Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do we want Puerto Rico
- Thread starter JBeukema
- Start date
PatekPhilippe
Senior Member
for one, we'd have their income taxes. and they'd have representation in congress. i think it's fair. and it's not like we haven't treated at least part of puerto rico as if it already belongs to us. (e.g., vieques).
Their current unemployment rate is at 16%+, over 44% of the population is below the poverty level, they have 20 billion dollars of public debt, they're heavily unionized (SEIU being the fastest growing one) and their requirement to file income tax returns is optional as long as you don't meet income thresholds .... Looks like they fit right in with the Democrat Party.
Wicked Jester
Libsmackin'chef
Fuckin' classic!......LMAO!for one, we'd have their income taxes. and they'd have representation in congress. i think it's fair. and it's not like we haven't treated at least part of puerto rico as if it already belongs to us. (e.g., vieques).
Bordallo says Puerto Rico Bill Also Good For Guam
Written by News Release
Friday, 30 April 2010 09:34
Guam - Guam News
Guam - Congresswoman Bordallo, today, announced the passage of H.R. 2499, the “Puerto Rico Democracy Act” by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill passed by a vote of 223 yeas, 169 noes, and 1 present vote. H.R. 2499, introduced last year by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico, requires Puerto Rico to conduct a plebiscite, asking whether the people of Puerto Rico are satisfied with the current political status of the island. If more than 50% of the electorate votes “no,” the referendum will proceed to a second round where voters will be asked to vote for one of three legally acceptable alternative political statuses: independence, independence in association with the United States, or Statehood. The results of these votes will not be binding for either the government of Puerto Rico or the Federal Government. Should H.R. 2499 be enacted into law it will mark the first time that the people of Puerto Rico will participate in a federally sanctioned process to express their preferences regarding their political status.
“Today, the people of Puerto Rico move forward in their quest for a self-determined political status,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. “H.R. 2499 is not just important for the people of Puerto Rico, it is important for all Americans living in the Territories. Each territory, including Guam, must choose its own path to self determination. That is why I introduced legislation providing federal funds for political status education for Guam so that we can begin our own process. As the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over territorial issues, I supported this bill because the Resident Commissioner, the Governor, and a substantial majority of the Puerto Rican legislature are united in their support of H.R. 2499. I hope that the U.S. Senate now takes up H.R. 2499, and my bill H.R. 3940, in order for both chambers of Congress to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities to the territories. ”
Bordallo says Puerto Rico Bill Also Good For Guam
Written by News Release
Friday, 30 April 2010 09:34
Guam - Guam News
Guam - Congresswoman Bordallo, today, announced the passage of H.R. 2499, the “Puerto Rico Democracy Act” by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill passed by a vote of 223 yeas, 169 noes, and 1 present vote. H.R. 2499, introduced last year by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico, requires Puerto Rico to conduct a plebiscite, asking whether the people of Puerto Rico are satisfied with the current political status of the island. If more than 50% of the electorate votes “no,” the referendum will proceed to a second round where voters will be asked to vote for one of three legally acceptable alternative political statuses: independence, independence in association with the United States, or Statehood. The results of these votes will not be binding for either the government of Puerto Rico or the Federal Government. Should H.R. 2499 be enacted into law it will mark the first time that the people of Puerto Rico will participate in a federally sanctioned process to express their preferences regarding their political status.
“Today, the people of Puerto Rico move forward in their quest for a self-determined political status,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. “H.R. 2499 is not just important for the people of Puerto Rico, it is important for all Americans living in the Territories. Each territory, including Guam, must choose its own path to self determination. That is why I introduced legislation providing federal funds for political status education for Guam so that we can begin our own process. As the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over territorial issues, I supported this bill because the Resident Commissioner, the Governor, and a substantial majority of the Puerto Rican legislature are united in their support of H.R. 2499. I hope that the U.S. Senate now takes up H.R. 2499, and my bill H.R. 3940, in order for both chambers of Congress to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities to the territories. ”
Bordallo says Puerto Rico Bill Also Good For Guam
Have we discovered oil in Puerto Rico or some other resource to exploit?
Do we need more pics?
Yes.
Roselyn Sanchez
Roselyn Sanchez
My wife's family is from there. just remember to never get between one of them and a mirror.
Puerto Rico university closes as students strike
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico
One of the largest universities in the Caribbean closed Wednesday as hundreds of students clashed with security guards during a 48-hour strike to protest budget cuts and changes to the academic program at the University of Puerto Rico.
The university's Rio Piedras campus, its largest, will remain closed indefinitely, interim Chancellor Ana Guadalupe announced.
She said she made the decision after 19 guards were injured in the clash.
Guadalupe said the closure would delay the graduation scheduled for June 17, enrollment in August and affect students who have been accepted to universities abroad.
The strike comes three weeks before classes end.
Students have sought to meet with university President Jose Ramon de la Torre to talk about budget cuts, course changes and a proposal to increase university fees.
The university has 11 campuses and more than 65,000 students. Its alumni include U.S. Rep. Nydia Velasquez and former baseball player Bernie Williams.
Puerto Rico university closes as students strike - BusinessWeek
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico
One of the largest universities in the Caribbean closed Wednesday as hundreds of students clashed with security guards during a 48-hour strike to protest budget cuts and changes to the academic program at the University of Puerto Rico.
The university's Rio Piedras campus, its largest, will remain closed indefinitely, interim Chancellor Ana Guadalupe announced.
She said she made the decision after 19 guards were injured in the clash.
Guadalupe said the closure would delay the graduation scheduled for June 17, enrollment in August and affect students who have been accepted to universities abroad.
The strike comes three weeks before classes end.
Students have sought to meet with university President Jose Ramon de la Torre to talk about budget cuts, course changes and a proposal to increase university fees.
The university has 11 campuses and more than 65,000 students. Its alumni include U.S. Rep. Nydia Velasquez and former baseball player Bernie Williams.
Puerto Rico university closes as students strike - BusinessWeek
Here we go again.
Pro-statehood administrations in Puerto Rico have made it a habit to get the island to vote on its status, no matter how many past referendums and plebiscites have shown a reluctance among Puerto Ricans to join the union. Now is Gov. Luis Fortuno's turn.
His New Progressive Party's resident commissioner in Congress, Pedro Pierluisi, fulfilled a campaign promise by pushing through a "self-determination" bill that would allow voters on the island to express their preference on the issue: statehood, independence or a hybrid of the two, including the current commonwealth or "free associated state."
The House passed it this week on a 223-169 vote and the legislation is headed for the Senate.
The thing is, Puerto Rico's status is a Pandora's box. Think about the brouhaha over speaking Spanish in the United States. Contemplate the reaction to a new all-Latino, likely all-Democratic congressional delegation. And consider the reaction among the neighbors – especially those similarly statehood-less residents of the District of Columbia.
And, to boot, Puerto Ricans have shown themselves to be deeply split on the question of their status. Every family mirrors the rifts, and every family has a black sheep – say, one lone "independentista" mom among a statehooder dad and two children, or one statehooder among four commonwealthers.
It is not that Puerto Rico suffers from an identity crisis. Puerto Ricans on the island are not much different in that respect from Latinos on the mainland. Many of us are bilingual and bicultural – we reserve the right to speak Spanglish and eat fried plantains with ketchup. Why would anyone want to choose between English and Spanish, hamburger or rice and beans, if you can have both?
Among Puerto Ricans, there is pride in the duality. But the pros and cons get more complicated. The population of about 4 million is used to fighting wars without the right to elect their commander in chief since the island can't vote for president or have a congressional delegation. But the Puerto Ricans don't pay federal income taxes (they do pay state and Social Security taxes) and they enjoy the benefits of federal programs and American citizenship, mainly the right to come and go between the island and the states -- like any Texan or Californian would. Under their hybrid status, though, the lack of powers, such as the ability for the commonwealth government to strike its own trade agreements, has hampered efforts to effectively tackle high unemployment and other economic problems.
Add to unequal rights and obligations, a strong sense of nationhood. And with 400 years under Spanish rule and a little over a century of American dominance, there is strong adherence to the Latin American team. The pro-statehood contingent would never give up the Spanish language. But few pro-independence advocates would give up their American citizenship. Under the American flag, Puerto Rico is used to Democratic values and better living standards, a stronger middle class and more political stability than the rest of Latin America. (And a voter turnout that sometimes surpasses 80 percent.) That's why imperfect as it is, many regard the current commonwealth, a fancy name for "territory," as a happy medium of sorts.
In Puerto Rico, I grew up in a school that taught in English and Spanish. I pledged allegiance to two flags and sang two national anthems. I got presents both from Santa Claus on Dec. 25 and from the Magi on Three Kings Day Jan. 6. For Puerto Ricans, deep down, the status question is a matter of emotions, cultural heritage and history, not easy things to shove aside with arguments about political representation, taxes or economic benefits.
With such passions in play, Congress may not go there.
Statehood for Puerto Rico? Many Residents Like Status Quo
Pro-statehood administrations in Puerto Rico have made it a habit to get the island to vote on its status, no matter how many past referendums and plebiscites have shown a reluctance among Puerto Ricans to join the union. Now is Gov. Luis Fortuno's turn.
His New Progressive Party's resident commissioner in Congress, Pedro Pierluisi, fulfilled a campaign promise by pushing through a "self-determination" bill that would allow voters on the island to express their preference on the issue: statehood, independence or a hybrid of the two, including the current commonwealth or "free associated state."
The House passed it this week on a 223-169 vote and the legislation is headed for the Senate.
The thing is, Puerto Rico's status is a Pandora's box. Think about the brouhaha over speaking Spanish in the United States. Contemplate the reaction to a new all-Latino, likely all-Democratic congressional delegation. And consider the reaction among the neighbors – especially those similarly statehood-less residents of the District of Columbia.
And, to boot, Puerto Ricans have shown themselves to be deeply split on the question of their status. Every family mirrors the rifts, and every family has a black sheep – say, one lone "independentista" mom among a statehooder dad and two children, or one statehooder among four commonwealthers.
It is not that Puerto Rico suffers from an identity crisis. Puerto Ricans on the island are not much different in that respect from Latinos on the mainland. Many of us are bilingual and bicultural – we reserve the right to speak Spanglish and eat fried plantains with ketchup. Why would anyone want to choose between English and Spanish, hamburger or rice and beans, if you can have both?
Among Puerto Ricans, there is pride in the duality. But the pros and cons get more complicated. The population of about 4 million is used to fighting wars without the right to elect their commander in chief since the island can't vote for president or have a congressional delegation. But the Puerto Ricans don't pay federal income taxes (they do pay state and Social Security taxes) and they enjoy the benefits of federal programs and American citizenship, mainly the right to come and go between the island and the states -- like any Texan or Californian would. Under their hybrid status, though, the lack of powers, such as the ability for the commonwealth government to strike its own trade agreements, has hampered efforts to effectively tackle high unemployment and other economic problems.
Add to unequal rights and obligations, a strong sense of nationhood. And with 400 years under Spanish rule and a little over a century of American dominance, there is strong adherence to the Latin American team. The pro-statehood contingent would never give up the Spanish language. But few pro-independence advocates would give up their American citizenship. Under the American flag, Puerto Rico is used to Democratic values and better living standards, a stronger middle class and more political stability than the rest of Latin America. (And a voter turnout that sometimes surpasses 80 percent.) That's why imperfect as it is, many regard the current commonwealth, a fancy name for "territory," as a happy medium of sorts.
In Puerto Rico, I grew up in a school that taught in English and Spanish. I pledged allegiance to two flags and sang two national anthems. I got presents both from Santa Claus on Dec. 25 and from the Magi on Three Kings Day Jan. 6. For Puerto Ricans, deep down, the status question is a matter of emotions, cultural heritage and history, not easy things to shove aside with arguments about political representation, taxes or economic benefits.
With such passions in play, Congress may not go there.
Statehood for Puerto Rico? Many Residents Like Status Quo
Here is a grievance Puerto Rico has with the US. It does look like pork on the surface and clearly puts an added burden on places like Puerto Rico and others, including Hawaii. They seem to shoulder an unfair burden, being so dependent on shipping.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.
Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed wholly by U.S. citizens. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, but agricultural interests generally oppose it because, they contend, it raises the cost of shipping their goods, making them less competitive with foreign sources. [1]
In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.
Cabotage
The cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to U.S. built and flagged vessels. In addition, at least 75 percent of the crewmembers must be U.S. citizens. Moreover foreign repair work of U.S.-flagged vessels' hull and superstructure is limited to 10 percent foreign-built steel weight.[2] This restriction largely prevents American shipowners from refurbishing their ships at overseas shipyards.
Criticism
Critics note that the legislation results in costs for moving cargoes between U.S. ports that are far higher than if such restrictions did not apply. In essence, they argue, the act is protectionism. [3]
Opponents contend that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has suffered as a result. Ship operators are given an incentive to maintain veteran U.S.-built vessels rather than replace them with new tonnage. In addition, U.S. shipyards have adapted to building only those ships that are needed by operators, with price tags that reflect their all-American workforces. Subsequently, the claim is that U.S. shipbuilders have long since priced themselves out of the international market for merchant ships.
A 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce Study study indicates that U.S. shipyards built only 1 percent of the world's large commercial ships. Ships are virtually never ordered in U.S. shipyards unless they are for use in U.S. Shipping. The report concluded that the lack of United States competitiveness stemmed from foreign subsidies, unfair trade practices, and lack of U.S. productivity.[4]
Moreover, critics point to the lack of a U.S.-flagged international shipping fleet. They claim that it makes it economically impossible for U.S.-flagged, -built, and -crewed ships to compete internationally with vessels built and registered in other nations with crews willing to work for wages that are a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts earn.
"The Shipping Act steals jobs from American seamen who could be working on coastwise freighters and feeders." Rob Quartel, president of the Reform Coalition.[5]
Merchant Marine Act of 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.
Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed wholly by U.S. citizens. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, but agricultural interests generally oppose it because, they contend, it raises the cost of shipping their goods, making them less competitive with foreign sources. [1]
In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.
Cabotage
The cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to U.S. built and flagged vessels. In addition, at least 75 percent of the crewmembers must be U.S. citizens. Moreover foreign repair work of U.S.-flagged vessels' hull and superstructure is limited to 10 percent foreign-built steel weight.[2] This restriction largely prevents American shipowners from refurbishing their ships at overseas shipyards.
Criticism
Critics note that the legislation results in costs for moving cargoes between U.S. ports that are far higher than if such restrictions did not apply. In essence, they argue, the act is protectionism. [3]
Opponents contend that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has suffered as a result. Ship operators are given an incentive to maintain veteran U.S.-built vessels rather than replace them with new tonnage. In addition, U.S. shipyards have adapted to building only those ships that are needed by operators, with price tags that reflect their all-American workforces. Subsequently, the claim is that U.S. shipbuilders have long since priced themselves out of the international market for merchant ships.
A 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce Study study indicates that U.S. shipyards built only 1 percent of the world's large commercial ships. Ships are virtually never ordered in U.S. shipyards unless they are for use in U.S. Shipping. The report concluded that the lack of United States competitiveness stemmed from foreign subsidies, unfair trade practices, and lack of U.S. productivity.[4]
Moreover, critics point to the lack of a U.S.-flagged international shipping fleet. They claim that it makes it economically impossible for U.S.-flagged, -built, and -crewed ships to compete internationally with vessels built and registered in other nations with crews willing to work for wages that are a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts earn.
"The Shipping Act steals jobs from American seamen who could be working on coastwise freighters and feeders." Rob Quartel, president of the Reform Coalition.[5]
Merchant Marine Act of 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My wife's cousin sent me an E-Mail referencing this.
Judge’s Decision Means More Children will Die in Vieques and Threatens the Safety of All Americans
American Citizens of Vieques, an island of the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, Live with Disease and Death as a Result of Over 60 Years of U.S. Military Weapons Testing
(ARLINGTON, VA) Yesterday, Judge Daniel Dominguez dismissed the claims of more than 7,000 Viequenses, seeking compensation from the Navy in federal district court for illnesses caused by the toxic contamination of their island following more than six decades of naval bombardment and weapons testing on their island [click here for history]. The dismissal came despite evidence that the Navy violated the Clean Water Act over 102 times, and the toxic substances which violated the CWA had traveled through the food chain and are in the bodies of the plaintiffs making them sick.
“It is sad and unfortunate that the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico has denied justice to our people of Vieques. President Barack Obama pledged that, once in office, he would work to address the health crisis on the island, and I will continue to fight for remedies to the health and environmental crisis in our Island,” said Evelyn Delerme, Mayor of Vieques.
The more than 9,000 American citizens who live in Vieques have a 30% higher rate of cancer, 381% higher hypertension, and 95% higher cirrhosis of the liver than the inhabitants of Puerto Rico’s main island. Hair testing has shown that the vast majority of Viequenses suffer from at least one form of heavy metal poisoning from toxins found in the weapons used on the island.
“I don’t believe it is the law in America that any Government agency can harm American citizens, purposefully hide its actions, and be shielded by sovereign immunity. We will appeal this decision,” said John Eaves, the lawyer representing the island in this case. “The most inalienable of our rights is to life. The court’s decision that the Government can violate its own laws and deprive its citizens of life without fear of accountability stands against the most fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded.”
Judge Dominguez found that the Navy failed to report activities that posed a health risk to the population; that Congress had passed laws saying that the Navy “shall” report those risks to the EPA; and that the Navy’s failure to follow those laws would override the Justice Department’s claim to sovereign immunity. However, the court ruled that despite the fact that the law explicitly required that the Navy “shall” report the health risks, the law left the means by which the Navy did so up to the discretion of the Secretary. In an extreme reach of legal logic, the Judge set the dangerous legal precedent that the Government’s discretion over how to report health risks allowed it to choose not to report the health risks, and that the Navy therefore did not actually violate the intent of the law and that its claim to sovereign immunity stood.
“When Justice is both blind and heartless, it has failed,” said Eric Sapp, Executive Director of the American Values Network. “Our government does not dispute its responsibility for the suffering on Vieques. Instead our Justice Department is seeking to deny justice using legal technicalities. This is a simple question of right and wrong and what America stands for. There is a fund already in place to help these people. It’s time President Obama did right by the Viequenses and directed Justice to stop fighting and give the people the help they deserve.”
American Values Network :: Latest Developments
Judge’s Decision Means More Children will Die in Vieques and Threatens the Safety of All Americans
American Citizens of Vieques, an island of the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, Live with Disease and Death as a Result of Over 60 Years of U.S. Military Weapons Testing
(ARLINGTON, VA) Yesterday, Judge Daniel Dominguez dismissed the claims of more than 7,000 Viequenses, seeking compensation from the Navy in federal district court for illnesses caused by the toxic contamination of their island following more than six decades of naval bombardment and weapons testing on their island [click here for history]. The dismissal came despite evidence that the Navy violated the Clean Water Act over 102 times, and the toxic substances which violated the CWA had traveled through the food chain and are in the bodies of the plaintiffs making them sick.
“It is sad and unfortunate that the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico has denied justice to our people of Vieques. President Barack Obama pledged that, once in office, he would work to address the health crisis on the island, and I will continue to fight for remedies to the health and environmental crisis in our Island,” said Evelyn Delerme, Mayor of Vieques.
The more than 9,000 American citizens who live in Vieques have a 30% higher rate of cancer, 381% higher hypertension, and 95% higher cirrhosis of the liver than the inhabitants of Puerto Rico’s main island. Hair testing has shown that the vast majority of Viequenses suffer from at least one form of heavy metal poisoning from toxins found in the weapons used on the island.
“I don’t believe it is the law in America that any Government agency can harm American citizens, purposefully hide its actions, and be shielded by sovereign immunity. We will appeal this decision,” said John Eaves, the lawyer representing the island in this case. “The most inalienable of our rights is to life. The court’s decision that the Government can violate its own laws and deprive its citizens of life without fear of accountability stands against the most fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded.”
Judge Dominguez found that the Navy failed to report activities that posed a health risk to the population; that Congress had passed laws saying that the Navy “shall” report those risks to the EPA; and that the Navy’s failure to follow those laws would override the Justice Department’s claim to sovereign immunity. However, the court ruled that despite the fact that the law explicitly required that the Navy “shall” report the health risks, the law left the means by which the Navy did so up to the discretion of the Secretary. In an extreme reach of legal logic, the Judge set the dangerous legal precedent that the Government’s discretion over how to report health risks allowed it to choose not to report the health risks, and that the Navy therefore did not actually violate the intent of the law and that its claim to sovereign immunity stood.
“When Justice is both blind and heartless, it has failed,” said Eric Sapp, Executive Director of the American Values Network. “Our government does not dispute its responsibility for the suffering on Vieques. Instead our Justice Department is seeking to deny justice using legal technicalities. This is a simple question of right and wrong and what America stands for. There is a fund already in place to help these people. It’s time President Obama did right by the Viequenses and directed Justice to stop fighting and give the people the help they deserve.”
American Values Network :: Latest Developments
Similar threads
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 166
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 167
- Locked
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 164
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 23
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 30
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-