US territory MAGA once called a 'floating island of garbage' considers rejoining Spain
A United States territory MAGA once derided as a 'floating island of garbage' is considering ceding from America and rejoining Spain.
Puerto Rico has put forward several proposals over the years to cut ties with the United States and realign with its mother country.
But now a movement to reintegrate with Spain is gaining steam on the island of 3.2 million people, according to The Mirror.
The Adelante Reunificacionistas movement, founded in 2017, has even presented its proposal to the United Nations Decolonization Committee, 20 Minutos reports.
It claims that Puerto Rico is different from other former Spanish territories, as it never actually ceded from the European country - and was just handed over to the United States following the Spanish-American War in 1898.
'Puerto Rico never wanted to separate from Spain,' said the organization's president Jose Lara.
In fact, in the more than 100 years since, Spanish has remained the primary language of the island - spoken by more than 95 percent of inhabitants who use it in education and businesses.
Now, the Adelante Reunificacionistas movement claims approximately 13 percent of its residents support the idea of rejoining Spain, which they see as a pathway to prosperity.
Lara has argued that since becoming a US territory, Puerto Rico has experienced over a century 'of subjugation' and stagnation under American governance that has not granted Puerto Ricans full citizenship rights.
Its residents cannot vote in presidential elections, for example, and they lack voting representation in Congress.
Puerto Rico has also been ridiculed by Americans, with comedian Tony Hinchcliffe infamously joking about the territory at a rally for then-Republican nominee Donald Trump in October.
'I don't know if you know this but there's literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it's called Puerto Rico,' he said at a rally for Trump in New York City - which has the largest number of Puerto Ricans outside of the US territory.
The Trump campaign was then forced to walk back the comments, with Danielle Alvarez - a senior adviser to the campaign - saying the 'joke does not reflect the vies of President Trump or the campaign.'
Senator Rick Scott of Florida also disavowed the joke, saying it 'bombed for a reason.
'It's not funny and it's not true,' the Republican lawmaker wrote on X. 'Puerto Ricans are amazing people and amazing Americans!'
But Hinchcliffe argued he was just making a joke.
'I love Puerto Rico and vacation there. I made fun of everyone … watch the whole set. I'm a comedian,' he wrote on X.
Now, Lara says emphasizing Spanish as the primary language and preserving Hispanic cultural traditions are key to persuading locals about the benefits of rejoining Spain.
He has also shared merchandise online reading 'Make Puerto Rico Spain Again,' an apparent jab at Trump's 'Make America Great Again.'
'We want a future of progress and we believe that future lies in Spain,' Lara explained.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Israel is just getting started, but can a weakened Iran respond?
Israel's warplanes were in the air barely two hours after Donald Trump, the US president, had laid out the case for continuing talks with Iran at the weekend. 'We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue,' he posted on his Truth Social site. 'My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran.' Had Benjamin Netanyahu, the headstrong prime minister of Israel, not got the memo? Or was he sending a clear signal to Washington that he was not going to take orders from anyone. As ever in the Middle East's quagmire of religious strife and decades of power struggles, it was all a lot more complicated than that. The Americans had been forewarned that Israel had run out of patience with Iran and its deadly pursuit of nuclear weapons. Just a day earlier, the State Department had announced it was reducing its diplomatic footprint in Baghdad and other regional facilities, Mr Trump warning the Middle East 'could be a dangerous place'. The US president was asked directly whether Israeli strikes were imminent. 'Well, I don't want to say imminent,' he told reporters in the East Room of the White House, 'but it looks like it's something that could very well happen'. Strikes, he said, could upset delicately poised negotiations. Or, maybe, he mused, it 'might help it actually'. So when explosions echoed across Iran early on Friday morning, Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu were settling into rather familiar roles. The American president had spent the day as good cop – talking up the idea of a negotiated settlement and trying to keep his people in the region from becoming targets. However, while officials said negotiators were on their way to Oman for a sixth round of talks on Sunday – he was happy to let the Israeli prime minister play the bad cop, pulling the trigger. 'In my assessment, the timing of an Israeli strike on Iran reflects a convergence of interests between Trump and Netanyahu,' said Avi Melamed, a former Israeli intelligence official. 'From Trump's perspective, as long as the US is not directly militarily involved, there is an advantage to a situation in which Israel takes military action aimed at forcing the Iranian regime back to negotiations from a significantly weaker position. 'The one who will pay the price for this move is Israel.' As he announced Operation Rising Lion to his nation, Mr Netanyahu set out the scale of the threat just a few hundred miles away. For decades, the tyrants of Tehran have 'brazenly, openly called for Israel's destruction,' he said, describing how their weapons programme had produced enough highly enriched uranium for nine nuclear bombs. The strikes, said Gabriel Noronha, president of POLARIS National Security and a former adviser to the State Department, were simply the first in maybe a week of attacks, starting with command and control centres, top leadership, and aerospace headquarters that would have launched drone and missile retaliation. The question now is whether Iran will have the ability or the intent to strike US facilities or at any of the 40,000 military personnel in the Persian Gulf and the rest of the Middle East. 'They've threatened the US for a long time,' Mr Noronha said. 'The question is whether they will have the munitions and the capability to strike US bases or they say, 'We barely have enough to inflict damage on Israel. We're going to keep it at that.'' Either way, it is just the start.
Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
EUROPE Friday 13th brings explosions in Tehran, race to safe havens
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rocky Swift It had to be Friday the 13th, right? The morning began with explosions in Tehran that appeared to be much more serious than tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Iran last year. Though a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran's budding nuclear capability had been suspected, the timing and severity still took markets by surprise, with oil prices jumping over 11% at one point. What remains unclear is what role or knowledge the United States had about the offensive and what will Washington do if Iran retaliates. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was not involved, while Israel's state broadcaster said Washington had been notified before the strikes. Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, had been expected to meet Iran's foreign minister in Oman on Sunday. Oil's jump, opens new tab put it on course for the sharpest daily gain in more than five years. Gold and Treasuries surged in Asian trading, while stock futures pointed to roughly 1.5% declines in Europe and U.S. Britain's FTSE was down less than 0.5% in the futures market. With rubber bullets flying in Los Angeles and missiles dropping in Tehran, global economies are clearly prioritising guns over butter. Major defence contractors in Europe such as Britain's BAE Systems, France's Dassault Aviation, and Sweden's Saab AB may be active today. Key developments that could influence markets on Friday: - German, French final CPI readings for May - Euro zone trade balance, industrial production data for April Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Global nuclear arms spending up 11% in 2024, campaign group says
GENEVA, June 13 (Reuters) - Spending on nuclear weapons by the world's nine nuclear-armed nations rose by 11% in 2024, a report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said on Friday. The $10 billion annual increase to $100.2 billion went towards modernising and in some cases expanding nuclear arsenals, according to ICAN, a global civil society coalition that seeks the total elimination of atomic weapons. "Nuclear-armed countries could have paid the United Nations' budget 28 times with what they spent to build and maintain nuclear weapons in 2024," the report said. The U.S. recorded the largest annual increase in nuclear spending in 2024, rising by $5.3 billion, the report said. Its total expenditure of $56.8 billion exceeded the combined spending of all other nuclear-armed states, it said. China spent $12.5 billion, followed by Britain at $10.4 billion, which was an increase of $2.2 billion, ICAN said. It said the other nuclear-armed states were France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia. 'In terms of kind of the increase in spending in the UK and France, I think we certainly have seen, at least in the rhetoric of political leaders, a reference to the ongoing war in Ukraine, to the tensions, and that could be playing a role,' Alicia Sanders-Zakre, a policy and research coordinator at ICAN, told reporters at a briefing in Geneva. Britain and other allies in NATO now regard Russia as the main security threat to Europe and some have rolled out plans to devote a higher percentage of GDP to defence spending. However, Sanders-Zakre said the increase in nuclear expenditure has been more driven by the costs of servicing long-term contracts and the growing expense of developing nuclear delivery systems than by current security concerns.
