Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico/Archives/2011/August

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)