From: ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Puerto Rico
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:53:20 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

Tony Alicea writes:

>In a previous article, ez000281@othello.ucdavis.edu () says:

>>I've just recieved news that the pro-statehood party swept the elections
>>in Puerto Rico by a landslide.  Independence advocates, as usual, obtained a
>>minuscule portion of the vote and didn't even pass the single digit barrier.
>>I will post the results as soon as I recieve them.
>>
>>Edelmiro
>

>Your article *ERRONEOUSLY* gives the impression that the puertorricans
>have 'chosen' statehood, which they have not. As a matter of fact not
>even *I*, who has been a puertorrican much longer than you, knows what
>would be the decision of the PR people on *that* issue, which *was not*
>an issue this election, nor has it ever been. Now, say that it's so, so
>that this group is not *misinformed*, pleas., thanks.

>That party has won many times before as you know.

>Please confirm this to the newsgroup. (We *know* you are pro-satehood
>and you don't know my inclination). :-)

Tony,

I have given no "ERRONEOUS" "impression", I simply stated the fact.  And you 
know very well that the "the pro-statehood party swept the elections
in Puerto Rico by a landslide".  If this is not true plear rebuke it. The 
Erroneous impressions are those which are concocted by those who fear change.  
For the first time in history all gubernatorial candidates AGREED that status 
was an issue in this elecction although people did not vote on it. Governor 
elect Rosello promised that if he were elected there would be a referendum on 
the issue and President elect Cliton promised that he would abide by whatever 
the people choose. So, after his victory the governor elect has called for a 
referendum on the matter to be held next year and then people will vote 
exculsively on whether to become a STATE, stay as a TERRITORY of become BANNANA 
REPUCLIC.


>I am from Puerto Rico, and I was very dissapointed to learn that the
>Partido Nuevo Progresista won the elections by a big margin.  The only
>position of which I am not sure who won was the Resident Commissioner,
>because I thought that the PNP, Carlos Romero Barcelo, had won.  But on
>yesterday's USA Today it says that Antonio Colorado, the current
>Resident Commissioner had won.  If anyone knows who really won, please
>post the results on this bboard.  

Snif, Snif, Romero won by 18,000 votes.

On the other hand, I must say that Carlos Romero Barcelo is one of the most 
hated political-related persons in Puerto Rico. 

Well he was just voted in by the people as their representative in Washington, 
so people in Puerto Rico must be masochists according to your standards.

>While being Governor from 1976-1980, he cheated in the 1980 elections and was 
>re-elected. 

You are lying, and thus should susbstantiate your accusation with proof.

>My personal opinion is that he only ran for the position because he wants to 
>retire from politics only after getting credit for giving statehood to PR, 
>which I dissaprove.

Well, he seems to be on the right track, in spite of your dissaproval for he 
is YOUR representative in Congress.

>Here are my personal opinions about giving statehood to PR:

>1.  Taxes.  I would not like to pay tax.  I hate carrying pennies in my 
wallet.

That's precisely why people in Puerto Rico carry pennies in their wallet.  45% 
don't want to pay federal taxes and instead have to pay the highest state 
income taxes in the U.S. in order to compensate for diminished ammount of 
federal funding to the island.

>2.  Language.  The Spanish-Only law was signed just a couple of years
>ago in PR, so it would be very difficult for the US to impose English as
>the first language.  

No problem. Governer elect Rosello primised to derrogate this xenophobic law 
if elected and now tha the has absolute control over the legislature but 
English and Spanish will be "official" languages.

>PR has Spanish roots and culture which will never
>be broken regardless of its political status.

Just like Chicanos in California.  Remember, as our next President has said: 
"in our diversity lies our stregnth."

>3.  It is very unlikely that school will be in English because of point #2.

No problem. Here we have bilingual ed schooling as well as Spanish inmersion 
programs.

>4.  The last time they talked about a plebiscite in PR, nothing
>happened, so for PR to be a state: 1. A plebiscite must be arranged.  2.
> More than half of the population must vote for statehood, which is
>unlikely.  

The last time a plesbiscite was held was in 1967 and two parties abstained.  
Things have changed a lot since then.  Fuerthermore this is not an argument 
against statehood, it is only your hope that statehood is not voted upon, just 
like our previous lame duck governor, who had to torpedoe plans for a 
referendum fearing that statehood would win.

>Even though the PNP won, still a big majority of the
>population supports the current status and also the independent status.

There is now way of knowing this unless you poll the people in an election.  
Are you afraid?

>First: Are you aware that the victory of the NPP party in PR has *nothing* to
>do with the preference of the PR people for/against statehood? Maybe you
>were misled by the news or someone else in this newsgroup.

As stated before, all three candidates recognized that statehood wsa an issue 
in the election.

>PR will never be a state (well, this century at least) because:
>Congress will not give it. 

How do you know? Have you asked?

>We are 'hispanics' (Arrghhh!) we have 'too
>much' black "in us" (<g>) etc... Plus 1/2 of the states would loose
>House reps to give them up to the reps from PR... No chance...

Well, let's see... 50 - 13 = 37 states which were admitted without any fear of 
the ethnic composition of the State, including Alaska and Hawaii.  Or is it 
that you are a hatemonger and want to stirr up racial hatred against Puerto 
Ricans in in your crusade against Statehood?  Le me remind you that we already 
have 3 Puerto Rican "hispanic" who have been elected to congress, one of the 
whipping Stephen Solarz and nobody dared to mention the race issue as bluntly 
as you have.

>At any rate, the PR people *have not* voted on the subject, never, ever,
>so that's the first step; after which Congress would say something like:
>"Well, we take note of your decision... don't call us, we'll call you!"

Sure, and they could also state welcome, its to our mutual benefit.  Instead 
or aguing against statehood on it merits you are arguing on a pleiad of 
if...then
assumptions which have never been tested. I think you should simply state why 
statehood is wrong if the people elect it, and not say: well it does not matter 
what they think because it will somehow be rejected by some unknown force.

Edelmiro