2010-05-11
Are Opponents to Puerto Rican Statehood Racist or Just Foolish?
A while ago, the local TEA Party (Northwest Indiana Patriots) leader out here got her folks up in arms about the House of Representatives passing House Resolution 2499, the "Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010," which will authorize the Puerto Rican government to have two voter referendums, allowing voters to first to decide whether their current political status is acceptable. If the majority vote no, then the Puerto Rican voters would vote on whether to maintain their current Commonwealth status, obtain statehood, or become an independent country. If the Puerto Rican people voted to become a state, the US Congress would then have to approve their entry into the Union. If passed as is by the US Senate, the legislation would also authorize a vote every 8 years until Puerto Rico either votes for statehood or independence.
Here are the problems raised by the Northwest Indiana Patriots and my responses to them.
PROBLEM 1:
The first [problem] is that of creating a bilingual country with the addition of an almost completely Spanish-speaking state.
I'm going to raise hell with my response, but it needs to be said. "So What?" Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having one language to enhance communication between people. However, the Spanish-speaking population of the lower 48 states (legal and illegal) is expanding at a faster rate than the English-speaking population. Whether we like it or not, America is on the verge of becoming a bi-lingual nation anyway.
Yeah, that's not a response. But this is: India has a population nearly 4 times the size of our own. Like our population, India is insanely diverse religiously and ethnically. However, unlike the United States, India is incredibly diverse linguistically. In fact, at least 31 languages are spoken by over a million people. In fact, 67 languages are the native tongues of at least 10,000 people or more and that doesn't include the varying dialects of each language. When those are considered, India has somewhere around 415 distinct, living languages currently being spoken. The last time I checked, there were over 22 official languages in various parts of India. The federal government in India actually recognizes two national languages, Hindi and English.
So here's the question I pose to those find this to be a problem. What makes the Indian people so much better than the American people that they can handle linguistic diversity and we can't?
PROBLEM 2:
Then there is the problem of reassigning some seats in the U.S. House of Representatives by handing at least six or seven over to Puerto Rico, depriving six or seven existing states of one representative each because of the Congressionally mandated 435-seat cap.
The 435 seat cap was created in 1911 by Public Law 62-5. I'm actually not a fan of 62-5 and think it should be repealed. I'm also a realist and know that won't happen anytime soon. The Constitution states that the size of the House of Representatives should not exceed one member for every 30,000 people. If we kept that ratio, the House of Representatives would currently have 10,000 members instead of 435. In 1911, each member of Congress represented roughly 212,019 Americans. Today, that number is closer to 700,000 Americans.
You can sort of see what I'm talking about here.
Anyway, since 1911, the United States has grown from 46 states to 50 states, with the addition of New Mexico and Arizona in 1912 and Alaska and Hawaii in 1959. Those four states currently hold a total of 14 Representatives, twice as many as they fear Americans in Puerto Rico would "steal" from six or seven other states. Does this mean that these people would have been equally opposed to statehood for these four states?
Perhaps this is a bit facetious, but does this also mean that folks who are opposed to Puerto Rican statehood are opposed to anything other than nuclear families (2 children for 2 parents) and people moving out of state because it will result in some states being stripped of a coveted representative?
PROBLEM 3:
This type of political maneuvering seems very partisan because the seats in the Senate and the House would likely be Democratic ones, and the electoral votes awarded Puerto Rico might outnumber those of 22 current states.
Puerto Rico currently has a democratically elected Republican Governor. The population is also overwhelmingly pro-life. Get over your irrational fear of Spanish, campaign in that language, and you might be surprised at what role Puerto Rico plays in national politics as a state. Just because their skin is brown doesn't mean they are a guaranteed vote for the Democrats and their liberal agenda.
PROBLEM 4:
Before American taxpayers have to absorb and bail out another financially failing institution — this time, the island of Puerto Rico — both Americans and Puerto Ricans need to know and understand that this could just be a case of politicians using this very opaque legislation as a means to whatever ends they envision, not only for Puerto Rico and the United States, but also for the political dynamics this situation might bring with it in the future.
Who said we were bailing Puerto Rico out? And even if we do bail them out, who is to say we wouldn't have bailed them out anyway? Right now, the states are on their own in this financial crisis, just like Puerto Rico. In fact, Puerto Rico's financial woes are dwarfed by those of states like California. When Indiana screwed itself in the 1800s by building excessive canals, the Federal Government didn't bail us out. Now that California has hosed itself by an insane liberal social agenda, the Federal Government isn't rushing to the rescue. Why would the situation be any different for Puerto Rico?
Let's not forget that Puerto Rico currently does not pay federal income taxes, either. That will change if they are admitted into the United States. Puerto Ricans already get Social Security and Medicare and already pay into the systems, so they aren't going to be an unwanted burden on Americans already living in official states, either. And if we can get the FairTax passed, Puerto Rico will be an even stronger revenue creator.
PROBLEM 5:
Please vote "No" on this bill; most individuals, including myself, are unwilling to have such a bill become law until all the political, economic, and cultural details are out on the table, for both Americans and Puerto Ricans. HR 2499 should be opposed on the grounds that it is a very bad move in the present economic and financial climate, with the possible political consequences precluding Americans from being in favor of statehood for the island nation of Puerto Rico at this time.
This is where I have to ask if the person who wrote this is stupid. If that's Faith Jones, the creator of the Northwest Indiana Patriots and their leader, I'm sorry but it's a question that needs to be asked.
1. "Political, Economic, and Cultural details" are on Wikipedia. Besides, they'll be discussed more in the Congressional Debate that would follow the plausible but uncertain "Statehood" vote in Puerto Rico.
2. You've said "both Americans and Puerto Ricans" twice. You do realize that Puerto Ricans ARE Americans, right? That's like saying "both Americans and Hoosiers" politically or "both Americans and Indians" in a racist, demeaning way towards American Indians. FYI: The Jones Act of 1917 collectively made Puerto Ricans citizens.
3. You're arguing that a people's right to representation should be dependent on the financial interests of those already represented? Isn't that sort of... I don't know... King George-ish of you?
4. You call Puerto Rico an island nation why? This really makes me wonder if you realize that Puerto Ricans are Americans. They are a Commonwealth and are part of OUR nation. They are an 'island nation' as much as Hawaii... although technically Hawaii would be an archipelago nation, but that's besides the point.
5. The sentence structure here is atrocious. For someone who cares so much about the English language, you sure butchered it there.
For people who care about the US Constitution so much, it's worth noting that nowhere in this argument is the Constitution used. The reason for that is because this is entirely, 100% Constitutional. In fact, if Democrats were trying to stop statehood for a territory, a lot of these people would probably say their behaviors were unconstitutional. The honest to goodness truth of this all is that the Constitution does not establish English as an official language that Americans voting for Federal Offices must speak and understand. Nor does it say that states should only be admitted if they don't take representatives away from other states, which would be impossible since 1911. Every Puerto Rican under the age of 93 is unarguably a natural born American citizen and could not only vote for President if they created the 51st State, but could BE the President of our Union.
If Puerto Ricans want statehood, it's foolish and undemocratic to stand in their way. As a result of this, quite a few people have come out and called the Northwest Indiana Patriots "racists." In reality, a lot of them hope to use this to prove their preconceived notions of racism in the group. I don't actually think they're racists, just foolish in this particular instance. Racists are fools, but not all fools are racist.
