Balkinization: More on Puerto Rico

More on Puerto Rico

Sandy Levinson

As part of the blog about our new book, Fault Lines in the Constitution, my wife Cynthia and I have just posted a discussion about Puerto Rico. It doesn't add very much to Gerard's excellent post, save that we hope that at least some of our audience includes the teenagers to whom our book is directed and their teachers. I do suspect that this will be a decisive moment in the relationship between the US national government and what is now the world's largest remaining colony (defined by the absence of any voting representation in the metropolitan government, unlike, for example, the French territories). One can only imagine what would be happening if Puerto Rico, which is the same population roughly as Connecticut, had that state's two senators and five members of the House (not to mention seven electoral votes). I would think, at the very least, that events of the past week have weakened the attraction of Commonwealth status, and I will be curious, should this turn out to be the case, if the defectors support statehood or independence (or, of course, independence should a bigoted Congress reject statehood because the dominant language of Puerto Rico is Spanish. And, of course, it would be extremely interesting, to put it mildly, to see what the response of the US would be to a truly serious secessionist movement patterned after 1776.

Posted 4:25 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

To what extent might America's national security interests be impacted if PR were to become independent?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:47 PM

"Relatively few Puerto Ricans support declaring independence from the United States. Most of the rest are split fairly evenly between those who want statehood and those who prefer to retain their current hybrid status, which entitles the territory to send its own team to the Olympics but not vote for national officials."

The better question is why it would be in the United States's national interest to maintain either the current hybrid status or grant statehood to Puerto Rico?

Under its current hybrid status, PR is an increasing drain on the United States. They pay no US income taxes, but partake of the US welfare state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Puerto_Rico#cite_note-PR_FS-1

Indeed, PR is considered to be a haven for US tax dodgers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/07/04/hate-taxes-move-to-tax-free-puerto-rico-stay-american-avoid-irs/#778a2cb56397

Apart from Democrat desire to import voters, there is absolutely no national benefit to making PR a state.

PR's economy is second world, with a per capita income half of Mississippi, and its citizens impoverished compare with the US. To the extent PR citizens are not already government dependents, nearly all would be eligible to become so after statehood.

Next, PR's government is third world, with rampant corruption and looming insolvency.

http://www.economist.com/node/6980051

Finally, PR has a different culture and language from the United States. During an era when Democrats are (again) openly discussing secession from the United States, this time for not sharing its progressive ideals, PR would have by far the most legitimate argument for doing so.

Instead of discussing statehood, the United States should be discussing forced independence.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:55 PM

"The better question is why it would be in the United States's national interest to maintain either the current hybrid status or grant statehood to Puerto Rico?"

The best question is what is just, and our Founding values point the way: it's wrong to rule, and tax, a colony without at the least giving it representation.

"They pay no US income taxes, but partake of the US welfare state."

No income tax, but other federal taxes they do pay. They pay about 3 billion a year.

Now, according to Bart's source, they get back 21 billion from the federal government. That's a ratio similar to...South Carolina.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

"PR has a different culture and language from the United States"

They *are part of the US.* There is no official language of the United States.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:04 PM

South Carolina? Was that chosen for a reason?

It is simply unjust that 3.5 million people are disenfranchised in the way Puerto Rico is. I would at the very least amend the Constitution so that the smaller populations in other territories like the Virgin Islands (also victimized by weather of late) can vote for President. But, Puerto Rico is especially blatant in this respect.

# posted by

Joe : 8:39 PM

BD:"The better question is why it would be in the United States's national interest to maintain either the current hybrid status or grant statehood to Puerto Rico?"

Mr. W: The best question is what is just, and our Founding values point the way: it's wrong to rule, and tax, a colony without at the least giving it representation.

Or independence...

BD: "They pay no US income taxes, but partake of the US welfare state."

Mr. W: No income tax, but other federal taxes they do pay. They pay about 3 billion a year. Now, according to Bart's source, they get back 21 billion from the federal government. That's a ratio similar to...South Carolina.

The analogy between PR and SC is nonsense.

SC hosts an extensive military presence, which is a public good for the national defense, not a federal subsidy for SC. PR does not.

Furthermore, I specifically referred to partaking of the US welfare state - both corporate and individual.

BD: "PR has a different culture and language from the United States"

Mr. W: They *are part of the US.* There is no official language of the United States.

PR is a possession, a relic from our flirtations with imperialism which has little culturally or linguistically in common with the United States. Because they are geographically isolated from the mainland, PR is unlikely to assimilate as do immigrants into the mainland.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:48 AM

SPAM's closing:

" Because they are geographically isolated from the mainland, PR is unlikely to assimilate as do immigrants into the mainland."

might be overlooking Cuban immigrants. In addition, many Puerto Ricans reside in the mainland. Assimilation tests racial views. It took some time for various white ethnic groups to assimilate.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:39 AM

"he analogy between PR and SC is nonsense.

SC hosts an extensive military presence"

When Congresscritters pick my pocket I could care less whether they label the pork they funnel back as defense or welfare.

Furthermore, it's Bart's military excuse that's nonsense. Virginia recieves ten times the defense spending SC does, but it has a much it has nothing like SC's gap between what they pay in and what they get from the feds.

When can we get rid of this increasing drain on the US?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:43 AM