Should Puerto Rico become a US state or independent?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should Puerto Rico become a US state or independent?
Position‹2 of 2: Puerto Rico should be an independent country
Argument‹2 of 4›: Public pressure for independence

A growing movement on the island has been pushing back against the traditional statehood route. Instead, they’ve been calling for something bigger—autonomy.

The argument

Puerto Ricans have been fighting for independence for over 100 years—nearly as long as they've been a US territory. A new independence movement is growing and should be acknowledged by the Puerto Rico government and the US. As far back as 1898, there have been government initiatives to suppress the Puerto Rico independence movement. In 1978, two independence activists were killed in Puerto Rico. Years later, it was discovered that government agents pushed for the murders to happen. Around the same time, the FBI operation known as COINTELPRO was going on. The FBI, among other things, was infiltrating and discrediting the Puerto Rican independence movement. There were also carpetas, files the government was keeping on anyone involved in the Puerto Rican nationalist movement. The US has been intentionally suppressing Puerto Rican independence for decades—not just from the public, but from the government. In 1914, Puerto Rico's Congress voted unanimously for independence from the US. Their vote was ignored. Instead, in 1917, the US appointed an American governor to govern the island, and Puerto Ricans were granted US citizenship. Now, there is a growing movement featuring very prominent Puerto Rican citizens calling for independence once again. The growing independence movement should be acknowledged by the US. The US should pull out of Puerto Rico and make it an independent nation.

Premises

[P1]Puerto Ricans have fought for independence for over a century, even voting unanimously for it in 1914 only to be ignored. [P2] The US has long suppressed this movement, through COINTELPRO infiltration, surveillance files and worse. [P3] A growing movement of prominent Puerto Ricans is now demanding independence again. [C] Therefore, given this public pressure for independence, Puerto Rico should become an independent country.

Counter-arguments

The independence of a nation should not be granted based on popular opinion. Independence is a cliff, and if a country does not have a proper plan, it will fall off of that cliff. Take recent examples of popular movements abroad, for example. Brexit has turned into a political dumpster fire and threatens to throw the UK into a depression. In Libya, after the overthrow of Muammar al-Gaddafi, the country has been struggling to find a unified and peaceful government. Puerto Rico needs to have a plan for independence before it can properly demand to be a free and democratic country.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The 1914 vote does not carry the weight placed on it: the legislature of the period was elected on a restricted franchise under a colonial framework, so treating it as a settled expression of the island's will is difficult. More importantly, the argument does not engage the referendums held since, in which independence has consistently drawn a small share of the vote — a fact directly contrary to a case built on public pressure. [Rejecting P2] Documented suppression establishes a serious historical wrong. It does not establish present support, and it is compatible with independence remaining a minority position for reasons unrelated to that history. [Rejecting P3] A movement of prominent figures is evidence about prominence rather than numbers, and the premise offers no measure of the growth it asserts. [Rejecting C] The counter-argument on record makes the structural objection that popular demand is not sufficient by itself, citing outcomes where a mandate preceded any workable plan, and arguing that the fiscal, currency, defence and citizenship questions would need answering before independence could be implemented rather than after.