That is Spanish for "folly" or "nonsense," which is precisely what the pro-Commonwealth party in Puerto Rico is trying to put forward as its political platform.

I will start with the usual disclaimer I make every time I discuss this issue at Telling Stories: when it comes to Puerto Rico, I am and have always been pro-Statehood.  I don't see Puerto Rico's status as a "cultural dilemma" or a matter of national identity.  When it comes to Puerto Rico's status, Puertoricans are being asked to make a political decision.  If P.R. votes for statehood, I'm fairly certain that the next day Puerto Rico won't have a majority white, blond, blue-eyed population, people won't jump out of bed speaking English, El Yunque won't be a snow-covered peak, and Puerto Rico won't be any more or less racist than it is now.

I also believe that if at any time I believed P.R. couldn't or shouldn't become a State, the only true alternative left is to become an independent nation where Puertoricans have full control of their affairs.  Again, not a matter of culture or nationalism, just a matter of political self-determination.

What I hate is the current colonial status.

And what I really hate is the idea the pro-Commonwealth party is now putting forth that there is room for "improvement" in this relationship.  Even the headlines don't make sense:

Soberanía bajo control federal

Which translates to "sovereignty under federal control."  If it doesn't make sense to you, welcome to the club.  That's nothing more than wanting to have the cake and eat it too.  And what's more, there's no room under the U.S. Constitution for such a creature:

Some in Puerto Rico have proposed a “New Commonwealth” status, under which Puerto Rico would become an autonomous, non-territorial, non-State entity in permanent union with the United States under a covenant that could not be altered without the “mutual consent” of Puerto Rico and the federal Government. In October 2000, a few months before President Clinton established the Task Force, the House Committee on Resources held a hearing on a bill (H.R. 4751) incorporating a version of the “New Commonwealth” proposal. William Treanor, who held the same position in the Office of Legal Counsel that I now hold, testified that this proposal was not constitutional. . .

The effect of this legal conclusion is that the “New Commonwealth” option, as the Task Force understood it, is not consistent with the Constitution. Any promises that the United States might make regarding Puerto Rico’s status as a commonwealth would not be binding. Puerto Rico would remain subject to Congress’s authority under the Territory Clause of the Constitution “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States.” Puerto Rico receives a number of benefits from this status, such as favorable tax treatment. And Puerto Rico may remain in its current Commonwealth, or territorial, status indefinitely, but always subject to Congress’s ultimate authority to alter the terms of that status, as the Constitution provides that Congress may do with any U.S. territory.

What's even more interesting is that the pro-Commonwealth supporters don't even realize - or don't want to realize, since colonialism hurts - is that, from the beginning, the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico is not a relationship between equals.  Here's what the governor proposes:

Lo que plantea el desarrollo del ELA, fundamentado en la soberanía del pueblo de Puerto Rico, es que nos sentemos de tú a tú . . . y que en ese diálogo franco, con ciudadanía americana, se tomen los acuerdos que se tenga que tomar de hasta dónde es que llega la jurisdicción . . . Que esté claro que el poder último de gobernarnos y tomar nuestras decisiones está en las manos de los puertorriqueños.

Which translates to,

What the development of the Commonwealth grounded in the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico proposes is that we [the U.S. and P.R.] sit down and negotiate as equals . . . and that as part of that earnest dialogue, with American citizenship, whatever agreements that must be made are made to determine how far the [federal] jurisdiction reaches . . . Let it be clear that the ultimate power of self-government lies with the Puertorican people.

So, what the pro-Commonwealth crew wants is for the federal government to (a) give up its control over P.R., (b) to reach an agreement where U.S. citizenship is non-negotiable, (c) to enter into an agreement about how far the feds can go to apply federal law, and (d) with the government of Puerto Rico having the ultimate say on whether those laws apply to it and its citizens or not.

You tell me: disparates, yes or no?