a pretty decent point/counterpoint from a couple of years ago:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/03/02/a-debate-on-puerto-rican-statehood/
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/03/02/a-debate-on-puerto-rican-statehood/
Puerto Rican voters back statehood in questioned referendum
- Thread starter William Haskins
- Start date
- Joined
- May 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,820
- Reaction score
- 738
Well, it's a bit complicated. There's a bit of a...history. You know, colonial history, America invading Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico citizens being treated like second-class citizens, and all of that complex historical and racial stuff. There are concerns about corruption and government issues as well.
Um, I don't want to speak up for all Puerto Ricans, of course, but from what I have gathered, some people are against being fully part of the US because they would like Puerto Rico to be independent or stay the same status, and then there are some who also fear losing our culture and the native languages if Puerto Rico becomes a state...
And then there's the racism, and the government and financial complications (high poverty in some areas), etc...
It's...just not black and white or that simple. It's very divided. There are strong opinions and feelings on both sides of the issue. It's tricky for me to understand as well.
There's just a lot of history, and divided, mixed feelings, and some red-tape complications involved. I don't know how to explain it.
ETA: William has just provided a link to an article showing some of the arguments of the side against statehood. I was posting at the time, so I didn't see his post in time. Thank you, William.
Last edited:
Thanks Latina Bunny and Haskins. Being a historical colony and having a minority language obviously complicates things. I suppose a comparable situation might have been if Australia's former colonial territory of Papua New Guinea had chosen to be a state instead of an independent country (not that I think that was ever given as an option, nor would it have likely been accepted). I wonder if Puerto Rico might eventually choose 'free association', like some of the former Trust Territories in the Pacific did - relying on the USA mainly for defence, but autonomous in all other matters.
I'd like to know too. Apparently they don't have to pay federal personal income tax.
ETA: I replied to a non-refreshed page I'd opened an hour ago and didn't see the other replies. Great synopsis and discussion, everyone.
Last edited:
The way the U.S. system works, this issue is moot, given the current composition of Congress. But I'm curious: In Oz, if the NT voted in favor of statehood, would the national government be obligated to accept that?
caw
caw
Our constitution basically allows the Commonwealth parliament to admit any new state as they see fit, but whether they'd automatically be bound to accept a territorial plebiscite, I don't know. I imagine it's unlikely another territorial plebiscite or referendum would be held without the Commonwealth agreeing to it, anyway (the 1998 one was run with Commonwealth support).
I'm not sure legally... but to be honest I think it would be a stupid political thing to resist. You could very easily spin a narrative that if the Feds resisted, they were doing so to deny Aboriginal people a proper say in the running of the country. Similar I guess to Republican hesitation to allowing PR in. But that would be pretty damaging I think.
Although on the other hand, I don't really know if most NTers want to be a state. From everything I've read about it, a lot of them seem to have a bit of disdain for the rest of the country. Although it could just be another version of the Great Australian Pastime, i.e. hating on every single change before its made, then realising it was a good idea, and then loving it. For examples, see every major infrastructure development ever. With the new Perth Arena, I swear the hate to love was like a light switch. "We don't need this, bloody incompetent politicians!" to "Oh, now Adele is actually going to come to Perth?! Awesome!"