Talk:Politics of Puerto Rico/Archives/2009/November

RE Constitutional and Statutory Citezenship

Presently: "However, according to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes," which clarifies that natural born citizens via statute (Jones-Shafroth Act for example) and natural born citizens via constitutional right (14th Amendment) are not view at the same light, at least by the Executive Branch."

I believe this section is misleading. It seeks to state that their are two classes of citizenship for purposes of our laws, which isn't really the case. While some of the Supreme Court cases mentioned do more to muddy the issue at first glance than seems necessary (Bellei being one), the law seems relatively clear on this point. There is only one type of citizenship, however; you may gain that citizenship by different ways. Certain people have a constitutional right to citizenship (those born in the US for example) and certain don't (those born abroad, for example). That those without a constitutional right may nonetheless acquire citizenship by virtue of their birth to citizen parents, for example, and that congress may repeal this privilege, doesn't mean that their are differences in the citizenship, only differences in the rights to citizenship amongst different people. Further, the situation with the presidency doesn't depend on different types of citizenship being recognized by the executive or our laws, it has to do with the text of our constitution. The eligibility for President does not depend on citizenship, it depends on natural born citizenship. That certain citizens weren't natural born does not mean that they are different classes of citizens or are treated differently under the law, only that the manner in which they acquired their citizenship, or the fact that at one point they weren't a citizens, is relevant to the constitutional provision at issue.

In sum, I suggest changing the text to simply clarify that eligibility for president depends on natural born citizenship (i.e. it depends on whether a person was a citizen by way of right at birth rather than what "type" or "class" a person is upon attaining citizenship) and discuss the laws related to that, and mention that the fourteenth amendment only grants a constitutional right of citizenship to certain people, and that the remaining routes to citizenship (including naturalization as in the 14th itself) are at congress's discretion, but that their are not different classes of citizens and they are not treated differently by our laws by virtue of these supposed classes once they become citizens, only that in some cases whether they were citizens at birth or how they acquired citizenship may be relevant to the law. Any comments? Sorry for the length, I wanted to try to be clear about the issues as I see them.--Δζ (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

annexation vs statehood

Seablade has been changing mentions of "annexation" to "statehood". This is incorrect.

"Annexation" is the correct term in world-wide English for joining another country as a full member, as "statehood" in most international contexts means the exact opposite of what is meant here: it means independence. Usage of the term "statehood" in the US refers to the Federal nature of the government organization, which is divided into "States" - but this usage is a localized one that fails the global context that Wikipedia has (as per {{globalize}} and WP:BIAS). The UN officially refers to "annexation" when discussing the case of Puerto Rico.

I ask that Seablade refrain from this unhelpful editing, or at the very least explain his actions.--Cerejota (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another problem with this article is that the references #32 to #35 which are used are inter-Wikilinks, which as we know are considered as unreliable and therefore should be replaced as soon as possible. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all I want to apologize to not explain my edits! My edits are very simple is just include the 2008 Puerto Rico elections on this article! The political electoral results of 2008 changes the current article position of both the U.S. and the Puerto Rico goverment. The last administration position differ greatly from the current Puerto Rico Goverment and since this is an encyclopedia, this changes of views must be included on this article! If the 2008 political results are not included this article is failing on have the truth in there.

About the annexation word issue, the annexation is not the correct one! I refer you to the annexation definition of Wikipedia!

Just an example:

Annexation is an Unilaterally Act! If very very clear on Wikipedia!

Annexation differs from cession and amalgamation, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, or amalgamation where both sides are asked if they agree with the merge, annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and made legitimate by the recognition of the international community.[1]

If you go to the wikipedia definition of annexation you should notice that Puerto Rico was annexed to the U.S. on 1898 during the Hispanic American war!

Puerto Rico was annexed to the U.S. in 1898 on the Hispanic American War.

Kuwait was annexed to Irak in 1990. Refer to Annexation on the Wikipedia definition!

Golan was annexed to Israel in 1981. Jerusalem was annexed to Israel in 1980.

For more example just go to Annexation on this Encyclopedia, there are very clear of what Annexation means in the correct term in world-wide English at least to Wikipedia!

--Seablade (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Another Annexation word definition example:

Official position of Annexation of Hawaii Official Department of State Position: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17661.htm You are in: Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs > Bureau of Public Affairs > Bureau of Public Affairs: Office of the Historian > Timeline of U.S. Diplomatic History > 1866-1898Annexation of Hawaii, 1898

America's annexation of Hawaii in 1898 extended U.S. territory into the Pacific and highlighted resulted from economic integration and the rise of the United States as a Pacific power. For most of the 1800s, leaders in Washington were concerned that Hawaii might become part of a European nation's empire. During the 1830s, Britain and France forced Hawaii to accept treaties giving them economic privileges. In 1842, Secretary of State Daniel Webster sent a letter to Hawaiian agents in Washington affirming U.S. interests in Hawaii and opposing annexation by any other nation. He also proposed to Great Britain and France that no nation should seek special privileges or engage in further colonization of the islands. In 1849, the United States and Hawaii concluded a treaty of friendship that served as the basis of official relations between the parties. A key provisioning spot for American whaling ships, fertile ground for American protestant missionaries, and a new source of sugar cane production, Hawaii's economy became increasingly integrated with the United States. An 1875 trade reciprocity treaty further linked the two countries and U.S. sugar plantation owners from the United States came to dominate the economy and politics of the islands. When Queen Liliuokalani moved to establish a stronger monarchy, Americans under the leadership of Samuel Dole deposed her in 1893. The planters' belief that a coup and annexation by the United States would remove the threat of a devastating tariff on their sugar also spurred them to action. The administration of President Benjamin Harrison encouraged the takeover, and dispatched sailors from the USS Boston to the islands to surround the royal palace. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, worked closely with the new government.

Dole sent a delegation to Washington in 1894 seeking annexation, but the new President, Grover Cleveland, opposed annexation and tried to restore the Queen. Dole declared Hawaii an independent republic. Spurred by the nationalism aroused by the Spanish-American War, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 at the urging of President William McKinley. Hawaii was made a territory in 1900, and Dole became its first governor. Racial attitudes and party politics in the United States deferred statehood until a bipartisan compromise linked Hawaii's status to Alaska, and both became states in 1959.

--Seablade (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seablade: you miss the point by a mile. English, as a language, is different from Spanish, and one of the differences is that much more things are implied, than spelled-out. It is obvious you are a native Spanish speaker. While a lot of our articles on Spanish topics suffer from this transliteration issue, they normally only make the text harder to read, but nevertheless remain understandable. Using "statehood" in the context of Puerto Rico, however, would confuse the majority of the English speakers who use the term "statehood" to refer to "independence". so we use "annexation". Since the context of "annexation" is clear - it is annexation to the USA - there is no need to specify this in every mention of the term.

I do not see any movement to annex Puerto Rico to any other country. There is one context in which annexation might need to be qualified, and that is the historic movement for annexation to Spain, which co-existed with a pre-1898 movement for annexation to the USA, but that is not what this article is about.--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)