[JohnRawls]

All three?

The USA.

They have been on a killing spree from the beginning, internally and globally. And if they were not killing, they were supporting killers.

They supplied both sides in the two wars and built an empire on the bones of millions of innocents.

Not even close to Rome, Genghis Khan or what Chinese dynasties did. Some would argue that China should top the list but they were pretty tame compared to Genghis or Rome in both time and space. China might have only numbers because of population but that prolly doesn't come close to Mongols since they had no problem killing 30-40-50% percent of population in some places in China or India plus most Chinese dynasties are not one single unified China while Rome was more or less unified as a single entity for a very very very very long time compared to most.

So in terms of space it is definetely Mongols. In terms of numbers it is either Mongols or China. In terms of time it is Rome hands down nobody is even remotely close.

Overall it is probably the Mongols but might be Rome.

[ingliz]

@JohnRawls

The Mongols killed around 38 million people, 60 million if one includes those who died in the aftermath of their invasions.

It's not inconceivable that the US and its client states have exceeded this number.

[Pants-of-dog]

2024-1776=248

60 000 000/248 is more or less 242 000.

This is only slightly higher than the casualty count of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The number of deaths directly caused by the US war effort is about 41 000 a year.

So, it is quite plausible that the indirect deaths from the US add up to the remaining 200 000 a year. This would include the sanctions on Iraq, the deaths of those suffering under US supported dictatorships, and other causes.

But I am fairly sure the British Empire killed way more than 60 million.

[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls

The Mongols killed around 38 million people, 60 million if one includes those who died in the aftermath of their invasions.

It's not inconceivable that the US and its client states have exceeded this number.

As stated the numbers don't matter in this question at all. The brutality and percentages and the length sure as thing does.

Mongols wiped out 50%+ percent of populations in Northern India because the Karezmians resisted with enslaving whole cities while killing all men. Rome wiped out villages and whole tribes to the root while enslaving who remained because they didn't like them, they resisted or they had bad history with them just because they hundreds of years ago destroyed Rome or salted cities and enslaved literally all because they challanged Roman rule.

The scale of brutality, cruelty etc was off the chart in the old times.

If you wanna talk about numbers then US also doesn't even come close to Mao, Hitler or Stalin for example but they were not that brutal/cruel in the world history championship of cruelty and brutality because they still lived in modern times. 60 million in Genghis time is basically a billion if not more in the modern time. World population in 1200 was 360 million give or take. So you are saying he has killed 1/7th of the world population basically. Just imagine that.

[Tainari88]

@JohnRawls

The Mongols killed around 38 million people, 60 million if one includes those who died in the aftermath of their invasions.

It's not inconceivable that the US and its client states have exceeded this number.

I tend to agree with you.

I do think I hate seeing women crucified and hung to die just for being Armenian.

I really hate all that horror. It is completely unjustifiable.

Nowadays the issue are APPS. Look at this? A riot broke out over an APP that doesn't work and people who traversed a bunch of nations because they were told they only had to show up at the border and say they needed asylum and fill out an app and the US immigration authorities will fix that problem and voila, US asylum, get a job, send the kids to school, get a cheap house or motel and poverty issues solved. It is not that easy.

I think what needs to happen is a real app explaining why it might be a different paradigm shifting from a nation that is underdeveloped, and without real social services available, and without strong law enforcement and a 14 to 20 year 100,000 dollar legal cost price tag attached to becoming a citizen from a nation with low visa approval--might be a bad idea.

Create accurate information to these people living with the impression that the USA is a free for all of being able to escape poverty. Because it is not a free for all of escaping poverty. It is a long, hard and difficult road to stability.

And the cost of living is hard on the lower classes in the USA who live in parking lots and in cars in San Diego, and they are working full time.

That kind of reality check is absent in Latin America. It is.

[wat0n]

Maybe the question could be if there are regimes/nations/'peoples' in history that did not do any of these things at all?

It seems cruelty is part of being human, or even just a somewhat intelligent form of life, and that we can at best hope to keep it in check most of the time to allow ourselves to ever hope we can live functional lives - but that's just me.

[Pants-of-dog]

Have the Roma ever committed genocide?

What about the Eeyou Isthchi?

Or the Palestinians?

[wat0n]

Am I supposed to believe they have never committed any atrocities?

[Tainari88]

Maybe the question could be if there are regimes/nations/'peoples' in history that did not do any of these things at all?

It seems cruelty is part of being human, or even just a somewhat intelligent form of life, and that we can at best hope to keep it in check most of the time to allow ourselves to ever hope we can live functional lives - but that's just me.

I am a humanist Wat0n. Being a humanist is this:

Humanists stand for the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using a pragmatic ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge-an ethics that judges the consequences of human actions by the well-being of all life on Earth.

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-hu ... on%20Earth.

You do not accept cruelty and injustice in governance or in law or in society. I think you give up way too easily wat0n. Or you want to not struggle for something better.

Concentrate on what you need to do to become a US citizen and be successful materially and career-wise. Be a productive new American just minted freshly and in the future if you want to be some conservative type who backs everything the US government proposes then be that.

But the reality is none of that is going to be easy for you Wat0n. All of it requires work, planning, and dedication.

And paying taxes. And if you want to raise kids the lack of real child care support, tax credits for new parents and maternity leave and not being able to afford a down payment on a new house for your new family is going to be much more affecting your day to day than trying to combat Leftist thought on an internet forum.

I am also an internationalist in thought process. What does that mean? It means that you want to contribute to every society you are a part of. If you live in Mexico you pay taxes to the Mexican government, you work with Mexicans, you buy products in Mexico and support their businesses. I pay taxes every year to my city. They in turn have free child care centers, public schools, roads, and so on. You got to be a good citizen of any society you are a part of.

Once you become a full citizen, you then vote. You participate. You write and read, you attend meetings in your favorite political party, or you attend church if you are religious or if you are secular and nonreligious but want to be civically involved you tutor kids who need it or serve warm meals to needy seniors. Whatever floats your boat.

You visit your home nation. And you LOVE people. And your life is fine.

Humanism is about serving humanity always.

Not being nonchalant about cruelty or perversity or not caring if humanity makes it out of the nuclear age. It means fighting for LIFE Wat0n, not accepting what is bad without a fight. Resistance is not futile. It is the very core of why life exists. Didn't you ever read this part of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution Señor?

The struggle for existence is the confrontation between the organism and its conditions of life. Thus, the pieces are there, in Darwin, for sharpening the metaphor by providing a general account of the struggle for existence.

Read the paper.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1973409

So what does this mean?

Every single living thing has to struggle. No such thing as living without struggle.

So that is a reality.

If we give in to cruelty and injustice does it move a human society to be able to change to something improved and better for all humans living in that society? Yes.

Should we think humans are naturally cruel? No use in changing laws, thoughts or habits, or structures in society because in the end...we are always going to be cruel. Or that government is always going to be bad.

No such thing as staying still....frozen in paralysis and nonmovement for a better life. If that was so none of that crap would have ever changed for the better. It would all mean no progress.

We all change. Over time? Change is inevitable. Why struggle to perpetuate what is immoral, wrong, and regressive like cruelty?

It makes no sense to fight for what is regressive.

Extinction is our for sure final destination. What we must fight for is not fighting eventual extinction it is to fight for MANIFESTATION of the best of our species. Have we tapped our full potential as homo sapiens?

I think not. We got a lot of great things to do still.

[wat0n]

It is precisely by admitting we have a cruel side that needs to be kept in check that we can move forward, @Tainari88

It is by pretending to be superior to others, morally or otherwise, that you can make that harder if not impossible. These are also often the most cruel, too.

[Tainari88]

It is precisely by admitting we have a cruel side that needs to be kept in check that we can move forward, @Tainari88

It is by pretending to be superior to others, morally or otherwise, that you can make that harder if not impossible. These are also often the most cruel, too.

That is not the point Wat0n. The point is that cruelty exists. No one denies that if you saw a Holocaust survivor thing on TV at some point in your life.

No. The point I was making is that you need to struggle for a better society by not supporting cruel political policies, inhumane shit. That is the point. Struggle is imperative. Otherwise by being passive and being nonchalant you won't be changing a damn thing. The lack of action will affect you at some point in your life. Because politics is really about everything in this world. Taking action or nonaction is still being political because you are political just by being a human being and being alive and having experiences you have to process. No such thing as a neutral human being.

My mother often said, 'eres neutral cuando estas muerta.' Those are the truly neutral people in the world. The dead.

Todos los demas tienen que estar en una lucha para comer, pagar, trabajar, mejorar su salud, mejorar sus vidas, haciendo algo. Neutralidad es para los muertitos.

That was the point.

[wat0n]

That is not the point Wat0n. The point is that cruelty exists. No one denies that if you saw a Holocaust survivor thing on TV at some point in your life.

No. The point I was making is that you need to struggle for a better society by not supporting cruel political policies, inhumane shit. That is the point. Struggle is imperative. Otherwise by being passive and being nonchalant you won't be changing a damn thing. The lack of action will affect you at some point in your life. Because politics is really about everything in this world. Taking action or nonaction is still being political because you are political just by being a human being and being alive and having experiences you have to process. No such thing as a neutral human being.

My mother often said, 'eres neutral cuando estas muerta.' Those are the truly neutral people in the world. The dead.

Todos los demas tienen que estar en una lucha para comer, pagar, trabajar, mejorar su salud, mejorar sus vidas, haciendo algo. Neutralidad es para los muertitos.

That was the point.

Right, and the way to do it is to keep power in check and expressing your opinion when it matters most i.e. voting, if you're lucky enough to live in a country where you can do that (many can't).

[Tainari88]

Right, and the way to do it is to keep power in check and expressing your opinion when it matters most i.e. voting, if you're lucky enough to live in a country where you can do that (many can't).

Yes, many can't. Like being Puerto Rican and staying in Puerto Rico. You only get to affect a US vote by MOVING out of the place you were born. Lol.

They retain the power to shape your life, but you cant affect the outcome of their political system. Colonialism in a nutshell.

I can move out of Puerto Rico and then register to vote in a state. But I have to leave that island. If I vote locally for governor congresspeople and senators there? It is overridden by an unelected board of people who override anything done in PR that contradicts the panel. Tyranny. But who endorses this stellar shit? Well the ones who play at being democratic.

Do not come with the argument, but you can vote Tainari88 due to being Puerto Rican OUTSIDE of Puerto Rico. Just leave Chicago and Illinois please, Illinois native born people and you too can vote. But illinois is not important for you. We keep it and you leave. GREAT SOLUTION.

Colonialism again in a nutshell. Lol.

[wat0n]

Yes, many can't. Like being Puerto Rican and staying in Puerto Rico. You only get to affect a US vote by MOVING out of the place you were born. Lol.

They retain the power to shape your life, but you cant affect the outcome of their political system. Colonialism in a nutshell.

I can move out of Puerto Rico and then register to vote in a state. But I have to leave that island. If I vote locally for governor congresspeople and senators there? It is overridden by an unelected board of people who override anything done in PR that contradicts the panel. Tyranny. But who endorses this stellar shit? Well the ones who play at being democratic.

Do not come with the argument, but you can vote Tainari88 due to being Puerto Rican OUTSIDE of Puerto Rico. Just leave Chicago and Illinois please, Illinois native born people and you too can vote. But illinois is not important for you. We keep it and you leave. GREAT SOLUTION.

Colonialism again in a nutshell. Lol.

Well, I can't vote in US elections (nothing against it, it's my choice) but I do vote in Chilean ones. Can you vote in PR elections from Mexico?

[Tainari88]

Well, I can't vote in US elections (nothing against it, it's my choice) but I do vote in Chilean ones. Can you vote in PR elections from Mexico?

I can vote in Colorado elections since I lived there for years and registered to vote there for years. But? Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico can only vote for local reps. And those are again not allowed to vote in DC. Only do some kind of non voting symbolism. Lol.

I can vote for a US election for now. But if I become a Mexican citizen I can vote in Mexico too.

Puerto Ricans can become ONLY Puerto Rican citizens. But they can't travel, can't vote and basically are kind of stateless. Like the American Samoans are. They got the worst deal.

No you can't vote in Puerto Rico because it is not a state Wat0n or an independent nation. That is why my son who is born in Colorado says estadounidense in his nationality on his immigration card and mine says estadounidense (Puerto Rico) in parentheses. Not the same. His is USA and mine says PRI. Puerto Rico. I got curious and looked it up. Mexico categorizes us as an occupied nation under duress. But still a US citizen.

The problem is in order to vote in Puerto Rico you have to have resided there but you can't vote for a Puerto Rican election if you do not have residency there. That is why the Cryptocurrency people have to stay on the island for at least six months out of the year to able to retain their tax free status. They do not pay taxes precisely because they do not live in the USA 50 states.

This is how weird this gets...here it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_v ... uerto_Rico

This is what was concluded:

It is a violation of civil rights based on racist codes from the past Wat0n. They hold on to it because they choose to do so in violation of constitutional law. So? They are hypocrites. End of story.

Torruella who is a Puerto Rican judge @wat0n that lives in the USA and he was the dissenter and this is what he said that entire disenfranchisement was about:

Torruella opened his Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part, as follows:[9]

Although in a different format than presented on prior occasions, we once more have before us issues that arise by reason of the political inequality that exists within the body politic of the United States, as regards the four million citizens of this Nation who reside in Puerto Rico.

This is a fundamental constitutional question that will not go away notwithstanding this Court's repeated efforts to suppress these issues.21  We can now add to that dismal list the endeavors of the lead opinion. This is a most unfortunate and denigrating predicament for citizens who for more than one hundred years have been branded with a stigma of inferiority, and all that follows therefrom.

At the root of this problem is the unacceptable role of the courts. Their complicity in the perpetuation of this outcome is unconscionable. As in the case of racial segregation, see Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 557 (1896) (overruled by Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 482 (1954)), it is the courts that are responsible for the creation of this inequality. Furthermore, it is the courts that have clothed this noxious condition in a mantle of legal respectability.

But perhaps even more egregious is the fact that it is this judiciary that has mechanically parroted the outdated and retrograde underpinnings on which this invented inferiority is perpetuated. This result is now reached without so much as a minimum of analysis or consideration for the passage of time and the changed conditions, both legal and societal. These changed conditions have long undermined the foundations of these judge-made rules, which were established in a by-gone era in consonance with the distorted views of that epoch. Although the unequal treatment of persons because of the color of their skin or other irrelevant reasons, was then the modus operandi of governments, and an accepted practice of societies in general, the continued enforcement of these rules by the courts is today an outdated anachronism, to say the least. Such actions, particularly by courts of the United States, only serve to tarnish our judicial system as the standard-bearer of the best values to which our Nation aspires. Allowing these antiquated rules to remain in place, long after the unequal treatment of American citizens has become constitutionally, morally and culturally unacceptable in the rest of our Nation, see Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, is an intolerable state of affairs which cannot be excused by hiding behind any theory of law.

In 1961, just a few years after the United Nations first ratified the ICCPR, the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, allowing United States citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for the executive offices. As of 2009 a bill was pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as "a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives", and permit United States citizens residing in the capital to vote for members of the House of Representatives.[10] However, the United States has not taken similar steps with regard to the four million United States citizens and nationals who reside in the U.S. territories, of which close to three million are residents of Puerto Rico. In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in a judicial decision, Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella, who is Puerto Rican, wrote that this inaction is in clear violation of the United States' obligations under the ICCPR.[11]

In August 2017, the en banc First Circuit rejected another lawsuit by Igartúa challenging Puerto Rico's exclusion from United States congressional apportionment, over the dissents of Judges Torruella, Kermit Lipez, and Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson.[12][13]

Puerto Rican man Torruella judge basically said, the old racist codes are used to not change that problem they have that is in violation of all Puerto Ricans residing on the island.

There are racism problems still Wat0n.

That is a legal reality.

[Tainari88]

@wat0n this a key element of WHY this is done the way it is done.

Implications of Puerto Rico's political status

Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Implications of Puerto Rico's current political status)
The political status of Puerto Rico has ramifications into many spheres of Puerto Rican life, and there are limits to the level of autonomy the Puerto Rican government has. For example, the Island's government is not fully autonomous, and the level of federal presence in the Island is common place, including a branch of the United States Federal District Court. There are also implications relative to the American citizenship carried by people born in Puerto Rico. Specifically, although people born in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are natural born U.S. citizens, their citizenship is not protected by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As such, the American citizenship of Puerto Ricans can be taken away by the U.S. Congress unilaterally.[1][a][2][3][c][4][d] Puerto Ricans are also covered by a group of "fundamental civil rights" but, since Puerto Rico is not a state, Puerto Ricans are not covered by the full American Bill of Rights. As for taxation, Puerto Ricans pay U.S. federal taxes (import/export taxes, commodity taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes, etc.), but most residents of the island are not required to file federal income tax returns.[5] Representation-wise, Puerto Ricans have no voting representative in the U.S. Congress, but do have a Resident Commissioner who has a voice in Congress (but no vote except for committee-level voting). [b]Puerto Ricans must also serve in the United States military anytime conscription is ordered, with the same duties as a US citizen residing in the 50 states.

So they have power over the society and determine all the most important aspects and can draft us for wars. At any time. But we have no real political rights or rights to the land we live on. That is what that is about.

It is a violation of international law Wat0n.

But? That is colonialism in a nutshell.

[wat0n]

@Tainari88 indeed, the status of PR is a weird thing. I think they should be admitted into the union, and its politicians should abide by the referenda and request admission.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is an observable fact that cultures are different from each other.

It is logical to assume that some cultures are then more likely to commit atrocities than others.

So that is one reason why some cultures are more likely to commit atrocities than others.

Beyond that, there are environmental factors. Cultures living in harder environments will be more focused on survival and less likely to attack others.

So that is another reason.

Then there is technology. If a culture has a technological advantage over other cultures, it makes that culture more capable of committing atrocities than other cultures.

So we see another reason why cultures are not all equally capable of committing atrocious acts.

And of course, there is the issue of existing power imbalances. A country that is already occupying the territory of another is far more capable of committing atrocities against the occupied people than vice versa.

So that is yet another reason why it is incorrect to say that all people are equally capable of committing atrocities.

And since that is the case, it is very possible that some cultures never committed atrocities.

[wat0n]

It is an observable fact that cultures are different from each other.

It is logical to assume that some cultures are then more likely to commit atrocities than others.

So that is one reason why some cultures are more likely to commit atrocities than others.

So there are "more civilized" and "less civilized" cultures?

Do you really want to get into this debate?

Beyond that, there are environmental factors. Cultures living in harder environments will be more focused on survival and less likely to attack others.

So that is another reason.

This goes both ways. Living in harder environments may make them more likely to react aggressively when resources are scarce, precisely because it's necessary to their survival. It may also make them less likely to take prisoners or even slaves (including the sexual kind) after defeating another group and more likely to just execute everyone.

Then there is technology. If a culture has a technological advantage over other cultures, it makes that culture more capable of committing atrocities than other cultures.

So we see another reason why cultures are not all equally capable of committing atrocious acts.

This is one good reason why absolute comparisons are not all that useful. Having a greater population is another.

But you can control for those by doing relative comparisons and/or add qualitative comparisons.

And of course, there is the issue of existing power imbalances. A country that is already occupying the territory of another is far more capable of committing atrocities against the occupied people than vice versa.

So that is yet another reason why it is incorrect to say that all people are equally capable of committing atrocities.

That would only apply to atrocities committed against the outgroups. What happens with atrocities committed against your own?

And since that is the case, it is very possible that some cultures never committed atrocities.

How about beings that don't have any culture? Even animals are known to perform acts of cruelty and wage war.

[Tainari88]

@wat0n wrote:

How about beings that don't have any culture? Even animals are known to perform acts of cruelty and wage war.

Well the first thing you learn in anthropology classes Wat0n is that humans never exist without a human culture. That is not possible. Though there are supposedly cases of people being raised by wolves or Guerillas or Chimps. Lol. But is that the majority?

No such thing as cultureless human beings Wat0n.

Even people living in comas for years are part of the culture of the hospital and the people in that cultural environment. And before they became comatose they had a culture. For sure.

@wat0n wrote in response to my discussion on Puerto Rico's lack of political rights this:

@Tainari88 indeed, the status of PR is a weird thing. I think they should be admitted into the union, and its politicians should abide by the referenda and request admission.

I think the Marianas Islands and Puerto Rico and many others in the unincorporated territories clause of the codes that we just went over sort of rule out statehood Wat0n. All the US Congress has to do is revoke the unilateral right to make us or take us out of US citizenship based on statutory citizenship and make us Constitutionally guaranteed citizens. Why they do not do so is very clear Wat0n.

It means they have to make a legal precedent that then will apply to all Native American tribes, and African American slave labor and so on. Disenfranchised groups. You could legally sue them all for denying rights to land, property, right to refuse conscription for military service, and billions in damages. Legally that is what they would open themselves up to if they reversed that precedent from 1917 just in time for a military draft for WWI.

It is in direct violation of International Law wat0n. And it means serious money and loss of land and loss of legal rights for certain privileges the US counts on for being able to keep its hegemony. In other words, it goes against its national interests to give statehood and incorporate us. It means making a state of all those other places, two senators for tiny places like the US Virgin Islands, Solomon Islands, Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and then you have to consider the Phillipines. They were also under that Treaty from 1898 and the US abandoned the Phillipines to be attacked by the Japanese in WWII. They lost 6 million Filipinos in that WWII Japanese Invasion. They killed a lot of rebel soldiers and leaders from the Phillipines like Aguinaldo. So you are opening up a can of worms with that.

Imperialism is a dirty business Wat0n. It is not about justice. It is about interests and power and force.

If you reverse what the codes said about Puerto Rico not being 'ready' for incorporation or having to make us full constitutionally ratified citizens? You lose all the rest of those territories too. And open yourself up to law suits. By Indian tribes and so on. Reparations and the whole shebang.

Now, the only territory that was unincorporated and wanted to vote for a change of status was Palau in 1993-1994 they voted for independence. The US did not want to agree, but had to agree. The issue was about Palau wanting removal of Nuclear based weapons belonging to the US military. The local Palauans did not want them there and the US did.

The US said it would not grant Palau its independence despite a vote for it because it went against their interests.

So if statehood is voted on and it wins the popular vote? In Puerto Rico? In overwhelming numbers the US will do the same to us as they did to Palau. It is not in our interest to grant statehood. Ignore.

That is the issue Wat0n. The US Congress and the US senate refuse to pass a bill to make the vote from Puerto Rican legally binding and force the US government to change the status.

They always kill that proposal no matter what. How long will they ignore it? Probably until it gets so bad on the island that either 1) The US government cancels Puerto Rican debt and infuses a lot of Federal cash to build up roads, schools, infrastructure, electricity, etc and then ups Veteran's benefits, social security checks, food stamp allotments and goes for another Operation Bootstrap thing for present day Puerto Rico. With more self governance powers and then more sovereignty.

Statehood issue is the issue highlighted above. If they integrate Puerto Rico they will be open to a floodgate of occupied nation lawsuits that will go through the courts. That is the reason they never let binding votes happen and the US Congress continues to stonewall on legal issues.

Loss of the colonies.

What happens to colonies that get fed up with their colonial masters over time? Rebellion. And violence and protests.

Or the entire nation and the Natives get displaced. The island is reoccupied by foreign people not the native Puerto Ricans. Lol. We get replaced. Like the Native Hawaiians have gotten in Hawaii. The majority of them live marginalized in Hawaii. Not the majority and with a culture they try to preserve. Hawaiians live in poverty Wat0n. Not in wealth and with local power.

They become displaced in their own land. That is what happened to all Native American tribes who were in the way of the US government during its Manifest Destiny stage of development.

That is why Puerto Rico is categorized with the Indian Reservation system. The BIA. Bureau of Indian Affairs. All of the occupied land and the Native Tribal governments are in the Department of the Interior in DC. They have special rules because in legal fact they are not part of the Constitutional system of the USA because no one agreed to become US citizens. They were told they were or they were IMPOSED to become that. Without immigration procedures and oaths and etc. You can't do that with people who are already there before the US government arrived and said that they needed your land and you had to move or else, or you had to agree to be ruled by them or else. That is not legal. That is blackmail. That is how the International courts see that Wat0n.

The plan is the same.

Would you still go for statehood under those conditions Wat0n?

The reality is that more Puerto Ricans are living in the USA mainland than reside on the island. We bleed more people from the island than Cuba does or Dominican refugees in rafts from Santo Domingo.

But, unless the US government copes with changing our conditions soon? The cookie ain't gonna crumble in their favor over time. Stagnation is not a solution. Ever.