U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Independence Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2013, 02:13 PM
 
14,781 posts, read 40,942,670 times
Reputation: 14563

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Puerto Ricans are already "native born citizens" since they are US citizens from birth. They do not have to be granted that status.
Well, as long as they were born on or after January 13th, 1941 then they are "natural-born citizens". If you were born before that, then you are a US citizen, but you are not "natural-born" for legal purposes.

I read the bill and the only thing mentioned about citizenship that I saw was that it would make Puerto Rican citizenship constitutionally guaranteed if Puerto Rico became a state. As it is, the only reason people in PR are citizens is because there is a law making them citizens. That law could be changed or rescinded and the people of PR would lose their citizenship.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 09-24-2013, 02:20 PM
 
14,781 posts, read 40,942,670 times
Reputation: 14563
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
To me, the sticking point would be language. Would we suddenly have to become a bilingual country in order to accommodate 3 million Puerto Ricans? Meanwhile, Guam, Samoa, and the Virgin Islands use English sufficiently to become states in my opinion.
There are more Puerto Ricans in the mainland US then there are in Puerto Rico. In some areas, Puerto Ricans form a localized majority. In no way has this impacted or created an overwhelming need for overt bilingualism. I live in NJ and the NJ/NY metro area has a population of nearly 2 million Puerto Ricans and while local businesses in their neighborhoods are "Spanish" there is hardly any forced movement towards being bilingual.

US law does not recognize the primacy of any language over another, so about the only accomodation made is the providing of translators for courts, hospitals, etc. There is already a US District Court in Puerto Rico that conducts all court business in English and simply uses translators when necessary. I really don't see why people feel the language is such an issue, at least to the extent that it would justify a move to block an application for statehood.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-24-2013, 02:38 PM
 
31,367 posts, read 35,255,705 times
Reputation: 14985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Puerto Ricans are already "native born citizens" since they are US citizens from birth. They do not have to be granted that status.
I would have thought so but that apparently isn't the case. The distinction seems to be citizenship as a result of Congressional action vs as a result of the Constitution. But perhaps we can hold off on that debate until a non-white Puerto Rican runs for President and the birthers get all in a tizzy.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-24-2013, 02:40 PM
 
31,367 posts, read 35,255,705 times
Reputation: 14985
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Well, as long as they were born on or after January 13th, 1941 then they are "natural-born citizens". If you were born before that, then you are a US citizen, but you are not "natural-born" for legal purposes.

I read the bill and the only thing mentioned about citizenship that I saw was that it would make Puerto Rican citizenship constitutionally guaranteed if Puerto Rico became a state. As it is, the only reason people in PR are citizens is because there is a law making them citizens. That law could be changed or rescinded and the people of PR would lose their citizenship.
As I would suppose if Puerto Rico ever became an independent nation.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-24-2013, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,466 posts, read 13,373,447 times
Reputation: 17596
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQalex View Post
I don't know, I think this design for a flag with 51 stars is quite nice and entirely in keeping with what we've been accustomed to seeing in the last 50-plus years since Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union:

http://www.loeser.us/flags/images/pr..._star_flag.png


I always have liked the uniformity in the 48-star flag in use after my own state and Arizona both joined the Union in 1912:

Google Image Result for http://images.wikia.com/callofduty/images/8/80/48-star_U_S_flag.svg

However, since the canton portion of our flag, with the white stars aligned on a field of blue, was meant to represent the United States as a new 'constellation' I think the designs with staggered stars look more like an actual constellation or sky full of stars, so they seem more fitting in my eyes.

Designs that make an actual shape out of the stars are even more literal as constellations, but they aren't what us current Americans have been accustomed to seeing all our lives, so I don't think they would be appropriate or acceptable to most of us.

Here's a few examples of those:

Google Image Result for http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-51sta.gif

http://a.abcnews.com/images/ABC_Univ...Star_wmain.jpg

Google Image Result for http://i50.tinypic.com/14ncwu0.gif

Google Image Result for http://i.imgur.com/IToTF.png

Google Image Result for http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles20/1605481/projects/5665139/cf7f6076836e62ff7627bf5cc80e05c0.jpg

Those last two are completely different takes on the flag altogether, especially the last.
I think all the nonlinear ones are pretty awful, but since 51= 3 x 17 it's very easy to construct six rows, alternating eight and nine stars.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-24-2013, 03:56 PM
 
396 posts, read 339,781 times
Reputation: 138
again, repealing the Jones Act for PR, Hawaii, Guam and Alaska would give our fleet and ports in huge disadvantage because we now have to compete in wages and standards with 3rd world countries and fleets that don't play by the same rules.


Why not have the tax everything to death state governments of Hawaii and P.R. NOT to tax everything that goes in the islands so high. The Puerto Rico government is more of the problem than the Jones Act. They tax anything that moves.


It's not just union jobs at shipyards. It's manufacturing jobs where pumps and other equipment are built, a 2010 PriceWaterhouseCoopers study showing that the Jones Act was responsible for 40,334 vessels, 499,676 related jobs, $100.3 billion in economic output and $11.4 billion in federal, state and local taxes.


The Jones Act has benefited Wisconsin-based Marinette Marine Corp. (1 of many examples)

Marinette builds U.S Navy and Coast Guard vessels, as well as combined articulated tug and barge units and double-hull tank barges that carry petroleum products for companies between U.S. ports and oil production facilities.

If the U.S. didn't have the Jones Act, these companies would have gone to China.


The former governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle made the argument to keep the Jones Act and why it benefits Hawaii and the Nation in the long run:
Lingle Defends Jones Act Shipping Law | Hawaii Reporter
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-24-2013, 04:11 PM
 
396 posts, read 339,781 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Let's not be a....

Manufacturing; value added (% of GDP) in Puerto Rico

Manufacturing, value added (% of GDP) | Data | Table

As for Puerto Rico "taking" from the U.S.... well that's more than ironic. In 1897 Puerto Rico after more than 400 years of rebelling against Spanish rule achieved a significant degree of independence from Spain which was abrogated when the U.S. claimed dominion over the Island in 1898. The Puerto Rican's argued that the Island was not Spain's to cede but the U.S. promptly ignored that, instead taking control of Puerto Rico and installing a U.S. governor over the "territory" the same governor, Charles Herbert Allen who installed himself as president of the American Sugar Refining Company (Domino Sugar) which by 1930 Domino alone owned 40 percent of all arable land which was promptly converted into sugar production. Of course this doesn't include the fact that Allen along with his financial backers owned every foot of track and the San Juan international seaport. None of which was used to develop and indigenous economy.

I suppose this is a chronic problem with conservatives, a myopic view of history which allows persons so disposed to look upon their own wreckage, turn away and boldly discount those left behind for not properly cleaning up the mess.



what? LOL, you mean "LA CARTA AUTONOMA of 1897"????? have you ever read the document before you repeat the same non-sense the independentistas repeat in the island like it is a fact? Here is it, read for yourself word for word:

Carta Autonmica de 1897 de Puerto Rico en LexJuris.com

It basically calls Puerto Rico their COLONY, it describes as Puerto Rico as "COLONIA" like 25 times in the document. It says the King of Spain has full authority in the island and the King will pick the governor of the colony which he has to be a Spaniard and give all loyalty to the crown. The Spanish Army will be the only army in control of the colony under orders from the military governor set by the King................the Spaniard military governor had veto powers to anything the locals decide to do.....if you don't call that a colony then I don't know what is.


When you said the Puerto Rican's argued over the Paris Treaty.......can you be more specific. Was their a unified leader picked by the majority of Puerto Ricans to reject Puerto Rico being a U.S. territory? or you are talking about the same Independence movement like today that are a small minority that think they speak for the majority of Puerto Ricans?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-24-2013, 04:27 PM
 
396 posts, read 339,781 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post

I read the bill and the only thing mentioned about citizenship that I saw was that it would make Puerto Rican citizenship constitutionally guaranteed if Puerto Rico became a state. As it is, the only reason people in PR are citizens is because there is a law making them citizens. That law could be changed or rescinded and the people of PR would lose their citizenship.


that is not correct. The U.S. SUPREME COURT already ruled that congress can't take U.S. CITIZENSHIP away involuntarily. It doesn't matter the race, sexual preference, religion, culture or location.

The U.S. made Puerto Rico part of the U.S. permanent as a territory when it gave U.S. citizenship to 4 million people that they can't take away involuntarily. That can be pass generation to generation and congress can't take it away unless the citizen does an act to surrender it.


by the way, all rights and protection are an act of congress......it doesn't fall from the sky. Only congress could give U.S. citizenship to a territory they own under the U.S. Constitution.


The only way Puerto Ricans can lose their U.S. CITIZENSHIP is:
  • Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state
  • Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions
  • Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the US or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state
  • Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state; (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position
  • Formally renouncing US citizenship before a US diplomatic or consular officer outside the US
  • Formally renouncing US citizenship in the US, under strict, narrow conditions
  • Conviction for an act of treason
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-24-2013, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
175 posts, read 233,754 times
Reputation: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by clip314 View Post
The island became an American territory in 1898. Its about the size of Connecticutt, the island of Cyprus or Lebanon. Its twice tha size of Rd Island and Delaware.

About 89% + don't speak English. They have full participation in the Olympic games and Miss Universe contests without identifying with the U.S. Its poorer than the poorest state , Mississippi, however all have been American citizens since 1917!

As of recently statehood feelings have been on the rise BUT Puerto Ricans want a "special state". Spanish will remain the first langauge, with English a very distant second. They alledge this is possible because there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about language. 60% are dependent on food stamps and other Federal give-aways, and if it ever it's allowed to become a state the island will have more political representation than 27 states because of population, 3.7 million.
Hell no, I am against PR even being a US Territory
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-24-2013, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
175 posts, read 233,754 times
Reputation: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F S View Post
It isn't up to us to decide. It's up to the people of Puerto Rico to decide.
Like hell it isn't. Let the American people decide. PR wouldn't be admitted if it were put up for a popular vote.
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:31 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top