18
   

Puerto Rico, our 58th State?

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2012 11:13 pm
@BillRM,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico

In 2005, the U.S. House Committee on Resources concluded that Puerto Rico is still an unincorporated territory of the United States under the Territorial Clause, that the establishment of local self-government with the consent of the people can be unilaterally revoked by U.S. Congress, and Congress can withdraw, at any time, the American citizenship now enjoyed by the residents of Puerto Rico as long as it achieves a legitimate Federal purpose, in a manner reasonably related to that purpose.[124]

In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice.[150] In a 1996 report on a Puerto Rico status political bill, the U.S. House Committee on Resources stated, "Puerto Rico's current status does not meet the criteria for any of the options for full self-government under Resolution 1541" (the three established forms of full self-government being stated in the report as (1) national independence, (2) free association based on separate sovereignty, or (3) full integration with another nation on the basis of equality). The report concluded that Puerto Rico "... remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of 'free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice", that the establishment of local self-government with the consent of the people can be unilaterally revoked by the U.S. Congress, and that U.S. Congress can also withdraw the U.S. citizenship of Puerto Rican residents of Puerto Rico at any time, for a legitimate Federal purpose.[151][152] The application of the U.S. Constitution applies partially to Puerto Rico by the Insular Cases.[
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 12:34 am
@BillRM,
Do you know this for a fact, or are you just applying logic to a legal situation. If it's the latter, I should tell you I long ago quit trying to explain tax rules to employers.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 01:16 am
@roger,
Quote:
Do you know this for a fact, or are you just applying logic to a legal situation. If it's the latter, I should tell you I long ago quit trying to explain tax rules to employers
.

Yes see my follow up postings.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 01:56 am
@BillRM,
Do you mean yes, or yes?

Which follow up postings?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 09:53 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

If that was sarcasm and/or irony, my quite sincere apologies, Finn.

The problem is, knowing your right-wing leanings (and not knowing anything about your personal life) I was forced to assume that your silly post was mean in all seriousness.

Again, my apologies.


One of the more equivocal and self-serving non apologies I have yet read.

How did "knoiwing your right-wing leanings" "force" you to assume anything?
Why not simply act like an adult and admit you were acting like a pompous ass?

It appears to me that, instead, you merely, and perhaps reflexively, applied your own prejudgments about someone you admittedly don't know, and twisted your knickers in a fit of advanced political correctitude. Shall I conclude that this is a consequence of your "left wing leanings"?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 10:55 am
@roger,
Quote:
Which follow up postings?


Just four posts above your post I am responding to..........
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 02:04 pm
@georgeob1,
My argument was with Finn, George, not with you. And I have apologized for my error to the appropriate person. Again, this has nothing to do with you or your right wing leanings.

So please stay the **** out of the conversation.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 02:55 pm
I think independence would be a mistake and I believe most of the Puerto Ricans agree with me.

Good summary of the pros and cons of the three options:



If they want statehood, I see no reason why they shouldn't get it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 04:04 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

My argument was with Finn, George, not with you. And I have apologized for my error to the appropriate person. Again, this has nothing to do with you or your right wing leanings.

So please stay the **** out of the conversation.


It's an open forum, and I'll comment when it pleases me to do so. You can keep your preemptory orders to yourself, .. or someone who is inclined to follow them.

0 Replies
 
juliazoe4
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Nov, 2012 05:36 am
@ossobuco,
I think that we should give them one more chance to vote themselves into the US.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jul, 2013 08:51 pm
@juliazoe4,
Now it looks like Colorado may try to split itself into a Colo and a North Colo.
I don't give it much of a chance.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jul, 2013 11:53 pm
@farmerman,
As they in the Empire state, I'm in a New York-Northern New York state of mind.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 10:21 pm
Given a Trump is the president and antiimigration is all the conservative craze, will Trump's administration finally give PR the boot? Or keep it because it basically profits manufacturing corporations despite actually stealing manufacturing jobs from the US because the citizens of PR don't fall under the same federal employment regulations and protections?

1. Keep PR around and allow US corporations to keep using the Made in the US (despite they tend to violate US federal minimum wages, etc...;

2. Appeal to their racist/alt right base and ditch the island as a territory and basically deport all Puerto Ricans to ... say Mexico because the distinction is lost on your typical Republican voter?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 01:39:25