Talk Elections

Will the senate consider the following proposal, The Caribbean Statehood Act:

The Caribbean Statehood Act
1. A 51st state shall be admitted into Atlasia, called Puerto Rico.
2. The state of Puerto Rico shall consist of the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and Navassa Island.
3. The state of Puerto Rico shall be part of the Southeastern Region.
4. The state of Puerto Rico shall be placed into the current District 4, though it can be moved around accordingly during redistricting.

This is just to give the Southeast more power...

How does it give it more power?

it doesn't give the Southeast any more power.  Also, the southeast is the least populous region, and this could perhaps allievate some of that.

i officially submit this bill to the senate and ask the honorable PPT to open debate

I support this amendment. We need an avatar however.

there is a PR avatar

I will open the debating upon this bill.

Would all Senators who wish to please make a statement.

I would like to hear one from the hon. Senator Harry who proposed this.

Sure is!! cool.

well Puerto Rico mooches off the Atlasia government by taking and not giving back, yet their quality of life is quite low, compared to the states.  If PR were to become a state, then not only would it start giving back to the nation, the quality of life would be enhanced with more businesses coming into the area.  The Virgin Islands are right there and should become part of the state.

Harry so you want PR and the VI to be states?

one single state

Oh ok.. why not two states?

Um.....we have no members participating from either of those territories.  What's the point?

VI doesn't have nearly enough people



we don't have anyone from Montana either, but we don't try to destateify it.  This is a fantasy government, so here's a fantasy bill that I would propose if this were real

I oppose this, the current system is sufficent.

This is a useless piece of legislation, as Tweed said, the current system is fine. It'll take some convincing to get me to vote yes on this, Harry.

Atlasia is a nation of many people, cultures, religons and states. from Hawaii to Maine, Alaska to Florida, Arizona to Michigan, we have a rich history of people in our country.

We also have a rich history of expasion, to meet our manifest destiny, from sea to shining sea, and beyond. We are a nation in which every man is created equal, and a land of opportunity for first-generation immigrants and Mayflower pilgrims alike.

We are also a land of choice and democracy; a republic founded on the principle that nothing can be forced upon us. And that is why I believe it is important Puerto Ricans, Navassans and Virgins (;)) have the ability to choose on their inclusion as the 51st state of this great country, they they will certainly aid us in striving for an even better country.

This is whyu I support all current Points in the Act, and wish to add a fifth:

5. A vote shall be held in wich all citizens of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Navassa Island can determine if they wish to join the union.

It will be determined by ther GM, and their will be three choices:

1. Join the United States of America in a union with the US Virgin Islands and Navassa Island (or PR and NI or PR and USVI, depending the location)
2. Remain the Status Quo, do not become a state or become Independent
3. Become an independent nation

(BAsically, the GM would determine the results; it'll be preferentail so that one option gets over 50%)

-------


Obviously, the wording isn't perfect, and that is why I present it now without alling on a vote for it.


If we accept their right to become a state, and they choose to do so, it will be of great benefit to our nation. I strongly encourage all senators to support the act in its entirety, and also this amendment.

Thank you for your time.

Could I make a request that those who are not Senators please not debate in the Senatorial debating thread. I don't think it happens in the real life Senate although people may be allowed to watch from a public viewing gallery like in the UK, I am not quite sure.

If anybody who isn't a Senator wishes to debate the issues would it be possible to have it in a separate thread?

What do you think? I just think it might be a little better as normally people don't walk into the Senate and stand up and speak on a bill.

I'd like to hear other Senators opinions on this.

Anyway, as I see it ladies and gentlemen, we are presented with three possible options for the case of Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and Navassa Island. Those are:

1. Grant full statehood to the islands and integrate them fully into the United States of Atlasia, this would mean representation and also mean they pay taxation towards our federal government as I believe that territories currently do not.

2. Keep the status quo with the islands as Atlasian territories and thus are not represented and do not pay taxes to our federal government.

3. Allow them to become separate independent nations who would assumedly continue to be allies to Atlasia.

Those are our only three possibilities in dealing with Puerto Ricp, the US Virgin Islands and Navassa Island as I see it, just like the hon. Senator Hughento views it.

This Act proposed by the hon. Senator Harry obviously goes down track one with full integration into the United States of Atlasia.

So, what are the pluses of each option.

As I see it, the advantage of the first option which the Hon. Senator Harry suggests we go down has a few benefits. Firstly it provides a good strong base of action in the Caribbean Sea close to the West Indies and reasonably close to Cuba.

Having a state in that area could be useful in controlling problems which have arisen in that area, especially in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

It would also aid if we were to ever mount an attack against Fidel Castro in Cuba as it would allow us a good base for operation not only to the North but out to the East.

Allowing them to enter the Union would also provide a new source of income as they would then be paying taxation.

It would also be beneficial for them as it could create a great source of new jobs flooding there and really bolster the economy of the islands.

Those are really the key reasons I can see for allowing these islands to enter the Union.


Now, if we were to take track two I cannot see the benefits to us mainly because we are already experiencing that. The main reason for choosing track two would be if you feel that the status quo is fine and dandy so to speak.

Now, track three. What could this provide?

As I see it, it would give us some new minor trading partners although they would probably not have much of an effect, about the same as that of the Federated States of Micronesia.

Another benefit track three could give us would be new voices in the United Nations Organization, I believe none of these islands are currently represented, however, if they were independent states they could join which would give us some more support there and could be beneficial in gaining things from the UN.

So really those are the key arguments for integration, against integration and for separation as I see it.

Indepedence would not be a good option, but they would simply be totally dependent on us like the Marshall Islands and the FSMicronesia.  The status quo is bad because they mooch off us without returning anything really.
So statehood is their best option.  It will help us, it will help them.  They owe it to us, we owe it to them.
Additionally, though Navassa Island is not very inhabited, having it part of the state would certainly give us a mandate to have and military activity on the island, which is not far from Cuba.
I urge all Senators to vote yes on this act.

But it could provide more support in the UN if it is independent which may help in close resolutions.

I am inclined to agree with you however.

*Sen. Nation takes the floor, in a frumpled suit after late-night drinking with the supreme court justices*

We already have individuals in foreign countries who must choose a state residency somewhere, in order to participate. The Atlasian territories in question are NOT  part of the 50 states, just like Sweden isn't, and just like England isn't. Any residents from these territories should do just like everyone else does -- choose an avatar.

I would Support this Act if I was in Senate.

The territories in question ARE, however, part of Atlasia, and have a totally unfair treatment, which can only be resolved with statehood.

The last time I checked, we were already committing our military in other parts of the world which are currently in much more dire straits than Haiti is, and are much more of a threat. We all know Senator Harry's love for Imperialism, and the "benefits" that come out of this manuever are too few to compensate for the immense difficulty that incorporating these areas into a fully functioning, efficient state will be.

Senator Nation,

I meant they would be useful in cases of future dissent in Haiti as a good base from which to stipulate an attack.

I am more thinking in the long term than in the short term here.

I am thinking in the long term as well, Senator Kennedy, and don't believe we need bother ourselves with making Puerto Rico a state.

having a firm foothoold in the Caribbean will be a boon in future years.  mark my words.

Well, as I see it, it could only be useful, not only does it give us a firm base of power in the Caribbean, but it provides an extra source on income to the government from taxation.

I think we should hear from representatives of the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Navassa Island, if they support the initiative, full steam ahead I say!

should we go ahead and vote on this?

I say we give the Caribbean a consulting delegate in the Senate, but no Statehood or Senator. Maybe they could vote for President, but that is all.

No one has mentioned the fact that the vast majority of Puerto Rico is a Spanish-speaking state, which would clash with the rest of America.

some implications: what this would mean in practice is that a resident of America's 50 other states who finds himself on trial in the state of Puerto Rico could be expected to defend himself in a foreign tongue. The relatively few who speak fluent Spanish may not object, but the vast majority of mainland U.S. citizens may find this an unnecessary difficulty

A New Yorker arrested for a federal crime in New Hampshire can feel free to defend himself with the help of an attorney based in New York, New Hampshire or any other state. But if Puerto Rico attains statehood, yet is allowed to run its courts in Spanish, only a foolhardy man would not hire a bilingual attorney to defend him in a Puerto Rican courtroom.

their courts can be required to be in English; in fact, I believe a governor of PR made English the official language, much to the chagrin of the populace

Not quite. From 1902 to 1991 both English and Spanish were official languages of Puerto Rico.  In 1991, under a pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic (PPD) government, Spanish was made the only official language, but in 1993, under a pro-statehood New Progressive (PNP) government, English was restored to official status. The PPD currently controls the government but has not tried to return to Spanish-only.  The Puerto Rican Independence (PIP) nas only one represenative and one senator in the commonwealth's legislature.  The Democratic and Republican parties are also active in Puerto Rico, but they hold no offices in Puerto Rico..

Nation, do not forget this is not technically the USA.

Also Harry, I will wait to hear from a delegation from Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and Navassa Island before calling a vote.

Excellent idea, Senator Kennedy. Until we have a representative from any one of these islands, we should not have a vote, and I encourage all Senators to not support any motion to vote before then.

That's utterly horrendous logic!  We don't have anyone from Montana or Alaska or North Dakota, and do we just ignore those areas?  No!  of course not!  We put them in districts and regions and have it set up so that as soon as we do get a poster from those areas we're ready for them!

Atlasia is based off the United States system, whether you think so or not. Foreign posters register with a certain state. These islands are not a part of the United States, thus any member who happens to be from these territories will have to do so anyway.

I would vote yes on any bill which requires voters from these territories to register with a state in the southeast region. It's essentially the same thing, without all the troubles of statehood.

these island ARE in fact part of the United States, actually

To rephrase what Nation was saying with his intention, those islands are not one of the United States of America.

Correct, my mistake, but my point was that they don't have to pay taxes, things like that. Most don't speak English, and until we have a representative from these territories, it is foolish to grant statehood.

Your comparison to Montana doesn't work because Montana is already a state, has a better probability of getting a registered voter in the forum, and speaks English.

Currently, Puerto Rico has a population of 3,858,806, which is more than Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, North Dakota, and Delaware put together.  And no one in fantasy elections are registered in those areas.  But by no means would anyone ever say, "Let's not let WY, MT, AK, ND, or DE be states.  When someone registers from those states, we'll hear their opinions and then decide."  Of course not, we allow them to be states, and when a person joins from one of those areas, they have a state they can be a part of.  Why should Puerto Rico be any different?  Why should Puerto Rico not be part of a region or a district?  Why should Puerto Rico not get representation in the Senate, or a vote for president?  Why should Puerto Ricans not have to pay income tax?  These questions have NO legitimate answers, and this horrible situtation the area is in can only be allievated in one way:  statehood.  And as a boon, the more affulent but similarly unrepresented and untaxed Virgin Islands can join nearby Puerto Rico in this new state.  And the uninhabited Navassa Island can also become a part of this great state of Puerto Rico as a testament that we're holding on to this island--that Cuba or any other hostile Carribean power will be closely monitored.  Yes, it is the solution to a large quandry, a large injustice.  I urge ALL senators to vote yes on this evening out of rights denied, in making our brothers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands equal with these rest of us great citizens of the World's Greatest Nation--Atlasia.
With that, I ask our esteemed PPT to put this bill to a vote.

I request that before this measure be put to a vote, we have at least one other Senator besides Mr. Harry that second his motion to vote on the Caribbean Statehood Act.

I second this motion.

Thank you. I'll contact Senator Kennedy in order to have a vote as soon as possible.

Well, although I'd rather wait to hear from a representative of these islands.

Please vote on the Caribbean Statehood Act proposed by Sen. Harry

Vote Yea or Nay.

I vote NO on the passage of the Caribbean Statehood Act.

Yes

Nay

I vote an emphatic YES

I vote Nay.

I am rather torn on this issue, I was hoping to hear from somebody from the island chains regarding public support for statehood and as I do not have it I cannot rightly choose a side I feel so I have decided that I shall abstain on voting on this Act until further notice.

Please would all Senators yet to vote, vote soon.

As the President Pro Tem has said, we haven't heard anyone from these island chains. There isn't anyone at the forum from these islands. If the day ever comes when we have members of the forum from these places, I think we should open this topic again for discussion, and vote. But I would still be hestitant to vote yes.

I vote NAY.

Currently the voting on this Act stands as follows:

2 Yeas, 4 Nays and an abstention.

"Residents of Puerto Rico voted on their status in 1993 in a non-binding advisory vote. Proponents of statehood won with 46.3 percent of the vote ."
That's a representative from the island.  We don't need to have someone on the forum from there!  Do we have anyone from MT?  no!  But we still consider their real-life interests!

Whilst I support the idea of carribean statehood, I feel that we haven'tr fully consulted the residents of the islands, and therefor I abstain.

As I suggested earlier, the GM should have made up a story or a poll or something on the islanders opinions. Because that, or anything similar, is lacking, I cannot support this bill at this time.

Since you want a story, I will include one in the next issue of The Region, but it will largely rehash what I have already said on this topic.

The vote now stands at:

2 yeas
4 nays
2 abstentions

After much though, I will cast a vote, and it will be against this act.

Whilst I strongly support Carribean statehood, this isn't the method we ought to use. It is undemocratic and unfair to the people of Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.

I am also casting a vote to determine the final result of this act; with 5 votes against it and one abstination, it is impossible for it to pass. I apologise to me frend and collegue Harry, but we need to consider this a lot more thouroughly before we re-open this important and delicate issue.

I thank Senator Hughento for voting against this act.

I would now like to quote a little snippet from the most recent issue of The Region -- only more reason this act should never pass:

A protest march disturbed the normal tropical tranquility of the Virgin Islands.  The march, organized by the Virgin Islands People's Party to protest the recent actions of Secretary of Defense Ford, was even more energized by news of Senator Harry's proposed Caribbean Statehood Act.  "It's bad enough that we're treated as third-class citizens by the bureaucrats in Nym, but now it's proposed that we be lumped together with the Puerto Ricans?  We demand that we be consulted before any change in our status!"

The southeastern region may want Caribbean Statehood, but the rest of us don't.

My fellow Atlasians, it is a sad day for Puerto Ricans; it is a sad day for Atlasia.  Puerto Rico will continue to be in unfairly denied their rights, and at the same time, Atlasia will have to continue to finance them, while getting nothing in return.  Some of my fellow Senators have remarked that Puerto Ricans haven't spoken on the issue, but they have.  "Residents of Puerto Rico voted on their status in 1993 in a non-binding advisory vote. Proponents of statehood won with 46.3 percent of the vote." http://ri.essortment.com/puertoricansta_rdla.htm
Atlasian citizens in Puerto Rico will continue to be disenfranchised due only to where they live, and they will continue to receive benefits without paying sales tax.  Statehood was the only way to even this unfairness out.  Statehood was the only solution for Puerto Ricans, and the only solution for the rest of Atlasia.  Yet when presented with these facts, most of my fellow senators ingnored the facts for whatever reason and voted it down.  "We haven't consulted them," they said.  Should the government allow an area mooching off them to decide whether they should stop or not?  I thank Senator Statesrights for being sensible in the matter.  I admonish the rest of the senate for ignoring such an important issue, for ignoring one of the nation's greatest inequities, and refusing to enact its simple--yet only--solution.

That disagrees with you on their willingness Harry.

I declare the motion to have been defeated by five votes to two with one abstention and two no-shows (Boss Tweed and Michael Z).

I believe this was defeated due to tones of racism more then anything else.

Montana is a state in the US. Puerto Rico is not. If Montana were NOT a state, I would not vote for it to become a state in the Atlas Forum.....because we have no one from Montana here in the state. As so it is with Puerto Rico. You don't understand the point. You think I'm voting against this because Puerto Rico has no people, and you try to make a comparison saying...."Montana has no people but it's in a region." That's a poor argument.

The reason I vote against it is because Puerto Rico is NOT a state....and with no one from the forum who lives there....then what the hell reason is there to add Puerto Rico?!

Because, as another senator in opposition to the bill said, we're representing the real US and not a fantasy.  And if this were the real US, it's a bill I'd bring up.