Talk:Commonwealth (U.S. insular area)

Definition

What exactly does "organized but unincorporated dependent territory." mean? Could someone elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.105.167.39 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Philippine Islands was an insular area that held commonwealth status from March 24, 1934 until July 4, 1946

Of the U.S. insular areas, the term was first used by Puerto Rico in 1952

Isn't that a contradiction? Andres 13:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like it. I think that the Philippines was not an insular area when it was a Commonwealth but happened to use the same term. But I'm not sure so I don't want to change the article myself. --JGGardiner 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction if the second sentence is read to mean "of the current U.S. insular areas.....". I will correct this in the article.72.27.165.213 03:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

The entire section is a quote from the reference article. I'm not really sure what to do with this... I've put it in block quotes and added on attribution line, but it still seems wrong. Maybe no section heading at all, or maybe this doesn't belong in the article at all? Washod 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Thats alright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.228.227.111 (talk) 14:10, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. The article states: "In 1976, Congress approved the mutually negotiated Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in Political Union with the United States. In the case of Puerto Rico there is no such written mutual agreement"; but since the Constitution of Puerto Rico was voted and approved by congress, wouldn't that imply that it became a mutual agreement? Also, since no Congress is bounded by the action of a previous congress wouldn't that mean that congress by passing a law could effectively get rid of the Puerto Rico constitution and the Mariana Islands agreement? Cjrs 79 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. In a 1996 report on a Puerto Rico status political bill, the U.S. House Committee on Resources stated, "Puerto Rico's current status does not meet the criteria for any of the options for full self-government under Resolution 1541" (the three established forms of full self-government being stated in the report as (1) national independence, (2) free association based on separate sovereignty, or (3) full integration with another nation on the basis of equality). The report concluded that Puerto Rico "... remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of 'free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice", that the establishment of local self-government with the consent of the people can be unilaterally revoked by the U.S. Congress, and that U.S. Congress can also withdraw the U.S. citizenship of Puerto Rican residents of Puerto Rico at any time, for a legitimate Federal purpose. The application of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico is limited by the Insular Cases.

CNMI

Prior to November 28, 2009, the INA did not apply in the CNMI. Rather, a separate immigration system existed in the CNMI. This system was established under the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America (“Covenant”), which was signed in 1975 and codified as 48 U.S.C. § 1801. The Covenant was unilaterally amended by the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, CNRA approved by the U.S. Congress on May 8, 2008, thus altering the CNMI’s immigration system. Specifically, CNRA § 702(a) amended the Covenant to state that “the provisions of the ‘immigration laws’ (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) shall apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.”2 Further, under CNRA § 702(a), the “immigration laws,” as well as the amendments to the Covenant, “shall . . . supersede and replace all laws, provisions, or programs of the Commonwealth relating to the admission of aliens and the removal of aliens from the Commonwealth.”

Transition to U.S. Immigration Law began November 28, 2009 in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). CNMI's immigration laws have been replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other U.S. immigration laws.

CNMI's immigration laws have been replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other U.S. immigration laws. This section of the agreement was revoke unilaterally by the U.S. Congress. --Seablade (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Suggested merge

• I suggest we merge Commonwealth and State naming debate and Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) into a new article called Commonwealth (United States), or something like that. That would be more logical, and would simplify links to these now separate pages in articles like Commonwealth, --JW1805 (Talk) 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not at all. The two articles discuss completely different uses of the term. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to editors: the main debate is taking place at Talk:Commonwealth and State naming debate. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>Please keep in mind, as well, that there are FOUR commonwealths in the continental US: Washington DC, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia.<<<<<<<<<<<<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.114.197 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Popularity of Independence

"Roughly 3%"? I suggest that the independence movement be measured by Referendum results, rather than electoral ones (where it is to elect officers of the Government, rather than to choose the status).

I agree that referendum results are a better gage, but according to the most recent one (in 1998), only 2.5% favor independence. Notably, this figure is from the Puerto Rican status referenda page, which is un-cited. Whatever goes in the article, it needs a source. Washod 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This information is based in the 2004 Election where PIP got in the Governours' Paper 2,67%-2,77%. Meanwhile, in votes for Accumulative Senators and Representatives they got 9,2-9,7%

It is not clear since the PPD (commonwealth party) also has independentistas as voters who are not affiliated with the PIP. This was clear in the 2004 elections when many well known independentista leaders openly sponsored the PPD candidate on television and print ads. Th PIP (independence party) is strongly criticized by many independentistas who rather vote for the PPD or do not vote in elections like the Partido Nacionalista (Nationalist party) which do not believe in what they call to be "colonial elections". The independence movement reached over 20% of the votes before the establishment of the ELA in 1952, the numbers went down after the government tried to discourage the independence movement by a long purge during the late 50's(see 'Mordaza law')--Royptorico 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Phillipines

Part of this "transitional period" was occupation by the Japanese in WWII. That was not part of any U.S. design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico (again - March 2014)

I've moved the following recently added assertion here for discussion or rethinking:

The Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico, says that in 1952 there was a pact between Puerto Rico and the United States that gave Puerto Rico an autonomous government and removed it from the list of colonies.

Apparent contradiction

I just woke up to this article apparently contradicting other articles because it relies on a seemingly reliable source which contradicts other seemingly equally reliable source. In a situation like this, I would normally make a WP:BOLD edit inserting information about the alternative viewpoint found in that other source. In this case, however, the difference is so fundamental that I think this needs discussion here first.

Specifically, the lead section this article says that the term Commonwealth "... broadly describes an area that is self-governing under a constitution of its adoption and whose right of self-government will not be unilaterally withdrawn by Congress", citing and quoting from this U.S. State department source. This implies that a guarantee that a right of self-government will not be withdrawn was made in those cases by some governmental authority empowered to make such a guarantee (presumably empowered by some executive branch pronouncement allowable under U.S. law and/or by some provision of a law enacted by Congress).

However, the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 article makes the point that a promise not to alter the status of a territory "would not be enforceable because a future Congress 'could choose to alter that relationship unilaterally.'", citing this 2011 Congressional Research Service report (see the paragraph on pp.10-11, and footnote 33 there). I think that I have seen that same point made in other articles.

As I read it, this is a contradiction between these articles and between the sources on which they rely. It seems to me that WP:DUE requires that information about this contradiction be added to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)