want to travel to the US, go see the consular officer and apply for a visa. We will treat Macondo as any third world banana republic.

You see, if for some strange reason someone in Congress were to agree with what you propose, then there are plenty of folks who would vote them out of office and you will quickly find out how much better it would've been to have become a state.

PR is irrelevant to the US government. It has zero strategic value. Did I mention zero strategic value? PR is only relevant to the drug companies to the extent there is tax code that allows them to shield the profits.

Regardless of what you say, the fact is that the CRS report explains in detail what I've explained before. Congress can unilaterally legislate a change in the relationship between the Federal and Commonwealth governments, thus changing the citizenship of the people born after that date. Yes, the 14th amendment does not cover the relationship of the governments; however, it does guarantee the citizenship of those born prior to any legislative action. Those are the facts. If you want to turn them to suit your desires, then you live with your conscience. There is no debate; people born in PR after March 2, 1917 are natural born citizens of the United States of America, thus can be President of the United States.

You speak about PR’s place in the region. I would submit that the place PR could’ve had was squandered by the political leaders for whom the title “Governor” is not good enough. That’s what this is all about. And no, contrary to what the PPD wants to make people believe, Sila was not received. Nothing, zero.

It is Sila’s prerogative to demand whatever she wants; she can also look like a buffoon when trying to pretend she was a head of state. Thank God there is some sanity in the DR.

The choice to meet with what you refer as second had officials was made long ago when LMR chose ELA instead of statehood. Imagine, he put his personal interests ahead of those of the people of PR. He chose to be part of the United States of America in a way that would provide all the obligations of citizenship with few of the benefits while living in PR. That’s an irrefutable fact.

I wish 95% of the people in PR thought like you, because it would make it very easy to execute the “Banana Republic Strategy”. However, I know you’re not the norm. I know because I talk to the people.

So, as long as the majority of the people are ready for a positive change (statehood or independence), I’ll continue to be engaged and help where I can. I present facts, no scare tactics. No spin.

You ought to stop using scare tactics. Stop spinning, or you’ll get dizzy.

J

LMR is incorrent. LMM is correct.

Hello E,

Thank you.

I like MV a lot and if the people of PR voted to become a banana republic, that’s fine by me. I’ll be looking out my porch and watch it, hoping it will survive and thrive.

Although I support statehood, I’m not hell-bent on it. I think it is a choice the people who live and vote in PR must make. I bought my statehood, many times over, a very long time ago. What I will work against, is the PPD’s FAS. If they don’t want to be Americans, and the people of PR agree, then get a visa to come to the USA.

The amazing part is that the PPD leaders have made a lot of money for themselves and their Washington lobbying friends at the expense of the people of PR. I’d love to audit RHC’s business deals while and after being in office. I’m all for making money, as long as it’s not on the backs of the everyday PR citizens that have no clue.

Who else studies at Harvard and Yale, send their kids to Oxford and Stanford, and then passes legislation to eliminate English from the public school curriculum? I call that dumb.

And they leave no stone unturned. In a couple of weeks, many PPD leaders will travel to NYC to host “Latinos for Hilary”. Imagine. They are making sure that the Macondo solution stays front and center in the agenda of some of the likely Presidential contenders.

Where are the pro-Statehood leaders?

J

J, It is very convenient for you to categorize things in such a black and white manner. You just cant stand the fact that there is a viable, non-colonial and internationally recognized status in the middle between statehood and independence. You may not like it, but it does not mean it is not an option. All this talk about applying for a visa is nonsense under the FAS because currently the citizens of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau can reside and work in the US with no barriers. It is not wishful thinking, it is a reality in the Pacific. In theory Congress can oppose FAS in the same manner it can oppose statehood. In my opinion, it is in the national interest of the US to have a FAS relationship with PR rather than venture into a Quebec like statehood. But both options are on the table and ultimately Congress can deny both.

It is amazing to me how statehooders see Puerto Rico with such disdain and see it as a low life place that has nothing to offer. They even mock it calling it “macondo” or “banana republic”. PR does indeed have a lot to offer: Puerto Rico is the banking hub of the Caribbean, it is the air hub of the caribbean, it is the US SIXTH largest trading partner, it is Spain’s THIRD largest Latin American banking partner, it has an educated workforce, its people have great talents and potential etc. This eternal sense of feeling “less than” is why statehooders have never had a majority in the island. They advocate statehood by demeaning and degrading Puerto Rico.

You continue to incorrectly state that a change in relationship between the federal govt and the ELA is what can bring a change in citizenship. This is not so. The federal statute conferring U.S. citizenship is not part of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act or the commonwealth system of territorial self-governmen. Without any change at all to the ELA Congress can amend the nationality act to alter the terms of citizenship to those born in PR. That is what the CRS states when it says that it is not a 14th amendment citizenship but a statutory one because Congress can change it without regards to const protections. It is a citizenship derived from law, not the constitution. As I mentioned, you are correct in that once it has been obtained it will not be taken away but it is not because it is protected by the 14th amendment but because of due process of law issues. Those are the facts as stated by the CRS. You continue to insist that citizenship is dependent on the relationship between the fed govt and the ELA, when it is not so. You assume that since it cant be revoked it must be protected by the 14th amendment, and that is not so either. It wont be revoked because of due process issues (which the Sup Court has dealt with before). Citizenship to those born in PR remains unprotected by the 14th amendment, it is not constitutional. That was the finding of the CRS and it is why Congress can change the law without restriction to the constitution.

AS far as the DR, Acevedo Vila was received by the President of the DR this past week and he will visit La Fortaleza in September. That is the respectful and dignified treatment that Puerto Rico, as another Caribbean Island deserves. You are content that PR be relegated to meeting with second hand officials because you believe PR is not worthy of anything higher. It all goes back to the “feeling less than” mentatlity.

Im not spinning at all. I have used facts and just because you don’t like what I have to say does not mean it is scare tactics. It is convenient for you to ignore that at least 48% of PR’s are autonomistas who do NOT believe in statehood nor independence. Do not make it seem like there is no middle ground. Greenland, Aruba, Curacao, Cook Islands, Nuie, the Faroe Islands, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau...all these have a sovereign non-colonial internationally recognized status in association with another country. It is a reality so stop assuming we PPDs will have to chose between the extremes because it is unreal. Statehooders only use this argument of statehood or independence as a wishful thinking mechanism to convince themselves that one day that 48% will gravitate towards statehood. It wont happen.

J,

Do not spin the language issue. Nobody passed legislation to eliminate the teaching of English. That is another scare tactic from statehooders to try to politisize the language issue. The "Ley del Idioma" of 1991 simply put the reality of PR into law. It had to do with the official language of the government of puerto rico. It had nothing to do with education. the official language of govt is the language in which the govt comunicates with its people. In PR legislative debate is in spanish, courts are in spanish, public instruction is in spanish (english has always been a second language with or without this law), the supreme court deliberates in spanish, road signs are in spanish, intergovernmental communications are in spanish, the governors' communications are in spanish, the bar exam is in spanish etc. (In PR you MAY NOT present a legal brief in court in any other languge other than spanish, the bar exam is ONLY printed in spanish etc) The "offical de facto" language is Spanish. The fact that english was again made "official" by the assimilationist Rosselló is nothing more than a political statement to create an image in the US that PR is somehow bilingual. And when I say bilingual I dont mean that Doña Pancha or Don Carlos can speak both languages. Im refering to the GOVERNMENT'S language. That is what is in question. Even if 100% of PR's knew English fluently as a second language the Island would stil not be bilingual bc our institutions and government are de facto monolingual: Spanish speaking. The Ley del Idioma only codified our reality. A reality we should be proud of. Do not mix education with this because the traching of English as a second language was never on the table. That is not the issue. It is in the interest of PR that its citizens be bilingual. However, it is another thing to protect our institution and government from using another language other than our own. We can learn English but out institutions and government remain in Spanish, period. I honestly do not see why anyone, PIP PPD or PNP, would not want to defend our language in our public institution (remember im not talking about education, which was never an issue, im referring to the institutional language of the island). If the statehooders say that Spanish is compatible with statehood then why are they frightened to proudly say that PR's govt funcitons in Spanish? Didnt they say Spanish was n