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.
The travel freely argument I think is simply filling up space. If PR was to be given its independence, I think Puerto Ricans would remain as US citizens. For one thing, the US recognizes dual citizenship, so in this case a person will be a citizen of the US and a citizen of PR.
If the US was to take away the citizenship of island Puerto Ricans, that would create a precedent that is threatning to the rest of US Americans. For the first time the US government can take away the citizenship of millions of people, completely going against its own laws and I think its even in the constitution, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think that's one aspect that US Americans are willing to accept, because at any time the US government can take away their citizenship too and they have no say in the matter.
It would be like income taxes which were suppose to be temporary to help finance the effects of the world wars. To this day the US government hasn't repealed the thing and there are no indication it will do that any time soon. How long ago did WWII ended? Exactly. Now, a person can stop paying their income tax to Uncle Sam, but let us know what happens next. A "temporary" thing and yet, the IRS will destroy your life if you decide to mess with this.
The travel freely argument I think is simply filling up space. If PR was to be given its independence, I think Puerto Ricans would remain as US citizens. For one thing, the US recognizes dual citizenship, so in this case a person will be a citizen of the US and a citizen of PR.
If the US was to take away the citizenship of island Puerto Ricans, that would create a precedent that is threatning to the rest of US Americans. For the first time the US government can take away the citizenship of millions of people, completely going against its own laws and I think its even in the constitution, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think that's one aspect that US Americans are willing to accept, because at any time the US government can take away their citizenship too and they have no say in the matter.
It would be like income taxes which were suppose to be temporary to help finance the effects of the world wars. To this day the US government hasn't repealed the thing and there are no indication it will do that any time soon. How long ago did WWII ended? Exactly. Now, a person can stop paying their income tax to Uncle Sam, but let us know what happens next. A "temporary" thing and yet, the IRS will destroy your life if you decide to mess with this.
Puerto Ricans having U.S. by virtue of being born on Puerto Rico is purely statutory, so no constitutional concerns there if citizenship was to be stripped if the island became an independent nation.
And if citizenship was taken away upon independence, it wouldn't be going against the law as the law would have been modified to enact such a change.
The U.S. Constitution protects citizenship rights for Americans born in one of the 50 states or D.C., so I don't see much pushback from Americans in the continental U.S. (or Hawaii and Alaska) pushing back out of fear of losing their own rights.
All of this is to say that, if Puerto Rico became independent, I see no way, shape or form that Congress let island residents keep their U.S. citizenship. Now, there would probably be a grace period for those who are current U.S. citizenship to move and establish residency in the U.S. off island and get to keep their citizenship that way, but I, for one, would be against allowing residents of a new nation to maintain U.S. citizenship otherwise.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
I was there 3 weeks ago, and that place is already an extension of Florida based in the Caribbean. I understand it has it's own history with it's own culture, but the brands there are already largely "American", English is wide spread, US cell phone service is fully functional there etc. No way I see the people there choosing to become "independent" of the US on their own. The travel/tourism aspect of it, and ease of people in the continental US being able to easily spend their money in Puerto Rico I don't see reversing either.
PR will be a state along with Washington DC in our lifetimes.
I was there 3 weeks ago, and that place is already an extension of Florida based in the Caribbean. I understand it has it's own history with it's own culture, but the brands there are already largely "American", English is wide spread, US cell phone service is fully functional there etc. No way I see the people there choosing to become "independent" of the US on their own. The travel/tourism aspect of it, and ease of people in the continental US being able to easily spend their money in Puerto Rico I don't see reversing either.
PR will be a state along with Washington DC in our lifetimes.
PR may be a state in our lifetime. Good luck on DC, statehood for which almost certainly requires a constitutional amendment.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
PR may be a state in our lifetime. Good luck on DC, statehood for which almost certainly requires a constitutional amendment.
Oh it will definitely be a package deal when/if it happens. If one gains statehood, the other will be jumping down Congress' throat if they don't receive it. From what I'm aware of, DC has a pretty well planned out plan of giving enough federal land in the District to the federal government, while the bulk of the "city" would become the new state. Puerto Rico is much larger and an island, so I imagine it all would just be converted to a state.
Roughly 90% of the population opposes independence.
Should we get rid of Alabama and West Virginia too? Or are they special because White Republicans live there?
If they don't feel Americans, they don't fly the U.S. Flag, they want to keep their own Olympics and Miss Universe and don't teach American Civics in their schools why would you make them a state? Respect their identity and how they want to be. They want to have their own identity under the protection of the U.S. Let them keep their status. If Puerto Ricans want to live in a state, they have 50 states to choose from like you have living in New York. Let Puerto Rico, an island of 130 x 35 miles (tiny) have their own identity which is their own system under the protection of the U.S.
I never understood why people that live in the states and don't know the people of P.R. and their identity, their politics or their history wants to push a statehood that they don't want or be part of.
Why would DC become a state if from its foundation it was meant to be a special district?
The other question pertains to the fact it is one city, if DC was to become a state, why not join Maryland or Virginia?
That's what happens when nobody takes American Civics or reads the constitution. DC can't never be a state. The Federal government needs their own land to operate without any conflict of power or sharing power with a state. That's why federal lands in the states are only control by the federals. The states have no say or jurisdiction in those federal lands or property like military bases and forests. The Federal Government will never give up their powers of the land they own and operate in DC to give it to the state when the constitution forbids it.
Oh it will definitely be a package deal when/if it happens. If one gains statehood, the other will be jumping down Congress' throat if they don't receive it. From what I'm aware of, DC has a pretty well planned out plan of giving enough federal land in the District to the federal government, while the bulk of the "city" would become the new state. Puerto Rico is much larger and an island, so I imagine it all would just be converted to a state.
That is an interesting plan, but not one that I'm sure would pass constitutional muster (I just don't know). I'd imagine some of the questions would be whether Maryland and Virginia--which gave up decent sums of territory to help form DC--would have an effective veto right over utilizing the land in a manner that was not agreed to when the land was given to the federal government to help establish and build the federal district centuries ago.
Definitely an interesting debate to be had on the issue!
Note, D.C. is 68.34 mi². The federal government owns 30% of land in DC, so the remaining 70% of the land would be incredibly tiny (nothing legally wrong with that but still an interesting point), though the current district is small itself. I'd also like to see how a map of the District minus the federally owned land would look Would any resulting state be continuous or broken apart into separate tracts of territory?
In any case, I don't see such happening (either DC or Puerto Rico) unless the Senate does away with the filibuster rule for legislation, where 60 votes are required to push through controversial pieces of legislation.
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.
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.
Would any resulting state be continuous or broken apart into separate tracts of territory? 