Yeah right, you who thinks that Puerto Rico should be independent, when 4 Puerto Ricans in a thousand bothered to vote for independence in the last referendum. You show your total contempt for the wishes of the people of Puerto Rico. So weak is the PR independence movement that they have ot resort to trying to get White people to force independence on Puerto Ricans against their wishes.
I feel sympathy for all the decent Puerto Ricans who voted for statehood, unfortunately there are too many parasites in Puerto Rico who want to avoid the taxes and responsibilities of Statehood. Puerto Rico would soon get statehood if the majority voted for it.
You lack political analysis in a very fundamental way. Why do you think Puerto Ricans are statutory citizens of the USA and not constitutional citizens? You should study the insular cases. Puerto Ricans brought the lack of voting rights as USA citizens all the way to the SCOTUS to 'test' what status we actually have? You honestly believe that the USA gov't who did not even respect majority popular votes on the mainland---are going to respect a popular vote for statehood in Puerto Rico?
Study this case--Balzac versus Porto Rico. That is one of the earliest cases. The SCOTUS and other courts (all federal ones), uses that legal precedent to deny Puerto Ricans the same rights as constitutionally guaranteed citizens. You need to ask yourself why the American Court system is doing this in the first place? Puerto Ricans have asked for binding referendums. Legally binding referendums on status. The congress refuses to grant them. Ask yourself WHY??
Next, if you studied the Puerto Rican independence movement it was basically dismantled by the USA. Why would they do that? If they truly believe in a democracy? Munoz Rivera and Munoz Marin. Both Luis MR and Luis MM (father and son) were involved in the PPD who was the majority party through the 40's and the 50's and sixties too. They were pro autonomy party. Study their relationship to the Roosevelt administration.
The statehood PNP party in Puerto Rico was not founded until 1968. And Puerto Ricans did not start that party Rich. No Puerto Ricans were the founder of the statehood party. Why not? Study that. Figure it out. You don't know a lot about Puerto Rican internal politics because you believe a bunch of propaganda bullshit that are balls of smoke created by the USA gov't to cover up their colonial crap ideas in front of the decolonization committee of the United Nations that asked the USA why it held colonies that weren't allowed to vote or have their own representation in Washington DC.
You are going to have work a lot harder than you are in figuring out Puerto Rican political issues. You are failing. I give you an "F" grade. Trump likes to give grades...I give you an "F" on what you know about Puerto Rican politics.
Start with insular cases and go from there:
I am going to give it to you:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balzac_v._Porto_Rico
Let me highlight what the issue is with Puerto Rican voting rights. because you are under the illusion that the USA runs all of its 'territories' the same way as they do their states. And even the states now are in danger of having elections where the majority of the voters vote for someone but that person doesn't get the seat. Why? Can you figure it out Rich?
This is what they said:Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution did not apply to territories not incorporated into the unionJesús M. Balzac edited the newspaper El Baluarte. Balzac wrote an article referring indirectly to the colonial governor at the time, Arthur Yager; the article was considered libelous by the authorities. Pursuant to the Jones Act of 1917, which granted Puerto Ricans American citizenship among other guarantees, Balzac sought jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. In denying the request for jury trial, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico relied on two 1918 decisions by the United States Supreme Court: People v. Tapia, 245 U.S. 639 (1918), and People v. Muratti, also at 245 U.S. 639 (1918). These two per curiam decisions cited the earlier Insular Cases and held that provisions of the Bill of Rights were inapplicable to Puerto Rico even after the passage of the Jones Act.
The unanimous opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Taft. He argued that although the Jones Act had granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans, it had not incorporated Puerto Rico into the Union. Although Puerto Rico had been under the control of the United States since the end of the Spanish–American War in 1898, the territory had not been designated for ultimate statehood, and Congress could determine which parts of the Constitution would apply.
Taft distinguished Puerto Rico from the territory in the Alaska purchase, acquired from Russia in 1867, which had been held to be incorporated in Rasmussen v. United States. Thus, particular constitutional provisions were applied based on location, rather than on citizenship.
Taft's grounds for denying jury trial specifically echoed earlier Insular Cases reasoning. He argued that because Puerto Rico had been governed by Spanish civil law for four hundred years before American acquisition, the inhabitants would be unprepared for jury service. Taft argued that locals should be able to determine their own laws:
Congress has thought that a people like the Filipinos, or the Porto Ricans, trained to a complete judicial system which knows no juries, living in compact and ancient communities, with definitely formed customs and political conceptions, should be permitted themselves to determine how far they wish to adopt this institution of Anglo-Saxon origin, and when.
— 258 U.S. 298, 310
Toward the end of the opinion, the court uses "language that would lead to perpetual litigation in an effort to clarify the rights of the American citizens of Puerto Rico:"
The guaranties of certain fundamental personal rights declared in the Constitution, as, for instance, that no person could be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, had from the beginning full application in the Philippines and Porto Rico, and, as this guaranty is one of the must fruitful in causing litigation in our own country, provision was naturally made for similar controversy in Porto Rico.
— 258 U.S. 298, 312–313The court leaves unresolved the exact "personal rights" that were so "fundamental" that they would extend to American citizens in Puerto Rico.
Tell me Rich why would the SCOTUS who til this very day still uses this ancient obsolete statute and law in place when Puerto Ricans challenge it in court? Can you answer for me why that would happen? One of them is that Puerto Ricans and others like the US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc Including American Samoa that has the WORST damn deal in the world in the acquired possessions statutes I have ever seen in my life. They literally are people without a fucking right to ANYTHING. They are not even USA citizens, and they are not nationals and they are LIMBO people without any rights or any privileges under any law in the USA. But the Samoans serve in the USA military in great numbers versus their actual population.
How come you have not heard about these 'insular cases' Rich? Is it because you believe all that SHIT the USA gov't feeds you and you like a leming believe it? Answer me that one? :D
Rich, the congress stated that Puerto Rico is not allowed to determine if it wants statehood. So how is that democracy? If the congress of the USA decided to change those laws? It would have to grant statehood to all of the unincorporated territories. All of them. Why would that be a problem for the USA gov't? Think Rich. You are going to have to think.
I want you to finally think about this with some seriousness. Why would the SCOTUS say 'statehood wasn't in the cards for Puerto Rico and that is why you can't be treated like a state with the full protection of the bill of rights." So---what is the congress' plans for places like Puerto Rico if statehood is not in the cards? And why found a political party that is not founded by Puerto Ricans themselves (THE PNP) if statehood was not in the cards? Why on earth would they do that if they know it is not going to be granted to them through the courts?