If Puerto Rico were to ask Congress to be admitted to the Union as the 51st State, what would your stance on the issue be and why?
I think the 51st State should be Iraq, after all, we've put more money, and certainly more American lives into it. And besides, the rich irony of having the neocons most infamous Crusade give us the first State under Sharia law would be just too delicious to bear. Seriously, this comes up periodically. The cons are always against it as they firmly believe all Puerto Ricans are just Democrats who can't vote and the admission of that many more Democrats would surely end the Republic. The Democrats agree, and so think it would result in something actually being done in Washington. It will thus never happen
Many Boriqueños do not want statehood because they would have to pay federal income tax. But most are on welfare so it wouldn't make much difference because they don't make enough money to pay federal tax. Puerto Rico is a U.S. commonwealth which is about the same thing as being a state anyway. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. Democrats favor statehood for Puerto Rico because everyone on the island would vote for them.
Yes. They have the right to do so at any time now, they meet the other requirements. - - - Updated - - - We arent calling for an election there with guns drawn against their citizenry and the opposition silenced. - - - Updated - - - Agreed. No star for them.
Puerto Rico, around 1898 and the Spanish American Cake Walk. What year was Crimea Russian and not Ottoman? BTW California/Texas and the American southwest was circa 1845, back when our President Polk generously settled the Oregon affair at the 49th and not the 54'40" he promised. Moi No
actually what the usa did was worse, an agressive imperialistic invasion with no popular support among the inhabitants, a land grab...at least in crimea there is support among the population but still wrong, the crimea residents should've been allowed to vote for separation without russia getting involved...
Unlike how Crimea is for Russia, Puerto Rico would be a net loss for us financially if we made them a state. Just having them as a territory is already a burden.
Crimea would be a loss for Russia as well as it's an impoverished region...Russia wants it primarily to permanently secure the naval base on the Black Sea...
At the time of Puerto Rico's annexation by America, it was an important area strategically. It isn't so much that way now. Crimea, as you said, is still pretty strategically important for Russia.
NO! That will (*)(*)(*)(*) up the entire flag design. You would have to have a completely different set up to get 51 stars to look symmetrical.
The reason people would want Puerto Rico to become a state is because it would help Democrats. It's the same reason behind the Washington DC move. Any voting rights expansion issue is done with helping Democrats in mind.
I used to be pro Statehood, but a couple of things happened to change my mind. 1. Before Clinton left office, he pardoned several FALN terrorists. Although I was pissed at Clinton for pardoning terrorists, I was even more pissed when I saw the heroes welcome those murders received upon arriving in Puerto Rico. That was a big turn off. 2. The Navy had a bombing range on Vieques. There was a big kefluffle in which Puerto Rico wanted the training stopped. A lot of the protesters complained that the only reason the Navy was using that island was because of racism (tell that the people who live around Ft Sill!). I felt their behavior was selfish. 3. The last referendum was a scam devised to generate a Yes for statehood answer, which although it didn't make it a majority did get the largest percentage of the vote. Since statehood is so important, I can't imagine accepting a referendum that was less than 3/4 in favor of statehood. 4. The UN still regards Puerto Rico as a victim of US imperialism. Statehood would put us in Putin territory. The UN needs a resolution either clearing us, or requesting independence. So I've become quite disenchanted with the island of enchantment. Although I've known quite a few Puerto Ricans both from the military and locally (I'm in Florida after all), I can't imagine why at this point we would need to add an impoverished island to the US. The Puerto Ricans who want to "be" Americans are in the states already.
Does Puerto Rico even want to be a State? I was under the assumption that they were against it. Fuzzy memory, but hasn't it been up for a vote in Puerto Rico sometime in the past?
I'd have no issue with PR becoming the 51st state if thats what they wanted. There is strength in numbers.
The OP is about a situation where Puerto Rico asked Congress to become a state. It had nothing to do with annexing them against their will.
Then this little situation with the UN needs to be cleared up first, since that's their position. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gacol3255.doc.htm
Yeah I saw your posts about that earlier. I was just curious what objections the United States would have. The U.N. issue aside, what domestic issues are there that would go towards statehood for PR being a bad idea?
Language for one. I'm not sure Puerto Ricans are ready to accept English as the primary language. They had a big issue just on teaching it in the schools a couple of years ago, If language wasn't an issue, they probably would have been a state years ago. But language and culture probably keep a lot of people voting no on statehood.. For another, it's very poor. As a state, it would be eligible for all of the same anti poverty programs that are available to the states and that would cost a fortune. So, what would be the benefits for the US to make Puerto Rico a State?
I agree with what you are saying concerning the culture aspect and the need to keep Spanish as the primary language to be spoken and taught in public schools, and in the day to day government business. Even the statehood party leaders are pushing for that. But I do disagree with you on the last referendum. It was 2 part vote. The first question asked if "do you want to keep the status quo?" meaning keep it a Commonwealth. If you answered No, then you would turn to the second page where you were asked to chose what option you wanted; Statehood, Free Association with the US or Independence? What wasn't one of the options, as the Democrat party complained about was Enhanced Commonwealth which congress has already stated is an Unconstitutional option and would not be allowed on the referendum. So many voted no on the first part or did not vote at all and then turned to the second part and voted. Even those who voted Yes on the first part voted again on the second part. The Democrat party (pro-Commonwealth) leaders told their voters to screw it up on purpose. I said from the beginning this was going to be to complicated. All that is needed is one question; Do you want Statehood, Yes or No? Most times during a referendum the Democrats and the Independence voters will unite and vote against Republican Statehooders. But it would seem many of the Democrats are willing to vote for statehood. A simple referendum would prove that right or wrong. The biggest issue here is how a party is assigned a status. The Republican party are Statehooders. The Democrat party are Commonwealthers. And the Independence party is exactly that. I'm not sure why it is set up this way. It just adds more confusion. I really don't see this issue being settled any time soon as Congress will be looking for a super majority before they decide what they will do. "3. The last referendum was a scam devised to generate a Yes for statehood answer, which although it didn't make it a majority did get the largest percentage of the vote. Since statehood is so important, I can't imagine accepting a referendum that was less than 3/4 in favor of statehood."
I'm not sure why you disagreed with me since you fairly well explained exactly how the referendum was a scam.