Martin E. Rivera, Esq., Director of Advocacy for the Puerto Rico Statehood Council and PR51st, and Alberto C. Medina, President of Boricuas Unidos en la Diáspora, met at the University of Central Florida for a dialogue on Puerto Rico’s status. The Puerto Rico Research Hub sponsored the event, and the Hub’s director, Dr. Fernando Rivera. moderated the discussion.
“Through open and good faith discussions such as these,” said Rivera, “we can continue building momentum to resolve the island’s status through a binding process of self-determination.”
A binding process?
Puerto Rico has been seeking a permanent political status for decades. Puerto Rico is currently an unincorporated territory of the United States, which means that it can continue as a territory indefinitely — or become a state or a nation at any time. The decision on whether to choose statehood or independence has been muddied by the idea of “commonwealth” and particularly “enhanced commonwealth,” a discredited “best of both worlds” fantasy which Congress described as “the free beer and barbecue option.”
Political action has generally centered on a series of plebiscites — seven in all — and the introduction of status bills, most recently the Puerto Rico Status Act. While a referendum or plebiscite is by its nature a means of measuring the will of the people and is not intended to lead directly to action from the government, Puerto Rico’s status can only be changed by Congress. The Puerto Rico Status Act required Congress to agree to take action on the democratically expressed will of the voters of Puerto Rico after one more final referendum. It would therefore be a binding process. If this or a similar bill were to be passed and carried out, it would be the first time a binding process was used to resolve the Puerto Rico status question.
Statehood or nationhood?
Rivera and Medina hold opposite positions on the question of whether Puerto Rico should be a state or a nation. But both know that these are the only two possibilities under the U.S. Constitution.
“Question #3: How can Puerto Rico stop being a colony?” Medina wrote on Substack. “Only one of two ways: statehood or sovereignty—whether full independence or sovereignty in free association with the United States. But there is no secret third thing that Puerto Rico can be: the notion that the current colonial status can be improved or reformed has been amply rejected legally and politically. Either Puerto Rico becomes a state of the Union or it becomes a sovereign nation. These are the choices.”
The two also agree that it’s time to end the colonial relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. “This is an American issue of whether the United States should still have colonies,” Medina said.
Rivera believes that statehood is the only path to equality and justice for Puerto Rico, and points out that the majority of voters have chosen statehood in all four plebiscites held in this century. Medina believes that the U.S. Congress will not admit Puerto Rico as a state, leaving only independence as the means to decolonization of the territory.
It’s important to recognize that there are two viable options for Puerto Rico’s permanent political status, and that the current status is not tenable and should be ended. Most of the world’s colonies have gained either independence or full rights and equality as party of their former colonial powers. Puerto Rico is one of the last remaining colonies in the world. It is indecent for the United States, a nation founded on the principle of government by consent of the people, should own a colony in the 21st century. Tell your legislators that it is time to correct this situation by admitting Puerto Rico as a state.
Rivera also emphasized the importance of voting. Voting for candidates who support statehood sends an important message — and also increases the chances of a statehood admission bill passing in Congress. Rivera encouraged UCF students to vote. This is also a great time to ask candidates in the upcoming elections where they stand on the question of Puerto Rico statehood.
No responses yet