NationStates

The Archregimancy wrote:

Geilinor wrote:The residents of a colony don't gain citizenship at birth and free movement to the rest of the country.

So the Falklands, St Helena, Bermuda, and all of those other remaining bits of rock that are all that are left of the British Empire aren't colonies?

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Geilinor wrote:What was the most popular option then?

The most popular option for those who oppose statehood was the status quo, which, in the first round of voting, took a full 46% of the vote. A more honest referendum would just list the options, in which case, it would have looked like this:

- Statehood: 834,191
- Status Quo: 828,077
- Free Association(?): 61,000????
- Independence: 74,895

Using the number of valid votes, we can determine that the vast majority of those voting for Free Association were people who voted Status quo in the first round, but did not have their preferred option on the second question, but were still willing to settle, whereas most people who voted status quo were not willing to settle (hence why there is a some 250,000+ difference between how many votes are valid between the first and second questions.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Geilinor wrote:What was the most popular option then?

The most popular option for those who oppose statehood was the status quo, which, in the first round of voting, took a full 46% of the vote. A more honest referendum would just list the options, in which case, it would have looked like this:

- Statehood: 834,191
- Status Quo: 828,077
- Free Association(?): 61,000????
- Independence: 74,895

Using the number of valid votes, we can determine that the vast majority of those voting for Free Association were people who voted Status quo in the first round, but did not have their preferred option on the second question, but were still willing to settle, whereas most people who voted status quo were not willing to settle (hence why there is a some 250,000+ difference between how many votes are valid between the first and second questions.

Risottia wrote:

Kannap wrote:Puerto Ricans are American citizens from birth and have free access to travel anywhere else in the United States without a passport, like other American citizens, plus other similarities.

Just like the people of French Guyana are French citizens from birth and the people of Greenland are Danish citizens by birth.

Difference: the people of French Guyana are full citizens of France because French Guyana is a region of France exactly like, dunno, Provence-Alpes Maritimes-Cote d'Azur. That is, the people of French Guyana can vote at the national elections, for the President of France, the National Assembly and the Senate, and for the French MEPs. This isn't the case for the people of Puerto Rico.

The stuff with the Danish citizenship is a bit more complicated, as Greenland is following a process leading towards full independence from the Danish Crown.

Geilinor wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:The most popular option for those who oppose statehood was the status quo, which, in the first round of voting, took a full 46% of the vote. A more honest referendum would just list the options, in which case, it would have looked like this:

- Statehood: 834,191
- Status Quo: 828,077
- Free Association(?): 61,000????
- Independence: 74,895

Using the number of valid votes, we can determine that the vast majority of those voting for Free Association were people who voted Status quo in the first round, but did not have their preferred option on the second question, but were still willing to settle, whereas most people who voted status quo were not willing to settle (hence why there is a some 250,000+ difference between how many votes are valid between the first and second questions.

A referendum done in the first-past-the-post system with four options will never be conclusive. A runoff or IRV would have to be used.

Geilinor wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Difference: the people of French Guyana are full citizens of France because French Guyana is a region of France exactly like, dunno, Provence-Alpes Maritimes-Cote d'Azur. That is, the people of French Guyana can vote at the national elections, for the President of France, the National Assembly and the Senate, and for the French MEPs. This isn't the case for the people of Puerto Rico.

The stuff with the Danish citizenship is a bit more complicated, as Greenland is following a process leading towards full independence from the Danish Crown.

Solution: Add an amendment to the US Constitution allowing unincorporated territories to vote for president and Congress.

Rio Cana wrote:Seem the US just admitted they have a colony. The Russians in the Crimea are probably laughing at this. At least they got to hold a referendum.

This news is hitting big time big here but most likely not being mentioned much in the US or elsewhere with the exception of Spanish language news programs in the US and some other Latin American nations.

The US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said

admitió que esta isla del Caribe de 3,5 millones de habitantes mantiene, sin emplear el término, su condición de colonia a pesar de la representación que Washington hizo en 1953 ante la ONU.

Translation - "admitted that this Caribbean island of 3.5 million habitant maintains, without using the terminology, its condition of colony notwithstanding the representation Washington made in1953 in front of the UN".

In easy language, he is saying for all intended purposes the Constitution of Puerto Rico which the people voted on in 1950's is not worth the paper its written on. That in the end, the US congress is what ultimately has control of PR.

The Governor of PR. reacted by sending a protest letter to the head of the UN. In the 1950's certain pro-independence figures in PR. said that the US was conning the UN about the US getting rid of its colony of PR. Sixty three years later it seems they were right. Supposedly, the Commonwealth created back in the 50's was a pact between the US and PR. But according to the US General Attorney it was not.

So it seems the Commonwealth party will become the Sovereignty party unless they want to go out of existence since Commonwealth never truly existed. Of course, they were saying on local radio that since PR. is in fact a US colony and not a Commonwealth that the US is responsible for paying off the bonds holders if the island government cannot pay them off which is in doubt that they will be able too. Supposedly, almost One billion in interest is due sometime in January.

I think that in the end the US will have to finally let PR. do its own thing by giving PR. more sovereignty.

So what do you think NS.

Two news articles from today but they are not in English
Article 1 - http://diariodigital.com.do/2015/12/28/ ... -ante-onu/
Article 2 - http://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/poli ... u-2143910/

Risottia wrote:I think it would be simpler just making them into full-fledged States, woudln't it?

Geilinor wrote:

Risottia wrote:I think it would be simpler just making them into full-fledged States, woudln't it?

It would be. I have no problem with Puerto Rico being made a state but I doubt it will happen soon.

Hellpop wrote:

Rio Cana wrote:Finally, found some news on this from an English speaking financial site. Its not much but at least it mention it.

http://www.mt5.com/forex_news/quickview/1873093/

If you have to search that deep for a source, then it's most likely bullshit or not worth our time.

Risottia wrote:

Geilinor wrote:It would be. I have no problem with Puerto Rico being made a state but I doubt it will happen soon.

Yeah, same. I just can't really figure WHY. I mean, why should Hawaii be a State but Puerto Rico shouldn't?

Kazarogkai wrote:Colonialism, The disgusting practice leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It saddens my heart my nation participated in such a degenerate activity imposing such things on other people despite the fact that we are selves had to go through such things. My personal wish for the current us territories is for them to be granted a referendum where they would be given 3 options: Independence as a fully sovereign nation, The right to become a state within the union, or be able to join an already existing state with the consent of said state residents. Because of their small size I would suggest that the us pacific territories if they wish to join as a state be required to come in as a single state, and if they choose to join an already existing state the most obvious option would probably be Hawaii, though Alaska and California are decent alternatives. Up to them to decide though.

Rio Cana wrote:

Risottia wrote:Yeah, same. I just can't really figure WHY. I mean, why should Hawaii be a State but Puerto Rico shouldn't?

PR. can never be a US State since no-US nuke can be stationed in PR. Now does the US want a Nuke Free State. I do not think so.

Vassenor wrote:

Rio Cana wrote:
PR. can never be a US State since no-US nuke can be stationed in PR. Now does the US want a Nuke Free State. I do not think so.

I'm pretty sure there are no nuclear weapons in Alaska, Hawaii or most of the densely populated states.

Risottia wrote:

Geilinor wrote:It would be. I have no problem with Puerto Rico being made a state but I doubt it will happen soon.

Yeah, same. I just can't really figure WHY. I mean, why should Hawaii be a State but Puerto Rico shouldn't?

Rio Cana wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
I'm pretty sure there are no nuclear weapons in Alaska, Hawaii or most of the densely populated states.

They might not have them but the US can put them there at any time. Not with PR. because of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tlatelolco

Rio Cana wrote:

Hellpop wrote:
If you have to search that deep for a source, then it's most likely bullshit or not worth our time.

That was a financial market site. They tell no lies since they could get in trouble with the exchange commission. If they printed that news they know it is important financial wise.


Here another source with much more details. Its from Yahoo news.
http://news.yahoo.com/puerto-rico-gover ... 34746.html

Kannap wrote:The United States doesn't have colonies, neither does the Netherlands or France.

We all have territories.

Puerto Ricans are American citizens from birth and have free access to travel anywhere else in the United States without a passport, like other American citizens, plus other similarities.

Just like the people of French Guyana are French citizens from birth and the people of Greenland are Danish citizens by birth.

People born in colonies would not be considered full citizens of the mother nation holding the colony.

Rio Cana wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
I'm pretty sure there are no nuclear weapons in Alaska, Hawaii or most of the densely populated states.

They might not have them but the US can put them there at any time. Not with PR. because of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tlatelolco

Benomia 3 wrote:

Rio Cana wrote:
They might not have them but the US can put them there at any time. Not with PR. because of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tlatelolco

So you're saying that U.S. policymakers are conspiring to keep Puerto Rico from becoming a state because they wouldn't be able to store nuclear weapons there, even though most states don't have nuclear weapons stored within them, the U.S. would gain nothing from storing nuclear weapons in Puerto Rico, and Puerto Ricans themselves voted down the proposition of statehood?

Wow.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Kannap wrote:The United States doesn't have colonies, neither does the Netherlands or France.

We all have territories.

Puerto Ricans are American citizens from birth and have free access to travel anywhere else in the United States without a passport, like other American citizens, plus other similarities.

Just like the people of French Guyana are French citizens from birth and the people of Greenland are Danish citizens by birth.

People born in colonies would not be considered full citizens of the mother nation holding the colony.

French Guyana isn't administrated as a territory but as a direct extension of France itself in what they call an overseas department and the territories of the Netherlands in the Caribbean are also what the Netherlands call "constituent countries" after the Netherlands Antilles was dissolved as a political entity. France still has overseas territories like New Caledonia and Tahiti which have their own governments and political parties but whose residents are French citizens.

But yes, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, like American Samoa or the U.S Virgin Islands.

New haven america wrote:

Kazarogkai wrote:Colonialism, The disgusting practice leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It saddens my heart my nation participated in such a degenerate activity imposing such things on other people despite the fact that we are selves had to go through such things. My personal wish for the current us territories is for them to be granted a referendum where they would be given 3 options: Independence as a fully sovereign nation, The right to become a state within the union, or be able to join an already existing state with the consent of said state residents. Because of their small size I would suggest that the us pacific territories if they wish to join as a state be required to come in as a single state, and if they choose to join an already existing state the most obvious option would probably be Hawaii, though Alaska and California are decent alternatives. Up to them to decide though.

But the US Territory's aren't colonies, almost all the inhabited ones(Except American Samoa, seriously someone should get working on that) are home to US citizens and they are able to freely travel around the country if they so desire.

If they were colonies they would have it much harder when it comes to things like that.