Poll: Statehood gains ground as status preference - Caribbean Business Online 09/07/09

There should be only three correct status options: statehood, commonwealth and independence. No phony other options.

I am convinced that "Sovereign ELA" should not be in an official referendum on Puerto Rico's status. It is a phony choice and a monkey-wrench to avoid an honest poll or status vote.

"Sovereign ELA" is another form of independence by a confusing name. It is a clever ploy as much as the earlier "None Of the Above" status option. It is a Popular Democratic Party's wolf in sheep's clothing.

A sovereign association is only possible between the United States and the new republic of Puerto Rico once Puerto Rico has independence. Not before. Furthermore, once Puerto Rico is independent, a sovereign association cannot be assured by the current United States, the current Commonwealth colony or any other current government agency.-- First things first!

The decision for an association of any form must come from the new government officials in the new independent republic of Puerto Rico. If a once independent Puerto Rico government decides it wants an association it can then -- and only then -- approach the United States Department of State and the United States Senate with a request to consider an association with their new republic.

This request can only come from the elected and sworn-in officials of the new independent nation or the republic of Puerto Rico.

If you take away this monkey-wrench and foolishness of "Sovereign ELA", the vote for statehood would be much higher. I am astonished that Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierlusi even allowed "Sovereign ELA" to be one of the status options because it is not a legitimate option. It is another "Non of the Above" kind of ploy.

A statehooder should know better. Resident Commissioner Pierlusi, please carefully explain to the people of the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in great detail all the steps necessary to achieve Sovereign ELA. Take us step by step without avoiding any of the steps. It cannot be don't without revealing that "Sovereign ELA" is an unworkable, phony, unconstitutional option.

I am afraid that the New Progressive Party has fallen into another Popular Democratic Party trap as they did with "Non of the Above."

The Puerto Rico Independence Party, knows that it has a very small percentage of the vote; and therefore, wants Sovereign ELA included as an option because they realize it is a clever monkey wrench to avoid once again a overwhelming vote for statehood.

What concerns me the most is that the NPP has been too dumb not to fall for another kind of "Non Of The Above" monkey wrench ploy or trap. Why is the NPP so unwilling to learn from past mistakes? Could it be true that some statehooders either do not to sincerely want statehood or they know nothing about constitutional law to avoid traps and ploys to stagnate the process?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Mambo Italiana

The past history of sovereign countries entering into a Compact of Free Association with the United States has always required the Compact of Free Association be negotiated and signed PRIOR to the grant of independence by the United States. In the case of the Republic of Palau the Compact was entered by both governments in 1986 but did not come into force until 1994.

In the case of the Federated States of Micronesia the Compact of Free Association was negotiated during the territorial period and it became an independent country upon the signing of the Compact.

Therefore, it appears that historically, transition from territory of the Untied States to Independent country required entering into the Compact of Free Association BEFORE independence was granted.

You may find the histories and relevant dates at the Wikipedia articles on these two countries.

Factchecker wrote:

The past history of sovereign countries entering into a Compact of Free Association with the United States has always required the Compact of Free Association be negotiated and signed PRIOR to the grant of independence by the United States. In the case of the Republic of Palau the Compact was entered by both governments in 1986 but did not come into force until 1994.
In the case of the Federated States of Micronesia the Compact of Free Association was negotiated during the territorial period and it became an independent country upon the signing of the Compact.
Therefore, it appears that historically, transition from territory of the Untied States to Independent country required entering into the Compact of Free Association BEFORE independence was granted.
You may find the histories and relevant dates at the Wikipedia articles on these two countries.

~~~~~~~~~~

There is a status political party plus its political leaders for statehood, independence and commonwealth. However, there is no political party or political leaders for associated republic or sovereign ELA. I still cannot see how a compact can be made between the sovereign United States and a yet to be sovereign Puerto Rico. A valid compact or treaty requires two valid sovereign nations. Not one sovereign and one want to be. I can see lots of court cases with sovereign ELA.

If Puerto Rico did become sovereign with a elected government, what would happen if this government's leaders or officials tell the United States to go to hell -- It has no standing to enforce a previous made compact before Puerto Rico became independent?

I do not think these two tiny trust entities establish precerdence for what is being proposed.
The PDP tried Enhanced Commonwealth with shaky sovereignty. I think sovereign ELA is a shaky attempt to have Enhanced Independence. The more I examine it... the more it falls apart as a valid status despite what happened with those tiny trusteeships in the Pacific.--- It just won't work and is a monkey wrench to stagnate the status process.

Sure!! I guess we just decided our status based on polls rather than referendums o plebicites. this is the same CRAP as the case against AAV, more PROPAGANDA. Why don't you try this poll in the US Congress?

Upfront Yankee wrote:

<quoted text>
~~~~~~~~~~
There is a status political party plus its political leaders for statehood, independence and commonwealth. However, there is no political party or political leaders for associated republic or sovereign ELA. I still cannot see how a compact can be made between the sovereign United States and a yet to be sovereign Puerto Rico. A valid compact or treaty requires two valid sovereign nations. Not one sovereign and one want to be. I can see lots of court cases with sovereign ELA.
If Puerto Rico did become sovereign with a elected government, what would happen if this government's leaders or officials tell the United States to go to hell -- It has no standing to enforce a previous made compact before Puerto Rico became independent?
I do not think these two tiny trust entities establish precerdence for what is being proposed.
The PDP tried Enhanced Commonwealth with shaky sovereignty. I think sovereign ELA is a shaky attempt to have Enhanced Independence. The more I examine it... the more it falls apart as a valid status despite what happened with those tiny trusteeships in the Pacific.--- It just won't work and is a monkey wrench to stagnate the status process.

I was not refuting the premise that the political parties are merely stalling the process. I was merely giving a history of what HAS happened in the past regarding the US having a freely associated relationship with a prior territory of the US.

All the same those two territories are all the precedent that exists for a Compact of Freely Associated Countries that involve the United States.

In addition, the association can be terminated by either party. We know that the current status can be terminated at any time by the United States. We know that if the United States Congress grants statehood to Puerto Rico it cannot be terminated by either side. The US Civil War is the precedence for that.

You may be correct that the Republic of Puerto Rico would refuse to honor the Compact on the premise that it wasn't legal to enter the compact before the Republic of Puerto Rico was independent. However, it doesn't make sense that the Republic of Puerto Rico, having attained independence, would then refuse the Compact and turn down billions of dollars in aid already promised to them.

Factchecker wrote:

<quoted text>
I was not refuting the premise that the political parties are merely stalling the process. I was merely giving a history of what HAS happened in the past regarding the US having a freely associated relationship with a prior territory of the US.
All the same those two territories are all the precedent that exists for a Compact of Freely Associated Countries that involve the United States.
In addition, the association can be terminated by either party. We know that the current status can be terminated at any time by the United States. We know that if the United States Congress grants statehood to Puerto Rico it cannot be terminated by either side. The US Civil War is the precedence for that.
You may be correct that the Republic of Puerto Rico would refuse to honor the Compact on the premise that it wasn't legal to enter the compact before the Republic of Puerto Rico was independent. However, it doesn't make sense that the Republic of Puerto Rico, having attained independence, would then refuse the Compact and turn down billions of dollars in aid already promised to them.

~~~~~~~~~~
I look forward to your comments. You are well informed, astute about issues and intelligent. I do not think you are attacking me or refuting me when you reply. In fact, it is good for you to disagree with me when there is a better viewpoint to have.

Were these new associated nations of the United States ever a true territory or colony of the United States as Puerto Rico is? I was under the impression that they were trusteeships which could easily revert to a complete sovereign and free nation. Are they the best or only examples to believe that we can grant an association to Puerto Rico before it becomes independent?

When the United States became a trustee of these island did they ever lose their sovereignity? I was under the impression that these trusteeships were not permanent. These islands could more easily become independent or sovereign than could Puerto Rico.

BRING IT ON, try the POLL in the US Congress!!!!!!!!!!

Upfront Yankee wrote:

<quoted text>
~~~~~~~~~~
I look forward to your comments. You are well informed, astute about issues and intelligent. I do not think you are attacking me or refuting me when you reply. In fact, it is good for you to disagree with me when there is a better viewpoint to have.
Were these new associated nations of the United States ever a true territory or colony of the United States as Puerto Rico is? I was under the impression that they were trusteeships which could easily revert to a complete sovereign and free nation. Are they the best or only examples to believe that we can grant an association to Puerto Rico before it becomes independent?
When the United States became a trustee of these island did they ever lose their sovereignity? I was under the impression that these trusteeships were not permanent. These islands could more easily become independent or sovereign than could Puerto Rico.

Apparently they were never sovereign countries. They were Spanish colonies, then German colonies and then Japanese colonies for the most part. The US took them over from the Japanese after WW II with the approval of the United Nations. of course, the allied forces of WW II controlled the UN just as they do today.

NoStatehoodPuertoRico wrote:

Sure!! I guess we just decided our status based on polls rather than referendums o plebicites. this is the same CRAP as the case against AAV, more PROPAGANDA. Why don't you try this poll in the US Congress?

Congress is inclined towards statehood. It is just waiting for Puerto Ricans to petition it.

NoStatehoodPuertoRico wrote:

BRING IT ON, try the POLL in the US Congress!!!!!!!!!!

If you've waited for over half a millenium, you can wait a little longer.

Don't despair!

Statehood will come.

Just watch at the anti Hispanics in both political parties in Capitol Hill, during Justice Sotomayor's hearings (almost non existent).

If you can imagine congressional hearings on Puerto Rican statehood, along with U.N. and international pressure to end colonialism in Puerto Rico....

Jorge

Maybe a couple of pro independence protesting outside the U.S. capitol....will be able to share the spotlight with statehooders (and pro U.S. commonwealthers) celebrating.

Jorge wrote:

<quoted text>
Congress is inclined towards statehood.

What evidence can you cite to support this statement?

Does the statement apply to both houses of Congress?

Politics as Usual wrote:

<quoted text>
What evidence can you cite to support this statement?

What evidence can you cite to support the contrary?

Does the statement apply to both houses of Congress?

Yes.

Jorge wrote:

<quoted text>
Congress is inclined towards statehood. It is just waiting for Puerto Ricans to petition it.

REALLY!!!??? I haven’t seen any efforts from the US Congress to press statehood for Puerto Rico but the contrary; every time statehood is on the table they forget about all the NPP millions in lobby money and vote against any bill for addressing the issue.

These tactics were used by Joseph Goebbels during WWII, repeat a LIE enough times until people believe is truth. Statehood is just TOO dammed EXPENSIVE, you have to SELL it in Puerto Rico and BUY it in the US. Even after sacking of FEDERAL funds to pay the BILLIONARE legalize extortion (lobby) for statehood during the NPP Rosello dark ages, your NPP doesn’t have enough money to BUY statehood, I’ll suggest you all take a dammed plane and go live the “statehood perfect paradise” in a REAL US state or live the rest of your lives in misery.

Jorge wrote:

<quoted text>
If you've waited for over half a millenium, you can wait a little longer.
Don't despair!
Statehood will come.
Just watch at the anti Hispanics in both political parties in Capitol Hill, during Justice Sotomayor's hearings (almost non existent).
If you can imagine congressional hearings on Puerto Rican statehood, along with U.N. and international pressure to end colonialism in Puerto Rico....
Jorge
Maybe a couple of pro independence protesting outside the U.S. capitol....will be able to share the spotlight with statehooders (and pro U.S. commonwealthers) celebrating.

Sure, like becoming a US state will be the end of colonialism. Stethood is in fact the DEATH of Puerto Rico.

Politics as Usual wrote:

<quoted text>
What evidence can you cite to support this statement?
Does the statement apply to both houses of Congress?

Just as the GOP, the NPP and their supporter DO NOT CARE about FACTS. They rely on RETHORICAL repetition of statements that favor their limited views and on convinient polls like this one.

So...