Puerto Ricans reject statehood

In recent days, Puerto Ricans rebuffed statehood electing the status quo in order to reap the best of both worlds. This isn’t the first, but the third time that statehood was shot down by Puerto Ricans.

In the campaign that led up to the recent non-binding referendum, every political faction passionately presents its case for status quo, statehood or independence. What are the obstacles that prevented Puerto Ricans from voting favorably for statehood?

First, there’s the pride of Puerto Ricans who wanted nothing else but protect the integrity of their cultural identity. Second, the notion that they will never be a part of mainstream America must have cemented such conviction to hold on to the status quo as they analyze their political relationship with the US.

In the process, it also has been bashed unjustifiably by mainland critics who question with arrogance whether the country needs to welcome to its fold a purely welfare state. Perhaps both sides need to review how Puerto Rico became the biggest welfare state in the union. Was it entirely its own fault or the failed and shifting economic policies of the federal government or both?

What does the NMI share in common with Puerto Rico? Both are under the mercy of the US Congress. How they fare in their quest for greater self-government is always under the watchful eyes of the federal government. In short, federal policies often neglect to take into account the realities in insular areas placing greater importance on justified or unjustified federal interests.

Although the NMI was delegated powers in its immigration, wage, tax and labor under the Covenant Agreement, this authority has been the focus of all the bashing that we’ve received since 1993. Liberals in Congress wanted to permanently change these delegated authorities solely the purview of the US Congress. The NMI was fortunate to have brought to these isles Congressional Delegations which included the most powerful member of the US House of Representatives who now looks after our interests.

For purposes of discussion: What if we never connected with such powerful members such as Congressmen Tom DeLay, Dick Armey and others? Liberal politicians would have instantly scrap our interest whether we like it or not. The point is: For the first part of the next millennium, the NMI must engage in deliberative discussions on whether it wishes to continue the current relationship often victims of whimsical federal decisions or opt for semi-independence in order to build upon our inalienable rights to self-government. It’s food for thought.