Posted on 04/30/2010 9:11:14 AM PDT by patriotgal1787
BTW: Posey is likely a supporter of this bill as he has the armpit of a town known as Kissimmee (Puerto Rico del Norte) in his district. Any more PRs migrate into the district and it can become a safe Dem district. Like Jorge Bush, he believes in the “Family Values” myth regarding poor Latino immigrants. If you look at the rate of illegitimacy and criminal behavior of PRs on the mainland and in the island versus that of white Americans, this myth would be put firmly to rest.
From the article:
>> Most Puerto Ricans do not consider English as their sole official language. No non-English speaking state has ever joined the union.
Incorrect, partially; New Mexico when it was adopted into statehood [1911, think Kimber ;)] had (and still has) in its Constitution Atricle 20, Section 12:
[Publication of laws in English and Spanish.]
For the first twenty years after this constitution goes into effect all laws passed by the legislature shall be published in both the English and Spanish languages and thereafter such publication shall be made as the legislature may provide.
In that regard it mirrors, very much, Puerto Rico; which has it’s two languages English and Spanish.
I love how even "Republican" reps support the demographic Third Worldization of our nation.
“In 1947 an amendment to the Jones Act made the island governor an elected position. Since the first time the U.S. forces arrived to the island, the people could elect their local executive.”
http://www.enciclopediapr.org/ing/article.cfm?ref=09072205
And quit using Wikipedia.
This freeper’s congresscrook is a numbskull and a liar, and the freeper believed him as you believe Widipedia!!!
Right now. I am not trusting ANY Republican.....we are gonna eventually have to settle this without voting.
“The Jones-Shafroth Act or Jones Act (Puerto Rico) was a 1917 statute sponsored by Representative William Atkinson Jones, which concerned the government of Puerto Rico and conferred U.S. citizenship on Puerto Ricans.”
The only real problem with the legislation was that it divided the vote into two separate referendums. First, a “yes/no” on changing, without regard to WHAT the change would be.
Then, a second vote covering three “changes”. The idea was that while a plurality support the status quo, a majority don’t. But the majority that want “change” aren’t in agreement on the change, so they split between the 3 possibilities. By making it two votes, it would result in a referendum that would give the plurality to one of the 3 changes.
If the congressman is right, and they have added the 4th “status quo” choice to the 2nd referendum, then the problem is solved.
It’s just a bill to get the PR people to once again express their opinion about what they want. It’s not binding. It apparently now allows them to vote “no change” on the 2nd referendum. There is no reason why a 30% support for “statehood” would mean Congress would grant statehood.
Sometimes I think we are all too easily distracted by squirrels.
I forgot, and that was the other thing that needed to be fixed in the bill (and I don’t know if it was). Only current residents of PR should be voting. What do we care what former PR people living in the states think?
Of course, if the vote simply allowed a breakout of residents vs nonresidents, that would solve the problem as well, since the votes are simply to prod Congress to action, and Congress could take the residential/nonresidential vote differences into account.
I don’t see that as a particular problem provided that there is enough of a fluency in the Lingua Franca {in America’s case English} to function with the rest of the country.
States are free to make their own Constitutions and laws, right? So, in theory, ANY state could “wake up tomorrow” and decide that Japanese* is a much more natural/regular language than English and decide to make it their official language, right? {9th and 10th Amendments}
The “devil in the details” would be, in such a case, the contracts between them and the other states, like reciprocity laws would have to be in two differing languages; then there could be interpretation/translation nuance that are not well-defined in which case the question can become which language is the “stronger” legally.
*I chose Japanese because I took it as a foreign language in College.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.