Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico

untitled

The section Referenda Results is so unclear, I have no real idea what it is saying. Could someone please clean it up.

Done. Also moved it below the 1991 Constitution Referendum section, so that the analysis will immediately follow the table. Washod 11:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Referenda Results

I've reformatted the table so it's more readable, but it still lacks a value for turnout in the 67 vote - if this is because one wasn't recorded, it should be noted. I've also recalculated the percentage values so that they all go out to a tenth of a percent - this is justified by four significant digits in the vote counts. (Previously, some were to a tenth and others simply to a percentage point.) However, all the data in the table is unverified - a source needs to be cited for the data. Washod 11:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This sources should be good: The President's Task Force On Puerto Rico Status Reports.

Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005)

Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007)

(Seablade (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

"Report by the President's task force on Puerto Rico's Status" (PDF). 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-24. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

"Report by the President's task force on Puerto Rico's Status" (PDF). 2005. Retrieved 2007-10-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Hello Washod

Almost three years later but I found it, the electoral turn out of 1967! Congressional Research Service Report RL32933 (Please See below section for details!)

--Seablade (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

the 2010 referendum

With the new referendum bill having gotten out of committee, shouldn't we start thinking about what to do if it passes both houses of congress and goes to an actual vote next year?Ericl (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Stateside section

The stateside section of this article is clearly politically biased, and lacks sourcing and should be considered from exlusion, or edited to fit Wikipedia's standards.00:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

HR 856

This edit, among other things, added the following to the lead section:

Also, as recent as 1997, the US Congress stated, via Act of Congress, under the HR 856, also known as "The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act" that Puerto Rico “does not have the status of 'free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice.”

Citing

I checked here and here.

• The Findings section of House Report 105-131 - Part 1 - UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT does say, in part, "The Commonwealth remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of `free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice."
• However, here, the Latest Major Action is shown as "7/15/1998 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held." As I read this, the resolution was not adopted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The statement as it was is correct, except it should say "US House of Representatives via H.R. 856", and not "US Congress...856". Plain87dice (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the bill never became law - it died in the Senate. However, it should probably stay in the article if only because it helps present the sentiment in Congress towards a change in the political status of the Island. HR856 is also the most relevant bill related to the PR political status issue, given that it's also the only one to have fully cleared the House, and the first one of a series of other related bills that continue to initiate in Congress.

I have added a section called Bills before Congress. I also made a heading for content that talked about President's Task Force, really, Executive Orders (no content added there.) I know the section Bills before Congress is rather lenghty so anyone should feel free to summarize to condense it a bit; maybe some subheading will do the trick or moving some of it (2009 stuff?) to recent developments. The article needs some additional work (reorganizing, summarizing, etc) before it can be more easily read.I'll try to help as my time permits. Regards, Mummy34 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from US Congress House of Representatives Report

I added a few paragrapghs from report from Congress. Tried to keep it short, but if someone can summarize it better, great. Otherwise, I'll try to get to it as my time permits. Plain87dice (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-support section

In my opinion the Self-support section does not have anything related with the Political Status issue. This is more about a sociological issue.

I exhort to delete this section, and submit this to a consensus vote to the Wikipedians.

--Seablade (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that has been a major part of political campaigns for decades. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Research Service Report R32933

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.

As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL32933 of February 2, 2009, title "Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress" adressed the Developments since 2005 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well as Washington, DC, have signaled some renewed congressional attention to the political status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States.

You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Political_Status_of_Puerto_Rico:_Options_for_Congress%2C_May_29%2C_2008 of February 2, 2009.

On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:

Developments since 2005 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well as Washington, DC, have signaled some renewed congressional attention to the political status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States.

Issues of Debate on Political Status Brief summaries of aspects of each status option follow in order to provide basic information on the options. The information below does not represent official descriptions of status options, but is provided only to give general background information. The options are presented in alphabetical order.

Commonwealth.

The commonwealth option represents a continuation of the current status of Puerto Rico. The territorial clause of the United States Constitution empowers Congress with the authority to regulate territories.95 Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico is based on statutory provisions96 and the Constitution of Puerto Rico that established a republican form of self-government. Under current federal law, residents of Puerto Rico enjoy U.S. citizenship, but many contend that the Puerto Rican identity reflects a degree of autonomy that enables the island to remain somewhat separate from, but part of, the United States.97 Some support an enhanced or “new” commonwealth status and seek changes in the current relationship to increase the autonomy of Puerto Rico. Aspects of enhanced commonwealth considered but rejected by Congress in 1991 and 2001 included providing the government of Puerto Rico authority to certify that certain federal laws would not be applicable to the commonwealth, mandating that the President consult with the governor on appointments to federal offices in Puerto Rico that require Senate approval, recognizing a permanent relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that cannot be unilaterally changed, and establishing economic relationships with other nations.98 Concepts associated with enhanced or new commonwealth have not been published in 2005, but the current governor has reportedly sought additional sovereign authority that would enable Puerto Rico’s government officials to negotiate international agreements and establish new intergovernmental fiscal relations with the federal government.

Free Association.

This option would establish Puerto Rico as a sovereign nation separate from, but legally bound (on a terminable basis) to, the United States.99 As a general practice, free association would be preceded by recognition that Puerto Rico is a self-governing sovereign nation not part of the United States, because compacts of free association are legal documents between sovereign nations. Free association could be accompanied by a transition period in which the United States would continue to administer certain services and provide assistance to the island for a period of time specified in the compact. Free association could be annulled at any time by either nation. Negotiations over free association would likely decide issues of trade, defense, currency, and economic aid.

Independence.

Some advocates of independence contend that the cultural identity of Puerto Ricans, and other factors, justify independence. As residents of a sovereign independent nation, Puerto Ricans could develop closer ties to Caribbean nations, but would likely be forced to choose between citizenship in the United States or in Puerto Rico.100 The current unrestricted travel between the United States and the island might end, as would federal benefits (unless specified in the enabling legislation). Puerto Rico would, as a sovereign nation, develop its own economy, form of government, and complete national identity.

Statehood.

Advocates of statehood contend that the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship should be granted to residents of Puerto Rico. Political stability, particularly as an economic development tool, is seen by some to be one significant advantage of statehood. As residents of a state, Puerto Ricans would be entitled to full representation in Congress, would be subject to income taxes, and would be eligible to receive federal assistance like that provided to all of the states.101 Opponents argue that statehood would result in a loss of national identity.

--Seablade (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CRS Report for Congress RL32933 Updated on August 4, 2009

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32933

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress August 4, 2009

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32933_20090804.pdf

--Seablade (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

United States v. Sanchez 992 F.2d 1143

No. 90-5749 United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit June 4, 1993.

United States v. Sanchez, ftp.resources.com, retrieved 2010-01-19

--Seablade (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what's your point? what are you saying/proposing/supporting/objecting to? Mercy11 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not objecting nothing, I am just providing an additional reference source that support the article just as is.

--Seablade (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing:

With each new organic act, first the Foraker Act in 1900, then the Jones Act in 1917, and then the Federal Relations Act in 1950 and later amendments, Congress has simply delegated more authority to Puerto Rico over local matters. But this has not changed in any way Puerto Rico's constitutional status as a territory, or the source of power over Puerto Rico. Congress continues to be the ultimate source of power pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution. 831 F.2d at 1176 (Torruella, J. concurring).

The development of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has not given its judicial tribunals a source of punitive authority which is independent of the United States Congress and derived from an "inherent sovereignty" of the sort supporting the Supreme Court's decisions involving the states (Heath, supra) and Native American tribes (Wheeler, supra). Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act13 and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. Despite passage of the Federal Relations Act and the Puerto Rican Constitution, Puerto Rican courts continue to derive their authority to punish from the United States Congress and prosecutions in Puerto Rican courts do not fall within the dual sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. Consequently, Rafael and Luis Sanchez were twice prosecuted by the government of the United States and we turn to consider whether they were twice prosecuted for the "same offence" in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

--Seablade (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to Controversies section

I undid various edits to this section, under the Citizenship subsection, and UN Decolonization subsection.

On the Citizenship subsection, the information provided about Judge Torruella does not take nor present either side of the controversy. While the information would be good factual information on an article about how Puerto Ricans came to receive US citizenship, its incorporation into this Citizenship subsection here distracts from the controversy surrounding the granting of US citizenship. In the process it also violates the spirit and letter of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

On the UN Decolonization subsection, none of the edits made address the matter of UN Decolonization. In fact the name/words/phrase UN are never part of these edits. The edits, again, are not related to the subject matter of the subsection. Instead they allude to court cases, and discuss the 1952 Constitution and the Insular Cases. This is not the place for such discussions. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree on delete this information as per Wikipedia NPOV. Especially the granting of U.S. Citizens updates - You are deleting Source neutral information with third party reference and your are going directly against the Wikipedia NPOV rule. I request help of Wikipedia Administrator's to resolve these differences. The current sections are bias. I additionally include information for both sites of the controversy.

Regards, --Seablade (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Seablade, relax. There's no need for admin involvement unless we can't agree at all, don't you think? So first give yourself a chance to see if we can understand each other. Fair?

Seems the disagreement is mostly in the citizenship section. So let me ask you, why do you think I may be violating the NPOV policy in my edits in that section? Can you be more precise? Are you saying that the citizenship section WAS ALREADY biased before you first made your edits of 18:51 07 Feb 2010? Also, can you tell me whether in your view Torruella defends the US citizenship as a venue to statehood, or whether, in your opinion, he opposes it, and if, so, on what grounds does he oppose it? Thanks Mercy11 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, here are my points. The source that I included and I just copy and paste it was the chronological history of granting the U.S. Citizens. This included that the root cause of President Wilson to sign was the war. However I din not take just one section of the history, I just try to give a holistic perspective of the issue with the third party source. No my opinion of it.

Second I refer you to the Congressional Research Service Report on the upper section of this discussion page, CRS Report for Congress RL32933 Updated on August 4, 2009 pages 9 - 11. The data that you deleted was technically copy and paste it for this third party neutral source. Not is a personal point of view, CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, and objective.

And third and not less important, I will cite a Wikipedia Administrator statement on the upper section of this discussion page: "Actually, that has been a major part of political campaigns for decades".

My claim of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is that as part of an encyclopedia you should not include President Taff opinion without include President Theodore Roosevelt position and President Wilson position. There is a historical chronological order of the thing and should be presented as fairly as possible. By this reason I included on the article the source data addressing the both sites of the controversy.

Regards, --Seablade (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. The problem I see in your edits is (what appeared to be a rather indiscriminate) copy and paste from other sources without putting them in the context of their significance to the section, and thus weakening the effectiveness of the section in its function to contrast the two sharply differing sides. No one is saying your edits reflect your POV. Quite the opposite, what I am saying is that to be relevant to the section, edits need to be POV - the POV of either of the two sides in the controversy.

I am still struggling to understand how Roosevelt and Wilson's positions represent a view opposite to Taft's. That is, how R&W's statements rebutt Taft's right-on-the-money statement that the granting of US citizenship to Puerto Ricans should not viewed as paving the way to statehood. Maybe what you are saying is that Pres. Wilson opposed Taft's declaration (that citizenship and statehood were not connected) when he stated that Puerto Ricans had earned their right to be more like the other citizens and territories? Or maybe what you are saying is that there is another area of controversy within the citizneship issue, namely that one side claims it was done to draft Puerto Ricans into WWI while the other side claims, "No true." If that is your point, then we need to find citations for these 2 opposing positions, and of course, we need to provide a merit to the "Not true" position, such as "Not true, because Puerto Ricans had already been participating in US wars since before the granting of US citizenship". So which of these two is the point you are making? the first one? the secodn one? both? neither one, but a third one yet that I have failed to list?

By including a strictly chronological history of events surrounding the granting of citizenship, especially if in large amounts, we run the risk of losing focus in presenting the relevant arguments of the section. Perhaps, rather than including the text verbatim you could massage it a bit into your own words to unambiguously state which of the two sides Roosevelt and Wilson defended (and why), but without being so prtracted that you lose focus and we end up adding loads of text that distract from the subject matter at hand - namely, the motive behind the granting of US citizenship to Puerto Ricans. Bear in mind that this section would not be the place for a comprehensive history of the granting of US citizenship to Puerto Ricans. If that is your goal, maybe we should instead create a new article just on that subject, with links from this article to such new article as appropriate. Mercy11 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole history

While this article has turned out to be ideologically and factually correct, an area that has to be worked on is solidifying content prior to the 1980's. For example, there should be more content about the two bilateral "ad Hoc" committees under Presidents Nixon and Ford and Govs. Ferré and Hernández Colón that proposed the presidential vote and the "New Pact" filed as HR11,200 in 1975. Likewise, more info should be available on Fernós Iserns' failed status quo enhacement efforts and Muñoz' Harvard status speech (written by recently deceased aide Juan Manuel García Passalacqua. No mention is made of the 1981-86 NPP-affiliated Puerto Rico Statehood Commission and not enough emphasis is placed on the NPP and PDP platform status planks' minutiae in recent elections. Pr4ever (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Political status bill co-sponsors

For months, the names, states and political affiliations of the meager supporters of the Senate political status bill endorsed by anti-statehooders has been in this article. My addition of similar information regarding the co-sponsors of the bill supported by statehooders is equally relevant, although lengthier because the number of co-sponsors is greater. It is relevant to say that one bill had 4 sponsors and the other 15. The long-standing list of the four, and the recently added list of the 15 allows readers to gather, without further time-consuming research, the curious mix of senators on both sides of the issue. I suggest that both lists remain and that one of the lists not be selectively removed. Pr4ever (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relax, and let's not politicize this paragraph. I would have done the same thing if someone wrote "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming." ¿Reason????? It's just bad writing - that's all. It's bad writing to list out the names, etc, of the 14 Senators if there is no reason to. It detracts from the smooth flow of the reading of the article.

I do agree with you that "it is relevant to say that one bill had 4 sponsors and the other 15". But I disagree that the 14 sponsor names must be listed. Honestly, I was dissapointed to read that your motivation in adding the 14 names appears to have been political in nature.

Nevertheless, I also agree with your second observation that there is a "curious mix of senators on both sides of the [aisle that support the] issue", and I think it is relevant to make that point also. However, couldn't that point be made equally well if we just said something like "A bipartisan Senate bill supporting the implementation of the White House report recommendations was filed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Ken Salazar (D-CO) and co-sponsored by 14 other senators, including 8 Democrats and 6 Republicans."??? Don't you agree?

In addition, a statement like this will also fulfill your concern regarding "allow[ing] readers to gather, without further time-consuming research, the curious mix..." And with the inclusion of the required citation, the reader can easily go there to find out WHO the 14 senators were, their states, etc.

Why are the 4 supporters of the other bill listed? IMO because, again, the list is not that long and as such it does not significantly affect the smooth flow of the reading. If you thought that that was politically motivated, I have not thought for a second it was.

I am not going to politicize the paragraph; as a reminder, I am, in fact, TRYING to get this article to GA status. And the list of the 14 senators names, states and affiliations will be seen as an eyesore by any reviewer - analogous to the list of US states above.

I couldn't agree with you more that the article needs to present a balanced view, and your "the whole history" section above is enlightening. However, adding that long a list of bill supporters without setting the stage or following up diminishes, imo, the value of the article more sgnificantly than it enhances it by virtue of the attempt that is being made to highlight the existence of "the mix" using such detailed, minute data.

(As a reminder, you seem to have overlooked adding the citation source, which I presummed you already have given the list of specific names. Hopefully you can add that shortly.)

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Igartúa IV

The full cite for Igartúa IV is Gregorio Igartúa, et al v. United States of America, No. 09-2186, decided Nov. 24, 2010. The only electronic link found so far is the El Vocero article referenced in my edit. Pr4ever (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Article content moved here 2010-11-29

I have moved the following here from the talk page:

In a recently released First Circuit Court of Appeals case, Igartúa v. United States, No. 09-2186, Nov. 24, 2010, two of three members of the 3-judge panel that dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds suggested that, in an ''en banc'' reconsideration, the United States could be required, under the current status, to extend full voting representation to the United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico if (1) the en banc Court determines that, contrary to current Circuit precedent, the Constitution does not prohibit extending such rights "under another source of law", (2) that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which , at Article 25, states that "[e]very citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...[t]o vote and to be elected at genuine and periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage", is self-executing.

this supporting source was cited.

I don't speak Spanish, so I looked at a translation to English by google. FWICS, the cited source does not support the article assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The only free online source I could find regarding the Circuit Court decision, issued late last Wednesday was the newspaper article. I have since found the opinion text in the First Circuit's website, so I'm reposting with that cite which allows anyone to verify what I wrote. Thanks. Pr4ever (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I share the following final quote quote from Judge Lipez' concurrence. He and dissenting Judge Torruella would have the full Circuit Court reconsider en banc holdings made in the Igartúa III case, the current case being Igartúa IV:

"I am saying only that, if the plaintiffs succeed before the en banc court on the threshold issue of the Constitution's reach, they would be entitled to reconsideration by the en banc court of the ICCPR's status. That is so because the 2005 majority improperly rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the treaty is self-executing without conducting an independent analysis of its language and, if the language is unclear, the "'postratification understanding' of signatory nations" and other surrounding circumstances. Even if we were to find that the treaty is self-executing, however, difficult questions would remain. Among them are whether the treaty's provisions in fact oblige the United States to provide all of its citizens the right to elect voting members of the House of Representatives and whether the treaty provides for a private right of action as a vehicle for pursuing that right. Also of consequence is the unique political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States government. Whether a generally stated commitment to provide the right to vote to all citizens should supersede the specific political negotiation that has led to Puerto Rico's status is not an easily answered question. The fact that the questions are difficult, however, is not a reason to avoid them....Unquestionably, the plaintiffs face a series of hurdles in demonstrating their entitlement to declaratory relief. Their claims are much more potent, however, than Chief Judge Lynch's opinion acknowledges. If the Constitution permits extension of voting rights to Puerto Rico residents by means of a treaty, and if the ICCPR is a self-executing treaty whose terms support assertion of a private cause of action, the plaintiffs' claims could not be so easily dismissed. At its core, this case is about whether a substantial group of United States citizens should be given a right that our country and the international community agree is a fundamental element of a free society. Article 25 of the ICCPR states, in relevant part, that "[e]very citizen shall have the right and the opportunity . . . [t]o vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage." (Emphasis added.) At a minimum, given the importance of the issues and the evolving debate, fairness dictates that the plaintiffs' claims receive considerably more deliberation than our panel is authorized to provide. The entire court should be engaged in considering and resolving these issues, with the best advocacy available in support of all parties. Indeed, as a case "involv[ing] a question of exceptional importance," this action fits squarely within the guidelines for en banc review. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a) (2). Thus, while I agree that the district court's judgment must be affirmed by the panel, I urge the court to reconsider the constitutional and treaty issues in a new en banc proceeding."

If the Insular Cases are Puerto Rico's Plessy v Ferguson, Igartúa IV is starting to look like Puerto Rico's Brown at an early, pre-Supremre Court stage of the process. Pr4ever (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the article assertion as it stands appears to be original research. The newly cited source is a primary source, about which WP:OR states policy saying, in part, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The article assertion appears to be interpretation of what the source says and, to my nonspecialist reading, an incomplete and possibly incorrect interpretation.

One apparent problem I see is that the article assertion says, "the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), [...], is self-executing", but Judge Lipez says on page 43 of the cited source "Again, I do not want to suggest that I have reached an ultimate view on whether the ICCPR is self-executing." I'm a non-lawyer, and there may be other problems which I don't see. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I moved the content in question out of the Insular Cases section as it has nothing to do with ICs. The WP:OR etc, debate is not affetced by this move and it can continue unaffected. Mercy11 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

1940 Platforms

The following platforms were added to the article to include a better historical record understanding of the principal political parties’ position.

Democratic Party 1940 Platform

Territories and District of Columbia

We favor a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood, for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. We favor the appointment of residents to office, and equal treatment of the citizens of each of these three territories. We favor the prompt determination and payment of any just claims by Indian and Eskimo citizens of Alaska against the United States.

We also favor the extension of the right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia.

Democratic Party Platform of 1940

Republican Party 1940 Platform

Puerto Rico

Statehood is a logical aspiration of the people of Puerto Rico who were made citizens of the United States by Congress in 1917; legislation affecting Puerto Rico, in so far as feasible, should be in harmony with the realization of that aspiration.

Republican Party Platform of 1940

--Seablade (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

These additions are historically insignificant. Not only have over 70 years passed since these parties made the statements, but platforms have shifted 180 degrees: Democrats supported larger measure of self-govt in 1940, but now support self determination.

Also, and more importantly, these additions violated the letter of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. The material lacks WP:NOTABILITY in the context in question. As such I cannot support their stay and have removed them. My name Mercy11 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The 1940 Democratic party platform promises related to the U.S. territories were fulfilled. In 1947, The rights, privileges and immunities attendant to the United States Citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a state of the union" through the express extension by the U.S. Congress in 1947 of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution.48 U.S.C. § 737, Privileges and immunities. On the same congressional law that expressly extend the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Republican 80th United States Congress granted Puerto Ricans the right to elect democratically their own governor. A larger measure of self-government was approved on 1952 when the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico was organized, given a measure of self-rule by the Congress with the approval of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and then the Democrats majority 81st United States Congress and the 82nd United States Congress directed the Puerto Rican government to organize a constitutional convention to write the Puerto Rico Constitution in 1951. Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. The Approval of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. President occurred in 1952. It also was fulfilled to Alaska and Hawaii leading to this territories to the statehood. Alaska and Hawaii requested the statehood and Puerto Rico not. It was also fulfilled to Washington D.C. with the extension of the right of suffrage for the U.S. President to this jurisdiction.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Seablade (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Granting of U.S. citizenship and cultural identity - Current Poll about Citizenship and Status May 2008.

The Granting of U.S. citizenship and cultural identity section violated the letter of WP:UNDUE and does not reflect the current posituon of the U.S. Govermment expressed on law and Congressional record of 1952 and give undue weight to the minority position of the Puerto Rican as per 1993 and 1998 plebiscites and the current position of the people of Puerto Rico expressed on May 2008 Poll. Just is based on a 99 year old personal position of a President that was expressed on 1912, this president does not sign the law, the law and the congressional records does not indicate absolutely nothing about the president Taff statement as per the included reference of Torruella, also he loss the Presidential elections on 1912.

As you can see the following May 2008 Poll: (Original on Spanish, Translated below)

"CIUDADANIA Aunque hay suficientes motivos para que surja confusión cuando se lanzan acusaciones de “autonomista” durante una temporada de campaña política, prácticamente no hay duda de que, con excepción de los seguidores más ideológicos de la independencia de Puerto Rico, la posesión de un pasaporte estadounidense y de la ciudadanía estadounidense es un factor importante para una mayoría abrumadora del pueblo puertorriqueño. La mayoría de los participantes de la presente encuesta (58%) dice que la ciudadanía estadounidense es “muy importante” para ello--Seablade (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)s y otro 31% señala que es “algo importante". De hecho, el 96% de los electores del PNP, el 88% de los simpatizantes del PPD, y una mayoría similar compuesta por el 90% de los electores no afiliados a ningún partido están de acuerdo en que la ciudadanía estadounidense es importante para ellos. Al formularles la pregunta de forma abstracta, sólo los miembros del PIP consideran que la ciudadanía estadounidense no es importante. No obstante, al formular una pregunta de “opción forzada” en torno a cuál sería su decisión si tuviesen que elegir entre la ciudadanía puertorriqueña y la ciudadanía estadounidense, la mezcla de emociones crea un panorama un poco más complicado y dramáticamente distinto del que se presentó en las encuestas anteriores. De acuerdo con la presente encuesta, en general, el 67% de los electores respondió que elegiría la ciudadanía estadounidense. Sólo el 21% dijo que elegiría la ciudadanía puertorriqueña. Los simpatizantes del PNP no dudarían en escoger la ciudadanía norteamericana, ya que el 81% prefiere esta opción, mientras que porcentajes más pequeños (pero que aún son mayoría) de electores del PPD y electores no afiliados opinan lo mismo. Parece haber surgido un cambio considerable en la cantidad de puertorriqueños que preferiría la ciudadanía estadounidense en lugar de la ciudadanía puertorriqueña. La cifra de 67% registrada en la presente encuesta supera por mucho el sentir de las encuestas anteriores de El Nuevo Día en el 2002 y 1996, mientras que el porcentaje de electores que opta por la ciudadanía puertorriqueña se ha reducido marcadamente."

Google Translation:

"CITIZENSHIP Although there are sufficient grounds for confusion arises when launching accusations of" autonomy "during a political campaign season, there is little doubt that, with the exception of the more ideological supporters of the independence of Puerto Rico, the possession of a U.S. passport and U.S. citizenship is an important factor for an overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans. Most of the participants in this survey (58%) say that U.S. citizenship is "very important" to do so - ~ ~ ~ ~ s and another 31% say it is "somewhat important." In fact, 96% of voters in the PNP (New Progressive Party), 88% of supporters of the PDP (Popular Democratic Party), and a similar majority composed of 90% of voters unaffiliated with any party agree that U.S. citizenship is important to them . In formulating the question in the abstract, only members of the PIP believe that American citizenship is not important. However, ask a question of "forced choice" about what would be their decision if they had to choose between the Puerto Rican citizenship and U.S. citizenship, the mixture of emotions creates a landscape a little more complex and dramatically different from that presented in previous surveys. According to this survey, in general, 67% of voters said they would choose U.S. citizenship. Only 21% said they would choose the Puerto Rican citizenship. PNP supporters would not hesitate to choose U.S. citizenship, as 81% prefer this option, while smaller percentages (but still majority) of voters in the PPD and non-affiliated voters think so. Seems to have arisen a significant change in the number of Puerto Ricans U.S. citizens prefer instead of Puerto Rican citizenship. The figure of 67% recorded in this survey goes far beyond the feelings of the previous surveys of the New Day in 2002 and 1996, while the percentage of voters opting for the Puerto Rican citizenship has fallen sharply. "

WP:UNDUE Pro Independence Party just get 2.76 % of the votes on 2008 and the on the 1998 plebiscite the independence has 2.54 % of the vote. Only members of the PIP believe that American citizenship is not important. In fact, 96% of voters in the PNP (New Progressive Party), 88% of supporters of the PDP (Popular Democratic Party), and a similar majority composed of 90% of voters unaffiliated with any party agree that U.S. citizenship is important to them. These two parties received over the 94 % of the people of Puerto Rico support.

Candidate		Political party	Popular vote	Percentage
	Luis Fortuño	PNP	1,025,965	52.77%
	Aníbal Acevedo Vilá	PPD	801,071	41.29%
	Rogelio Figueroa	PPR	53,693	2.76%
	Edwin Irizarry Mora	PIP	39,590	2.04%
	Pedro Rossello	Write-In	13,215	0.64%
	Others		8,170	0.49%

Reference: ENCUESTA de El Nuevo Dia sobre el Status y Ciudadania

The President Taff statement of 1912 is historically insignificant. Not only have over 99 years passed since this statement was made, and lack the context of President Roosevelt message to Congress: In his 1905 message to Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt described his wish to "earnestly advocate the adoption of legislation which will explicitly confer American citizenship on all citizens of Porto Rico. There is, in my judgment, no excuse for failure to do this.Juan R. Torruella (1985), The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: the doctrine of separate and unequal, La Editorial, UPR, p. 87, ISBN 9780847730193 and lack the current position express on polls about the U.S. Citizenship.

Also lack the Congress that the law was approved by the U.S. Congress and President Wilson and the personal opinion of Taff is not part of the law discussion: In any event, on March 2, 1917, with almost no debate on the floor of Congress regarding the granting of citizenship to Puerto Ricans, President Wilson signed the Jones Act into law. In addition to the citizenship provision, the statute contained a bill of rights similar to that in the U.S. Constitution.The Insular Cases: The Establishment of a Regime of Political Apartheid" (2007) Juan R. Torruella Pages 318-319. (PDF), retrieved 7 February 2010.

In addition, I do not see a controversy on the Texas article, that the 18 % of Texans would vote for the independence. Poll: 31% Of Texans Say State Has Right To Secede -- 18% Would Vote In Favor Of Doing It Reference: Poll: 31% Of Texans Say State Has Right To Secede -- 18% Would Vote In Favor Of Doing It (Puerto Rico voted a 2.54 percent by the indepence as per the article on the last plebiscite of 1998).

The U.S. position is express on the Congress and the President that approve the law on 1917, and on the congressional records, The act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on March 2 1917.

The current Official position of U.S. also is on the U.S. the federal law codified on U.S. Code Title 8 as 8 U.S.C. § 1402, approved by President Harry S. Truman on June 27 1952, declared all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13 1941 to be U.S. citizens at birth by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

About Status the El Nuevo Dia Poll indicates:

STATUS En la presente encuesta de El Nuevo Día, una mayoría relativa compuesta por el 46% de los electores dice que la Isla debe “votar pronto” en un plebiscito oficial sobre status, mientras que el 37% opina que la votación sobre el status se debe dejar a un lado “por un tiempo”. Sólo el 11% considera que “no debe haber más plebiscitos”. Luego de un período de varios años en los que mayorías relativas de puertorriqueños opinaron que se había invertido demasiado tiempo, dinero y energía en redactar y votar por los plebiscitos sobre el status, y que se debía dedicar más atención a otros asuntos, este sentimiento ha comenzado a cambiar nuevamente. Si bien es natural que la ideología partidista juegue un papel fundamental en la inclinación hacia los plebiscitos (los penepés los apoyan y los populares son más ambivalentes), un importante grupo de “electores cambiantes” ha llegado a la conclusión de que tal vez Puerto Rico está listo para volver a votar. Un 34% de los electores no afiliados opina que se debe “dejar en paz” el asunto de los plebiscitos, pero el 43% de los que no tienen afiliación política piensa que la Isla debe “votar pronto”. Aunque el apoyo a un nuevo plebiscito se puede describir como “leve, pero cada vez más positivo”, algo en lo que la mayoría de los electores de todas las ideologías están completamente de acuerdo es en que la claridad del status es una precondición necesaria para mejorar la calidad de vida en la Isla. Por un margen mayor de 2 a 1 (65% a 29%), los electores señalaron que Puerto Rico sólo podrá abrirse camino para mejorar sus circunstancias actuales cuando se resuelva finalmente el status. El 68% de los penepés comparte esta opinión, además del 57% de los populares, el 88% de los que apoyan la independencia y hasta el 70% de los que no tienen afiliación política. Mientras la mayoría de los electores puertorriqueños (65%) cree, o al menos espera, que el asunto del status político se resuelva mientras vivan, la presente encuesta presenta una trayectoria poco conocida, y tal vez menos fragmentada, hacia esa solución. Si los electores enfrentaran hoy una papeleta de tres opciones en la que tuviesen que elegir entre la estadidad, una definición no específica para continuar el Estado Libre Asociado, o la independencia, el sentir actual le otorgaría un 57% de victoria a la estadidad. Esta es la primera vez en la historia de la encuesta de El Nuevo Día que la estadidad o el Estado Libre Asociado han obtenido más del 50% entre el electorado. Esto se debe a que aunque los electores del PIP apoyan absolutamente la independencia y un 90% de los penepés votaría a favor de la estadidad, el Estado Libre Asociado cuenta con el apoyo del 79% de los electores del PPD, cuyo partido está desorganizado, y los electores no afiliados se inclinan levemente a favor de la estadidad (39% a 35%). A todas luces, la historia reciente indica que la definición de Estado Libre Asociado, independientemente de si se describe como “mejorada”, “soberanía”, “unión permanente” u otra cosa, ha sido parte del problema. Si el Congreso de los Estados Unidos determina que no reconocería esta opción de status y que cualquier plebiscito autorizado por el gobierno federal sería para escoger entre solicitar la estadidad o declarar la independencia para Puerto Rico, el resultado que revela la encuesta es bastante claro. Por un margen de 77% a 12%, los electores escogerían la estadidad. Esto incluye a más del 90% de los simpatizantes del PNP, pero también al 62% de los electores del PPD y a un sólido margen del 74% de los electores que no se identifican con ningún partido. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Google Translation:

STATUS In this survey of El Nuevo Dia, a plurality made up 46% of voters said that the island should "vote early" in a referendum official status, while 37% believe that the vote on the status is must put aside "for a while." Only 11% believe that "there should be no more referendums." After a period of several years in which a relative majority of Puerto Ricans felt that he had invested too much time, money and energy to write and vote for the status plebiscite, and that they should devote more attention to other matters, this sentiment has begun to change again. While it is natural that the party ideology plays a role in the plebiscites inclination (the penepés the popular support and are more ambivalent), a large group of "electors changing" has come to the conclusion that maybe Puerto Rico is ready to return to vote. 34% of unaffiliated voters think that one should "leave alone" the issue of referendums, but 43% of those without party affiliation thinks the island should "vote early". While support for a new referendum can be described as "mild, but increasingly positive," something that most voters of all ideologies are completely agreed on is that the clarity of status is a necessary precondition for improve the quality of life on the island by a greater margin of 2 to 1 (65% to 29%), voters said that Puerto Rico may be opened only way to improve your current circumstances when the status is finally resolved. 68% of penepés share this view, in addition to the popular 57%, 88% of those who support independence and up to 70% of those without party affiliation. While the majority of Puerto Rican voters (65%) believe, or at least hoped, that the issue of political status is resolved as you live, this survey presents a little-known path, and perhaps less fragmented to such a solution. If voters faced a ballot today in which three options had to choose between statehood, a non-specific definition to continue the commonwealth, or independence, the sense current 57% would give victory to statehood. This is the first time in the history of the survey of El Nuevo Dia that statehood or commonwealth have won more than 50% of the electorate. This is because although the voters of the PIP fully supports the independence and penepés 90% would vote for statehood, the Commonwealth has the support of 79% of the voters of PPD, whose party is in disarray, and non-affiliated voters lean slightly in favor of statehood (39% to 35%). Clearly, recent history indicates that the definition of the Commonwealth, whether described as "improved," "sovereignty," "permanent union" or something else, has been part of the problem. If the United States Congress determines that it would not recognize this status option and that any referendum authorized by the federal government would seek to choose between statehood or declare independence for Puerto Rico, the result reveals the survey is quite clear. By a margin of 77% to 12%, voters would choose statehood. This includes more than 90% of supporters of the PNP, but 62% of the voters of PPD as a solid margin of 74% of voters who do not identify with any party.

Reference: ENCUESTA de El Nuevo Dia sobre el Status y Ciudadania

--Seablade (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I found the following analysis in http://www.jrank.org/cultures/pages/4010/Insular-Cases.html:

"In Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922) a unanimous Court held that the extension of United States citizenship to residents of Puerto Rico did not have the effect of constitutionally incorporating Puerto Rico into the United States. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, a former U.S. president who had been extensively involved in territorial affairs, argued that the decision to incorporate a territory was not to be inferred by the judiciary from any congressional decision, such as that extending citizenship, but had to be the result of a determination expressly made by Congress. The decision to incorporate a territory was a political decision, reasoned Taft, to be taken only by the political branches of the federal government, namely the legislative branch.

The Balzac case is important for several reasons. First, it redefined the very notion of U.S. citizenship, which at that time was thought to imply inherent access to such rights as the right to vote or to the full protection of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Taft clarified that such extensive interpretations were not justified. The extension of U.S. citizenship, at least to the peoples of the territories, did not go as far as transforming the political status and political rights of their residents. Second, Balzac placed squarely on the will of Congress, not on the interpretative faculties of the courts, the determination of the political status of the territories."

Regardless of who Taft was representing in 1912, whether himself of the nation, it is appropriate to mention that he would subsequently become the Chief Justice who wrote the Balzac opinion in which his 1912 opinion as President became the opinion of the Court. Pr4ever (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Official Popular Democratic Party (PPD) position about the U.S. Citizenship and the Status:

El PPD está claro sobre las elecciones y el status

Escrito el 18 de julio de 2011

(San Juan PR, 18 de julio del 2011).-El candidato a Comisionado Residente y Vicepresidente del Partido Popular Democrático, Héctor Ferrer, indicó que dos cosas quedaron claras luego de la exitosa y concurrida Convención del Partido. Primero, que las elecciones no serán sobre el estatus, como pretende el partido de gobierno, y segundo, que en cuanto al tema del estatus, el PPD cree y defiende un solo Estado Libre Asociado.

“El partido de gobierno pretende que estas elecciones sean plebiscitarias. Al punto que ahora, algunos líderes reclaman que el plebiscito se celebre el mismo día de las elecciones. Eso es una estrategia para distraer al puertorriqueño de los verdaderos problemas del país," comenzó el también Portavoz de la Delegación del PPD en la Cámara de Representantes.

“Ahora bien, sobre el estatus, el PPD se reafirmó en un ELA en su crecimiento autonómico máximo en unión permanente con Estados Unidos. Hay un solo ELA. Un solo ELA – el que garantiza autonomía dentro de la unión permanente con Estados Unidos. Un solo ELA – el que nos permite mantener nuestra identidad puertorriqueña y nuestra ciudadanía americana. Un solo ELA – el que defendió Luis Muñoz Marín y el que ha recibido el apoyo del pueblo de Puerto Rico con sus votos en cada uno de los plebiscitos. Un solo ELA – el que ha sido vehículo de transformación y progreso para Puerto Rico,” continuó Ferrer.

“Como dijera Muñoz, 'aquí en el Partido Popular, le debemos lealtad tanto al ELA en su forma actual, responsable del progreso de Puerto Rico, como a toda dinámica de crecimiento, dentro de la unión permanente, que no ponga en riesgo el bien logrado.' El ELA está definido por siete principios, avalados por el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos, que permiten su crecimiento autonómico. Ahí está el ELA que defendió Muñoz y que defiende el Partido Popular,” señaló Ferrer.

“Tan es así, que ayer, la Asamblea del Partido Popular avaló a viva voz esta definición del ELA. Quedó claro que hay un solo ELA. Se acabaron los intentos de confundir. Esta es la posición del Partido Popular, y cualquier expresión anterior se tiene que entender a la luz de esta expresión o fue derogada por inconsistente. El PPD está claro y listo para el triunfo en el 2012,” concluyó Ferrer.

Google Translation: The PPD is clear on the elections and the status

Posted July 18, 2011

(San Juan PR, July 18, 2011) .- A candidate for Resident Commissioner and Vice Chairman of the Popular Democratic Party, Hector Ferrer, said two things were clear after the successful and popular Party Convention. First, the elections will not be about status, as claimed by the ruling party, and second, that on the issue of status, the PDP believes and defends a single commonwealth.

"The ruling party claims that these elections are plebiscites. Al point now some leaders claim that plebiscite Celebrate same day elections. That is a strategy to distract from the real Puerto Rican country's problems, "also began Delegation Spokesperson of PPD in the House of Representatives.

"Now, the status, the PPD was reaffirmed in a regional ALS maximum growth in permanent union with the United States. There one ELA. One ELA - that guarantees autonomy within a permanent union with the United States. One ELA - that allows us to maintain our Puerto Rican identity and our American citizenship. One ELA - which he defended Luis Munoz Marin and has received support from the people of Puerto Rico with their votes in each of the plebiscites. One ELA - which has been a vehicle of transformation and progress for Puerto Rico, "continued Foster.

"As Muñoz said, 'here in the People's Party, owe allegiance to both the Commonwealth in its present form, responsible for the progress of Puerto Rico, as the whole dynamic of growth in the permanent union that puts at risk the achieved. ' The ELA is defined by seven principles, backed by the U.S. Supreme Court, that allow for growth autonomy. There's the ELA Munoz defended and defends the Popular Party, "said Ferrer.

"So much so that yesterday, the Assembly of the Popular Party loudly endorsed this definition of ALS. It became clear that there is only one ALS. Gone are the attempts to confuse. This is the position of the Popular Party, and any previous expression must be understood in light of this expression or repealed by inconsistent. The PPD is clear and ready for success in 2012, "concluded Ferrer.

Reference: Partido Popular Democratico Oficial Portal / Official Popular Democratic Party Portal

Change Proposal: Original: Some (primarily independentistas supporters) claim that granting of US citizenship on Puerto Ricans on March 2, 1917 was devised by the US in order to further reiterate its hold of Puerto Rico as a possession while others (mostly statehooders) claim that it was a serious attempt to pave the way for statehood.

Proposal based on the previous references and the official Popular Democratic (Pro commonwealth) Party portal:

Some (primarily independentistas supporters) claim that granting of US citizenship on Puerto Ricans on March 2, 1917 was devised by the US in order to further reiterate its hold of Puerto Rico as a possession while others (mostly statehood and commonwealth supporters) claim that it was a serious attempt to pave the way for a permanent union with the United States of America.

Other references that illustrate that this has been the pro commonwealth party position since 1952 can be provided as per request! Since 1952, the founder president of the Partido Popular Democratico indicates that the U.S. citizenship is one of the four pillars of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At the citizenship poll illustrate there is no controversy between the Granting of U.S. citizenship and the cultural identity. The 88 % of the Popular Democratic Party (pro-commonwealth) members support the U.S. Citizenship according to the El Nuevo Dia newspaper, May 2008 poll.

--Seablade (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Seablade, you are approaching this from a consensus perpective. In so doing, imo, you are starting on the wrong foot: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please see WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:VOTE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Political Status of Puerto Rico 1967 and 1993 Popular Democratic Party, Commonwealth definition: The ones that won the 1968 and 1993 plebiscites. I just see on the definitions, the idea of the irrevocable American Citizenship and the inviolability of the common citizenship as the primary basis of permanent union between Puerto Rico and the U.S.; hold that the commonwealth supporter has an controversy with the U.S. Citizenship is an extremely inaccurate statement based on the historical position and the current position of this party expressed by his current President and Vice-President, that also are candidates to Governor and Commissioner Resident from Puerto Rico of the Popular Democratic party respectively, and to the electoral results of the people of Puerto Rico since 1952.

Political Status of Puerto Rico plebiscite ballots definitions of the commonwealth: A vote of commonwealth meant in 1967: 1. The reaffirmation of the Commonwealth established by agreement under the terms of Law 600 of 1950 and the 1952 Joint Resolution 447 of the U.S. Congress as an autonomous community permanently associated with the United States of America; 2. The inviolability of the common citizenship as the primary basis of permanent union between Puerto Rico and the U.S.; 3. Approval to the Commonwealth in accordance with its fundamental principles to the maximum of self-government compatible with the common defense, common market, common currency and the indissoluble bond of U.S. citizenship; 4. No change in relations between the U.S. and Puerto Rico will take effect unless before being accepted by the majority of voters voting in a referendum called for that purpose.

A vote of commonwealth meant in 1993:

A vote for the Commonwealth is a mandate for: • Ensure progress and our security and our children in status of full political dignity, based on the permanent union between Puerto Rico and the United States, enshrined in a bilateral pact that may not be altered except by mutual consent The Commonwealth guarantees: • American Citizenship irrevocable; • Common market, common currency and common defense with the United States; • Fiscal autonomy for Puerto Rico; • Puerto Rican Olympic Committee and international sports representation itself. • Full development of our cultural identity: the ELA are Puerto Ricans first.

The Commonwealth will develop specific proposals through Congress. Immediately propose: • Reframe section 936, ensuring the creation of more and better jobs; • Extend Security Income (SSI) to Puerto Rico; • Obtain PAN assignments equal to those of states; • Protect other products of our agriculture, in addition to coffee. Any additional changes will be submitted prior to the approval of the people of Puerto Rico.

Reference: CEEPUR.ORG

--Seablade (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Constitution Preamble's statement regarding US citizenship (We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges;) is relevant because it is the clearest statement by a large supermajority of the people of Puerto Rico regarding the meaning of American citizenship for Puerto Ricans. It should be reinserted. I have not done so, believing we should first have a discussion about it. Pr4ever (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent with Pr4Ever on the constitution of Puerto Rico point. The Puerto Rico constitution is not a generality; hold otherwise is try to ignore the position of the supermajority of the people of Puerto Rico by a personal point of view. E.g. I can not try to hide the truth on an encyclopedia just because I do not like it! --Seablade (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like assistant to do this article comply with the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Avoid any not neutral point of view should be imperative. --Seablade (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try respond by tomorrow. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC) and I approve this message.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. The position of the supermajority of the people of Puerto Rico must be included on the article. Not just the minority one. The official position about the U.S. Citizenship of the supermajority of the people of Puerto Rico must be included.

Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

The reference sources 123 and 127 appears to be a editorial opinion pieces; per WP:NEWSORG, this source appears to be from a wiki or other self-published source, and this would probably not be acceptable per WP:SPS. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases, as the article does for example on reference 126, as Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source.

If the personal opinion of somebody that call himself "el "Boricuazo", comply with the reliable source policy. I still has my doubts of his authoritative in relation to the subject. Then the Puerto Rico constitution approves by the supermajority of the Puerto Rican must count as a reliable source. --Seablade (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Seablade, you have made accusation of POV but, unfortunately, the problem is you have walked into this not assumming good faith yourself to start with. The fact that an article gives equal weight to each side, is not a position of POV at all - on the contrary. Quite frankly, and since the article quite abundantly already presented all the various political sides, you are attempting to push greater content for one single side simply because, as you claim, it is the majority. No offense but, other than stating in the body of the article that a certain one side represents the majority, your "majortity" argument is flawed: Controversies don't have to be defended in equal numbers by the sides that represent them in order to be, well, controversies. Unless you can present a better argument than you have so far presented (and please, kindly, spare me the thousand-word long quotations in the future), I will proceed to restoring the edits that represent the controversy. As I said before, I am not interested in using this page for political discussions, but for those discussions that will enhance the article itself. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Please See WP:INTEXT policy.

For example:

When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear that the position of Dawkins is the majority view:

N Richard Dawkins argues that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars.

You should take in consideration not implies parity between sources, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation, not making clear the majority view versus the minority view of the People of Puerto Rico about this issue. Other important thing is not implies parity between reliable sources with authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject and sources without authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. There are a lot of sources of people without authoritative in relation to the subject that they are just expressing their personal point of view about the subject. Give parity to a source with a personal opinion and a source with a neutral point of view authoritative author, (Eg. Congress Research Service) is one way to violate the neutrality police. This must be avoided by the wikipedians.

--Seablade (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Confused re text in The Insular Cases section

I'm confused re text reading, "This ruled ensure that Congress can justify the denial of ..." This looked like an error. I've changed it to read, "This ruling allowed Congress to deny ..." — please correct this if I got it wrong. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right! Thank you, --Seablade (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Elective Governors Act

Application of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Courts is an intrinsic part of the Political Status of Puerto Rico. E.g. This has the same importance of the insular cases. The insular cases are related about the application of the constitution to the territories. This act is related to the current power of the Puerto Ricans to elect their Governor and the application of a constitutional clause to Puerto Rico.

"On August 5th, 1947, United States Congress passed the Elective Governors Act, allowing Puerto Ricans to elect their own governor; President Harry Truman signed the act. This act also expressly extends the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico. The act indicates that the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States. This federal law is currently codified on the U.S. Code as 48 U.S.C. § 737."

What is the rational to indicate that the Elective Governors Act of 1947, that is the law that currently allow Puerto Ricans to elect their governors, has nothing to do with the subject of this article?

--Seablade (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The scope and structure of this article strike me as a little confused at the moment, which make it difficult to decide exactly what is relevant or not.

Obviously, the fact that Puerto Rico elects its own governor since the 1940s is relevant to the politics and government of Puerto Rico, and if the article comprises that broad a subject-matter, then the Elective Governor Act is significant.

However, if "political status" is being used here in the sense of the legalistic definitions of "incorporated territory," "Commonwealth"/ELA, and the like, then the Elective Governor Act is not directly relevant (though it still might have a place somewhere in the narrative). There is no direct correlation between having an elective governor and political status. After all, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa have had elective governors for several decades as well, yet they remain unincorporated territories. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to give the power to Puerto Ricans to elect their governors, this act by congress extends the privilege and immunity clause of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico.

In the context of the Insular Cases section of this article to emphasize that the U.S. Constitution applies partially to Puerto Rico; It is not relevant to the reader of an encyclopedia understand that the Congress expressly extend a constitutional clause regarding the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States to Puerto Rico? At the same way that the insular cases are part of the current political status of Puerto Rico, this constitutional extension is not part of it? In special, if the Congress has not expressly extend any constitutional clause to the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. --Seablade (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the privileges and immunities clause was extended to Puerto Rico is significant, although it doesn't directly relate to the election of the governors, even if they were both included in the same statute. I'd like to check a couple of references on the statute, at the law library, and will return to this in a day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please confirm this:

Congress Public Law Num. 362 of 1947 (Eightieth United States Congress, first section, August 5th, 1947) for Puerto Rico and which states in one of its sections

Pub. L. No. 80-362, 61 Stat. 770 (1947): "Sec. 7. Section 2 of said Organic Act (48 U. S. C., sec. 737) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States."

Thanks in advance, --Seablade (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wish for, you could check one additional thing: Public Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, of 1966. (September 12, 1966) See Senate Report 1504 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90 Thanks, --Seablade (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercy11, The fact that the privileges and immunities clause was extended to Puerto Rico is significant and is directly related to this article. Could you provide the rational to eliminate the sourced information? --Seablade (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Seablade,

The long answer is that when a user wants to read about privileges and immunities, he wont look foir that in teh Political Statsu article. For virtually everyone, political status means the sort of stuff that is currently covered in the PS article. If a user was looking for privileges and immunities clause information he will look for it in the Privileges and Immunities, not in a political status article.

The short answer, however, is WP:Due. One way around this, however, is to include a wikilink to P&IC in the PS article under "See Also" section, and I have already done that for you.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent developments

As part of the recent developments about the Political status of Puerto Rico this information could be included on this article:

Gov. Luis Fortuño set Aug. 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite as well as a referendum through which voters can either approve or reject a proposed legislative reform that will cut down significantly on the number of lawmakers. If a second status vote is required, it will take place on the same day as the general election in November 2012, he added.

The governor said the measure would follow the outlines of the decision by the New Progressive Part--Seablade (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)y Governing Board, which signed off on a two-stage plebiscite process. The first referendum will ask voters whether they want to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they prefer a nonterritorial option.

If more voters check that nonterritorial option, a second vote would be held giving people three status options: statehood, independence or free association.

Reference: Fortuño calls for status, legislative reform votes on August 12, 2012

Seablade (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that should be there. However, I consider the issue of reducing the number of lawmakers to be irrelevant to this article and shouldn't be added. Also, why is it important to mention any party ("New Progressive Party Governing Board") in this whole thing when the status plebiscites transcends political parties? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I just quoted the paragraph directly for the reference article. The recommendation is just include the decolonization process plebiscite of August 2012 that is directly related to this article as part of the recent developments. --Seablade (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Innacurate Statement proposal correction as per Balzac v. Puerto Rico opinion full text

My reference is the Balzac v. Puerto Rico opinion full text! The current statement is not there! The proposal statement is most accurate in relation to the case full text!

• Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (opinion full text).

Current Statement: The Supreme Court later made other rulings. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 305 (1922), explained the distinction between an incorporated and a non-incorporated territory. Of particular application in the case of Puerto Rico is the definition stating that "an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union as a State."

Proposal Statement: The Supreme Court later made other rulings. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 305 (1922), explained the distinction between an incorporated and a non-incorporated territory. Of particular application in the case of Puerto Rico is the definition stating that "an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union."

--Seablade (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The citation is quoting Judge Torruella's 100 Years of Solitude article, not Balzac vs. Puerto Rico. Please use Burnett and Marshall's publication as your source as per citation.

In any event, it is puzzling that you are arguing about this when even the partial quote, "an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union", is not found in Balzac vs. Puerto Rico using the reference you include ABOVE.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I don't have the time to pursue this further right now; nor the resources (being limited as I am to online sources, and this source not being previewable enough). Still, see Burnett, Christina Duffy; Marshall, Burke (2001). Foreign in a domestic sense: Puerto Rico, American expansion, and the Constitution. Duke University Press. pp. 243. ISBN 978-0-8223-2698-4. (the last full paragraph on the page -- I don't know what chapter this is and I haven't located footnote 13, but it may be previewable) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Although quotations should of course be checked when their accuracy is questioned, there really is no difference in meaning between the two versions. In 1922, "incorporated into the Union" had no potential meaning other than statehood. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the territories could be incorporated into the union and/or admitted into the union as a State. One example by the U.S. Supreme Court

In Downes v. Bidwell supra at 252, it was said:

Owing to a new war between England and France being upon the point of breaking out, there was need for haste in the negotiations, and Mr. Livingston took the responsibility of disobeying his (Mr. Jefferson's) instructions, and, probably owing to the insistence of Bonaparte, consented to the 3d article of the treaty (with France to acquire the territory of Louisiana), which provided that 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' [8 Stat. at L. 202.]

This evidently committed the government to the ultimate, but not to the immediate, admission of Louisiana as a state...

--Seablade (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you want to chop off the quote (from "incorporated into the Union as a State" to "incorporated into the Union") to emphasize the fact that unincorporated territories may become part of the US by becoming only incorporated territories. Louisiana or not, we must remember that "incorporation has always been a step...leading to statehood." (BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO) In other words, you are not going to find a ballot option for becoming just an incorporated territory, the option would instead read "statehood". That is, incorporation is not an end in itself, but simply part of the process of becoming a U.S. state and, judging by when Alaska and Hawaii became states after becoming incorporated territories (both done within a year), it is clear that incorporation is a step in the process of becoming a state. In light of this, heading down your direction has more the resemblance of political propaganda, which I would warn against as it is contrary to the WP:NOTADVOCATE policy. Wikipedia is not the place to advance personal political ideas. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Your assumption is incorrect! I just want to perform the update by the simple reason of illustrate what the Supreme Court ruled on 1922! Because this is an encyclopedia and the article most have the most accurate information available! This is not about POV, or elections or plebiscites! It is about accuracy to the most reliable facts as per the U.S Supreme Court avoiding POV interpretation of them on Wikipedia! Could you assume good faith!

Hawaii was incorporated into the union on 1898 as per the U.S. Supreme Court and was admitted as State 61 years later on 1959.

Alaska was incorporated into the union on 1868 as per the U.S. Supreme Court and was admitted as State 91 years later on 1959.

--Seablade (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court ruling:

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States;" This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula, employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary.".Rassmussen v. U S, 197 U.S. 516 (1905) Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se. --Seablade (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell,

Burnett, Christina Duffy; Marshall, Burke (2001). Foreign in a domestic sense: Puerto Rico, American expansion, and the Constitution. Duke University Press. pp. 243. ISBN 978-0-8223-2698-4. it is not previewable. --Seablade (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Seablade, I can't say for sure why you have a problem previewing that page and I do not. It may have something to do with our respective geographic locations -- Google books may or may not restrict previewing by geographic location as indicated by the IP address of the web client. That page is previewable for me in Google Books from my location in the Philippines. it appears to be an essay by John R. Torruella, and the relevant para reads in part, "What is an 'unincorporated' territory of the United States? According to the Supreme Court--because again, this is terminology that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution—an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union as a state.¹³ The distinction between being classified as incorporated versus an unincorporated territory is not an insignificant one, for in the infamous Insular Cases the Supreme Court held that only those rigthts in the Bill of rights that are determined to be 'fundamental' are applicable in unincorporated territories.¹⁴ ..." (Emphasis added by me. Any typos in the quote are mine). P.241, the title page of that chapter, is not previewable by me; neither are pp.248-280, wherein footnotes 13 and 14 would be. Someone located in a country such as the U.S. (in Puerto Rico too) might be able to find a copy of the book in a library there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, when I click on your "Foreign in a domestic sense..." Google books link above and then click on "Preview this book >>" and then type "incorporated into the Union as a State" (including the 2 double quotes) in the "Search in this book" box on the left and hit "Go", I get a full display of page 243 highlighting the quote in question on the paragrapgh that starts with "What is an "unincorporated" territory of the United States?". Since the title of this discussion implied that the quote needed correction because it was innacurate, this proves the quote is not innacurrate and, to me, anything beyond this is would be purely argumentative. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Correction performs on the article to clarify that the statement is from Torruella and not by the U.S. Supreme Court on Balzac v. Puerto Rico. Thanks for your help! --Seablade (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Extra statements on 2012 U.S. Democratic Party Platform are just propaganda

This section deals with an anonymous editor (IP 72.50.32.235) who is arguing that to describe the U.S. Democratic Party 2012's platform on the political status of Puerto Rico, the text

Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico.

is better than the text,

We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling.

I have reverted the edits by anonymous IP user User:72.50.32.235 located HERE because they violate the WP:Propaganda policy. The editor claims immunity under the WP:NPOV policy, but this is neither correct reason nor correct logic. (1) For one thing you cannot harbor yourself under the POV umbrella with the claim that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (see HERE) when the other party (the Republican Party) has also been afforded only the same fair amount room for its exposition (5 lines or about 100 words in my PC's display). The editor attempts to more than double the amount of space afforded the Democratic Party's position. In addition, there is no bias (as he implies) in the elimination of his extra statements: it's not a bias/NPOV issue, it's a propaganda/unencyclopedic issue - the extra statements do nothing to express the Democratic Party's position. And to complete my rebuttal on this first point, I remind this editor that not everything published in RS is Wikipedia material. (2) For a second thing, and even more important than doubling the amount of text in his favor, his NPOV claim is riddle with faulty logic. The reason here is that the editor is adding material that is purely propaganda, thus in violation of WP:PROPAGANDA, which is a core WP:NOT Wikipedia policy and, the way I see it, the WP:NOT policies supercede any WP:NPOV policy for, in short, if something does not belong in the encyclopedia to begin with, then whether or not it is POV is a moot point. His logic is no logic at all.

But even if it was not faulty logic (which I argue it is) the content he added bears all the characteristics of WP:SOAP, and thus in violation of that additional policy as well, bringing us back to the WP:NOT policies again. The editor is hereby invited to becomes familiar with these 3 policies. For the amount of rhetoric in the statements he inseted, and then re-inserted reverting my revert of his edits, he is also invited to read up the well-written essay WP:Rhetoric.

An additional note: even if only some of the contents under debate were propaganda and some was not, the fact remains that the text has to be removed because it holds no WP:WEIGHT (read: NPOV) for what is being presented in that section. Thus is is the anonymous editor that is in violation of WP:NPOV!

As an add-on, the editor, as shown HERE failed to follow protocol by not providing an edit-summary justifications for his additions in question. It appears he wants them there based on Wikipedia:I just like it.

The editor, in addition, appears quite suspicious to me...he only showed up to edit only this part of only this article only (see HERE), which makes me even wonder if he is a case of wp:sock puppetry.

The editor in question is invited to make his case here...Although I see that another editor has already (HERE) also reverted the anonymous editor's re-entered edit.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Not only that, but the text at issue was added to text quoted from the Democratic Party Platform, and supported by a cite of the Democratic Party Platform website. The added text is not present in the supporting source cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service CRS Report

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report

Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions

Puerto Rico vote for U.S. Statehood

This article must be updated in relation to the 2O12 Puerto Rico Plebiscite requesting the Statehood and rejecting the current Territorial Status.

The first question on the plebiscite asked voters whether they want to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they prefer a nonterritorial option. A second question on the plebiscite had three status options: statehood, independence or free association.

The result of the 2012 referendum is that 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, and 61.3% of the population voted for the statehood. Puerto Rico vote for U.S. Statehood

Puerto Rico provided a clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status and requested to the U.S. Congress to admitted Puerto Rico to be the 51st State of the United States of America on the November 6, 2012 Plebiscite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Vote for statehood

In November 2012, Puerto Rico achieved a first clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status, and requesting the U.S. Congress to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America. In all earlier referenda, votes for statehood were matched almost equally by votes for remaining an American territory, with a small balance of votes cast for independence. Support for U.S. statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum until a clear majority of 61.2% was attained on November 2012. The most recent referendum process began in October 2011 when Governor Luis Fortuño proposed a bill, following the recommendation of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status to provide for self-determination. The proposed bill set the date of August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. The first question on the plebiscite would ask voters whether they wanted to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they preferred a non-territorial option. A second question on the plebiscite would offer three status options: statehood, independence or free association. This bill was brought before the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, then the Senate of Puerto Rico in 2011 to effect the governor's proposal. The bill passed on December 28, 2011. The date was revised such that both steps were voted on in a single ballot on November 6, 2012. As a result of that ballot, 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, with 61.2% of the population voting for statehood as the preferred change from the status quo.

The Plebiscite proposal and guidelines was recommended by the following U.S. Government Reports:

• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) - President William J. Clinton.
• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) - President George W. Bush.
• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (March 2011) - President Barack Obama.
• Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)
• Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)

The Democratic Party platform of 2012 says:

As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. We have made great progress for Puerto Rico over the past four years, including a sharp, historic increase in Medicaid funding for the people of Puerto Rico and fair and equitable inclusion in the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act. Going forward, we will continue working toward fair and equitable participation for Puerto Rico in federal programs. We support increased efforts by the federal government to improve public safety in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, with a particular emphasis on efforts to combat drug trafficking and crime throughout our Caribbean border. In addition, consistent with the task force report, we will continue to work on improving Puerto Rico's economic status by promoting job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island.

The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.