saxitoxin wrote:The USG gave equal consideration to the relief needs of all of its citizens and the infrastructure needs of all of its incorporated territory.
Non-citizens (e.g. Kuwaitis, Bolivians) may receive less relief than citizens (e.g. Texans, Puerto Ricans). Unincorporated territory (e.g. New Zealand, Puerto Rico) may also receive less infrastructure support than incorporated territory (e.g. Maine, Hawaii).
Fifty-four percent of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico expressed a desire not to have the territory of Puerto Rico incorporated into the United States in 2012, deciding they would rather not have to pay income tax or be bound by certain aspects of the Bill of Rights. It's no different than my neighbor deciding they would rather have an extra $150/month to spend on vodka and heroin than buy car insurance. He gets to party more every month than me, but if his car gets wrecked he's SOL. The Puerto Ricans have as much a right to determine their individual and collective priorities as my neighbor.
I respect the right of Puerto Ricans to choose rum and women over a functioning civil defense office. As a progressive, I am unwilling to impose my Gothic values of preparedness on them.
Sure, the US government has a history of ignoring the plight of its citizens (see Katrina), and as a sovereign nation can ignore them to the content of its oligarchy's hearts. It's indefensible, however, from any position other than "the government can do what it wants to whom it wants," which, honestly, is the sort of thing I would expect from a fascist.
Puerto Rico asked for aid from the US government, regardless of how they voted in the referendum before the most recent one (?), and that government was unwilling or unable to assist, so those US citizens had to turn to foreign aid.
So, cute "rant," but a disgusting sentiment.