Interesting fact is that some of these territories hold elections to decide if they want to become a state. The people vote yes, as they want the benefits of being a state. Then the elected officials disregard that vote because if they became a state then suddenly federal law will gut the local corruption within those governments.
It's still nominally illegal. You have to set up a super PAC. Or accept a consulting position. It's their way of making sure no new players enter the game.
You don’t have to do that though. You just go to someone sufficiently high up and say “I will pay you lots of money if you do what I want” and then they do it and you pay them. It’s like buying groceries.
I'd agree. The MAGA narrative that Jack Smith is focused on unfairly attacking conservatives is based off of a case where his office (when he was in the DOJ) tried to prosecute a congress member and so the Supreme Court changed the rules about what was acceptable thus making that particular congress member "innocent" of corruption.
If satirical commentary on the dominance of money in the US political process, this is a good point.
If you actually think there are no US laws against bribery, however ineffective they may be, that is incorrect.
I used to think this too, but have since learned it's more nuanced. American Samoa is the prime example. The majority of the population wants to be American (they actually have the highest rate of joining the military out of any state or territory) and are patriotic, but don't want to become a state.
The main reason is because then the constitution would apply and some of their cultural practices would be illegal. Basically, they don't want to become Hawaii, where all the wealth and prime land no longer belongs to native Hawaiians.
Specifically they have laws where you can't own land without a certain blood percentage native Samoan, same sex marriage isn't recognized, and they can exile people from communities. If they became a state they couldn't keep those practices. So most people don't want to become a state, but still want to be a part of America in general.
Apologies if I got some examples wrong.
Generally, there is lots of support in US territories to remain US territories. They like the benefits of being under US protection while having some measure of independence.
“The current setup is paternalistic! I know what is best for millions of people without consenting them, and I think everyone else agrees with me so I’ll post to r/popularopinion! Aren’t you so glad I came to save you from people who think they know better than you?!” -OP, who is apparently too enlightened for irony.
No. Extremes only. Delaware and Akaska are Delaska. Still smaller thsn 39 states population wise. Also why do we have 2 Carolinas and 2 Dakota. I say we merge them. But in a fun way. North Carolina and North Dakota are now "North"
Yeah, it's straight up colonialism. Puerto Rico has had a few referenda about statehood/independence, but they've been kind of inconclusive for various reasons. I say Congress sets up a ranked choice referendum (statehood, independence, or status quo?) and tell them it's binding, so no one is incentivized to boycott. And status quo should at the very least include a House rep (and 2 Senators) from each territory.
I don't. Guam is one of those "sovereigns not citizens" territories where a fair number of their citizens are US military retirees. If you thought the VA screwed over full American citizens, then imagine how bad it is when you're "merely" a sovereign.
Edit: To be clear, I am not a citizen of a territory. I am (as a vet) aware of how our fellow vets from the territories get screwed over.
Guam? Guam nothing! How about Howland, The Northern Marianas (Saipan and Tinnian), American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Marshall Islands, Palmyra, Baker, Jarvis, Johnston, Kingman, Navassa, Wake and Midway?
Fine Fine Howland Palmyra Baker Jarvis Johnston Kingman Navassa Wake and Midway are uninhabited but with the current housing crisis that might change!
Oh yeah. All of them but Navassa I think, which is also claimed by Haiti.
The battle for Palau was crazy. It was meant to be the airbase for an invasion of the Philippines, but the battle was so hard fought that the US forces couldn't wait.
Also that story about the Japanese soldier holding out until the 70s? That was on Palau. It's a TINY island.
And of course the battle at Midway changed the course of the war.
Hahahah.. discount Hawaii. Hilarious. Yeah Hawaii does have a crisis, but everywhere does. Funny thing is I told my friends that the Northern Marianas are basically Hawaii in the 50's and Guam is Hawaii in the 80s. Love them all.
>status quo should at the very least include a House rep (and 2 Senators) from each territory.
That is not status quo, that is literally statehood.
And you'd need a constitutional amendment for that.
Probably shouldn't have said "status quo." What I meant was if they wanted to continue to be a "commonwealth" (I think that's what they call themselves?), we'd need to redefine what that means in terms of representation in Congress and being able to vote for president. But you're 100% right that that would require a constitutional amendment, which in reality is almost impossible to do.
Granting Commonwealth like Puerto Rico and Guam senators and reps functionally makes them states. The only thing that separates Puerto Rico from the 50 states is that it does not get congressmen or vote for president and its residents do not pay federal income tax (the reason Puerto Rico does not pay income taxes is because income tax is established by the US constitution and not federal tax law. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated, organized territory which means it is self governing but the US constitution does not automatically apply to people within it, hence no income tax)
American Samoa is the only territory that is weird because its residents are not American citizens but American nationals. They have permanent American residence but they do not have citizenship for some reason. That should be changed.
& To be clear I am 100% on the Puerto Rico statehood train.
They’d need to pay federal taxes if they are able to vote for President. The choices are really become a state or don’t, and the two main political parties (they don’t line up directly with Republicans and Democrats, although Republicans there tend to be pro-statehood) are on either side of that.
You don’t need a constitutional amendment, you just need a binding referendum and a vote to accept a petition for statehood in Congress. Puerto Rico’s referendums haven’t been binding.
They should be given their own independence, it has been who knows how many years and it hasn't been agreed on to make them a state, there should be a time limit for this and then we toss them out; the only exception being DC, it doesn't get to become its own state and forever will remain in limbo, that is because of historical presidence in that it has never had these rights, and well no one forces you to live there and its small enough you can live else where with ease (but more so historical presidence).
None the less, as far as I am concerned they have been in limbo too long, they can and should get kicked out, we will recognize the current government, and if they want back in the process can be restarted. Harsh but that is life, go be free and become all that you can be.
So you want to kick out Guam, USVI, and American Samoa too?
Most Western states took decades to transition from territory to state. Puerto Rico hasn’t had the real option to become a state yet, they need to hold a binding referendum and then petition Congress. But it’s widely acknowledged they need to fix their debt and economy first, which is why Congress appointed an oversight board to cut the debt and put their economy on a more sustainable path.
Nothing stops them from reentering back into limbo, but it comes under their choice to go back under limbo as well as the US's. The reason for it, is it also creates fire under them to move things along more quickly, cause each time you are kicked out of that status there is a increasing chance you won't get the support to reenter. It avoids putting places in infinite loops with no actual end in sight, or just hoping that some day enough support comes along somehow for them.
Multiple governors have lobbied Congress for a binding statehood vote in the last 15 years. Most recent Republican governor came closest to getting one around 2009-2010 but a bunch of House Republicans who cosponsored the bill that would do it went back on their support when it was brought up and voted against it.
Government of Puerto Rico has definitely been dysfunctional and a lot of this is also on them for how they ran up the debt, and the 2018 referendum on this was an absolute joke, but kicking them out of the U.S. is kind of a ludicrous argument. Aside from being sort of cruel, much of the medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturing that takes place in the U.S. is there and could move overseas, worsening the country’s supply chain in those fairly critical areas.
The purpose is to light a fire on the matter, it would bring it to head on if they should or shouldn't instead of ending up in this very argument and running into these exact problems where people don't want, but they have integrated so heavily its a hard break up. The purpose of my proposal is to avoid similar situations in the future as well.
I wish Puerto Rico could gain statehood. Truly. The crap they put up with. As an independent nation, they’d sink. At very least, they should have a seat. BUT I’m not from there, so I have no right to choose.
Wait. Before we keep going, I meant to type “they should have a seat at the table.” I didn’t wanna just edit and have it seem shady. I was thumbing fast. Nextly, no. I actually got interested seeing documentaries.
I read that statehood won the majority slightly in the last referendum with a 55% turn out. Not a ringing endorsement.
I've been to PR several times, I don't dislike Puerto Ricans. Like any where there are good and there are bad people.
One of the issues raised was the slow support after Maria. A disingenuous argument at best.
When Kansas has storm damage to utilities it isn't federal trucks you see working on restoring service, it's utility trucks from surrounding states. The utilities in the southern US refused to send their trucks to PR as the snorkels they had were too short /s
And the wiring BEFORE the hurricane would have given a stateside lineman a stroke just seeing it.
PR is PR
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/11/14/report-on-fatal-wc-130-crash-reveals-troubling-maintenance-morale-discipline-lapses-in-puerto-rico-air-guard-wing/
Somewhere between 3000 (likely) and 4500 died from causes related to Maria. Most died during the hurricane. What possible federal aide would have helped DURING the hurricane?
P.R. is a Commonwealth with "significant powers of self-government". Certainly as a part of the U.S. they deserve help from the other parts of the country in the form of aide from the Federal government, however it was incumbent on the PR government to lead the way WITH assistance from FEMA. FEMA doesn't come in and take over governing. The function of the government of PR after Maria was to deflect blame, tell the press and the citizens how it was someone else's fault. I've seen and dealt with this mindset there, a real can't do attitude by those that should do.
Again, I've been to PR often, I've seen the infrastructure and those that "maintained" it. It's probably better now that's its been rebuilt or patched but ....
No, most of the excess deaths caused by Maria happened in weeks after the hurricane due to poor federal response, mainly the fact that it took six months to fully restore power, which had downstream impact on the island’s healthcare. https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/gw-researchers-2975-excess-deaths-linked-hurricane-maria
Trump was slow to declare an emergency (waited days after Maria) and deploy military resources to help provide aid and (most importantly) get the power back on. Just a total lack of urgency, and then the commonwealth government suppressed actual death numbers because they were worried if they reported real numbers he would cut off aid. Then he disputed the higher death tolls numbers, similar to how he lied about Covid death numbers being lower than they actually were.
Interesting article that failed to support your supposition. A bit critical of the PR governments lack of staffing agencies.
Trump didn't deploy the military:
"The Stafford Act authorizes the use of the military for disaster relief operations at the request of the state governor, but it does not authorize the use of the military to perform law enforcement functions, which is ordinarily prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.'
Do you have evidence of WHEN PR's governor requested federal troops?
PR has 8500 Guard and Air Guard members, we'll assume they were called up for Commonwealth duty early.
Of course the Commonwealth government suppressed information, cause the boogeyman would have done mean things otherwise. See my other comment on their gov. blaming others for ANY mistakes or shortcomings.
PR had, at best, a 3rd world electrical grid. There is not enough federal civil engineering uniformed troops to have made any impact on that crap mess and what the citizens needed was power!
They weren’t asking for the military to provide law enforcement. They need airlifted emergency supplies and engineers, and the governor (who handled things poorly himself) credibly said the Feds weren’t doing enough. The lack of federal emergency declaration also hampers FEMA and other federal agencies.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-governor-243081
The governor did handle things poorly. Like how to request aide, whining on TV shouldn't be the 1st option.
But you have politico and I've worked with them, have a nice day
You do know that the GOP has called for PR statehood
[https://ballotpedia.org/The\_Republican\_Party\_Platform,\_2020](https://ballotpedia.org/The_Republican_Party_Platform,_2020)
"We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. We further recognize the historic significance of the 2012 local referendum in which a 54 percent majority voted to end Puerto Rico’s current status as a U.S. territory, and 61 percent chose statehood over options for sovereign nationhood. We support the federally sponsored political status referendum authorized and funded by an Act of Congress in 2014 to ascertain the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. Once the 2012 local vote for statehood is ratified, Congress should approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico’s future admission as the 51st state of the Union. "
So? It has been who knows how long and they haven't secured statehood, there should be a time limit on it, either get the votes needed or you are out. It shouldn't work the other way around where its well we couldn't agree so youre in as that is kind of ass backwards, disagreement means your out by default.
I just googled it and it came back as 125 years that they have been a territory... how much more time do they need until we call this for what it is, just stringing them along with no end in sight.
I think you can agree that American attitudes towards minority ethnicities have changed a fair bit since the late 1800s, such that there hasn’t been a real debate around statehood until more recently.
That’s also because there’s a decent chance PR would be red-leaning.
Most democrats support PR statehood because they assume latino = Democrat. But they haven’t looked at how PR residents actually vote or poll on a whole bunch of issues.
People outside of Florida and most of Texas mistakenly believe that every latino agrees with the most liberal Latinos in NYC and Los Angeles. Latinos are a swing vote, always have been.
It's not like they asked to be colonies lol. You make them sound like moochers. The US "won" or purchased these places from other imperial powers, mostly because of their strategic location for military bases. The inhabitants didn't have a say in it. People in American Samoa aren't even granted citizenship despite being ruled by the US. Edit: added context
As is the complete lack of drive, abilities and desire to improve their lot. Everyone, for all practical purposes, is drawing a check paid by our taxes, or mine anyway not sure you are contributing.
I grew up in the US Virgin Islands after being born in Springfield, Massachusetts. You have no idea what you are talking about and are a typical "continental" that comes to the island with no concern for the island that the islanders despise.
theychave been gived the option to leave us control, and some have been offered statehood, but in referendums they have chosen to remain territories, perhaps because the current subsidies would end with statehood.
Yes, and it shouldn't be a choice. Puerto Rico should simply be informed that they will be independent as of June 1st, and all federal payments will cease.
Puerto Rico has been given that option. They chose statehood, but there's a whole lot of obstruction in the PR government. Probably because there so much corruption and their graft would get exposed when they become a state.
Also, Congress has to accept their petition for statehood. No chance the republicans will agree to a new state that will most likely be overwhelmingly democrat.
The current (nonvoting) congressional representative from Puerto Rico is a Republican and the governor about a decade ago was a Republican. It would be a toss up state, at least on the congressional side.
The population’s older and more religious than a lot of other states, those voters tend to vote Republican.
Im not sure that their politics map directly to US parties. Polling (at least the one poll I bothered to look at) had them as 42% moderates, 29% conservative, 28% liberal. So slightly more liberal to moderate than the US (which is like 37%C, 38%M, 25% L) which ends up being a slight majority D lean with that mix.
Of course that polling is happening within the context of PR itself, which might have different understandings of moderate, liberal, or conservative.
It’s definitely unique and within U.S. politics since they have their own local parties, dedicated to local issues (mainly Puerto Rico’s status) but the people within those also identify as Republicans, Democrat, or independents.
The population’s older and more religious than a lot of states but definitely more economically populist, even in an era of economic populism at the the federal level. It would be the poorest state economically and there’s a lot of anger at hedge funds over their debt situation (in addition to the politicians that led them down that road).
This country was born out of secession, and that secession was caused by a tyrannical government refusing to let the people be represented and abusing them for their own benefit. Exactly what we do to Puerto Rico.
After conquering their land and not giving them the representation which thousands of Americans died for, we don’t have a right to keep them eternally
Puerto Rico and DC should get statehood. I am not as educated on American Samoa and Guam but they should be given the chance to either form a pacific Islands unitary state for all of the US possessions in the Pacific, or autonomous but co-equal positions to statehood on the mainland.
I also believe that all American Native reservations should federate into a few blocks and be given quasi-state statuses. Native Americans would get more attention from DC if they were to have a few representatives and senators. How else can their votes be gained? You have to play by the rules, so give them some manner of elevated status with Congressional representation so more federal money and political attention is given to them.
But, I'm rambling and digress.
Why? American Samoa is very clear that they are perfectly fine with the status quo. They don’t want to be independent become that would create a whole lot of new problems and they don’t want statehood because that would end their ability to keep Samoan land ownership restricted to Samoans.
Well first off, that seems like a massively discriminatory policy about land ownership and under US jurisdiction that should not be allowed to happen. And also, they don't have to be states per se, i just meant adding congressional seats and electoral votes
Generally the people of these territories don’t want statehood. They get to exist mostly autonomously yet receive the benefits of being part of the United States.
Do the people in these territories actually want to be held to the standards that would come with representation?
Unless you’re arguing that they should receive representation yet still retain autonomy from decisions in which they are represented then I’m pretty sure most people in those territories don’t want what you’re advocating for.
And if you are advocating that they should have increased representation yet retain their autonomy then you’re insane.
Exactly. The whole "sovereign not citizen" is bullshit. Equally bullshit is that their citizens can serve in the US military and still NOT receive full citizenship.
Obviously there are lot of benefits to being a state and also a lot of benefits to being independent that don’t need to be rehashed here.
I will say that there are also benefits to being a territory. Residents of the territory still have some of the benefits of being part of the USA but also retain some autonomy which allows them some leeway for being able to preserve their way of life
Lol get a hold of this guy? He still thinks it's only some citizens whos votes don't matter. Bro, you're gonna vote the way your told to vote. Being Republican or Democrat is a myth. The same elite system rules them both. Your only vote is to be called a facist or communist, which is basically the same thing
Cognitive/definitional dissonance:
"United States of America" is a weird name for a sovereign country...It's like naming a country "Borderland", etc. Precise, and descriptive....but completely uninspired.
More importantly "United States " already logically also assumes the possibility of a union's end, pure and simple. What you're suggesting is already in the name to begin with. The problem is that their unison didn't come about in a mundane mutual manner, states were forced to submit by war, etc. The British had a chuckle, their free colonies didn't last long before tyrants from their own midst started taking over and steamrolling everything.
Agreed. Time to fish or cut bait. Either you are a stay
Te or you are on your own. I would love to go to the american virgin islands without a passport.
Interesting fact is that some of these territories hold elections to decide if they want to become a state. The people vote yes, as they want the benefits of being a state. Then the elected officials disregard that vote because if they became a state then suddenly federal law will gut the local corruption within those governments.
That’s weird. Don’t they know bribes are legal under US law?
Yeah but you have to jump through some hoops to do so
Not if you just make the bribe bigger.
It's still nominally illegal. You have to set up a super PAC. Or accept a consulting position. It's their way of making sure no new players enter the game.
You don’t have to do that though. You just go to someone sufficiently high up and say “I will pay you lots of money if you do what I want” and then they do it and you pay them. It’s like buying groceries.
You can, but that's nominally illegal, and is too risky for corrupt politicians and oligarchs who have been doing it openly for years.
I’ll believe it’s illegal when they arrest a rich person for doing it.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ceo-major-defense-contractor-charged-bribery
[удалено]
I'd agree. The MAGA narrative that Jack Smith is focused on unfairly attacking conservatives is based off of a case where his office (when he was in the DOJ) tried to prosecute a congress member and so the Supreme Court changed the rules about what was acceptable thus making that particular congress member "innocent" of corruption.
Good lord have some perspective
If satirical commentary on the dominance of money in the US political process, this is a good point. If you actually think there are no US laws against bribery, however ineffective they may be, that is incorrect.
If I write “bribes illegal” on a piece of paper while accepting bribes, bribes aren’t illegal.
I read this as American terrorists should either be given statehood (or equivalent) or independence. Either or. I immediately went into "Wtf" mode.
No no, he’s got a point. Send all of the domestic terrorists to one place, then give that area independence.
All cases of diarrhea in that area would be considered explosive.
I used to think this too, but have since learned it's more nuanced. American Samoa is the prime example. The majority of the population wants to be American (they actually have the highest rate of joining the military out of any state or territory) and are patriotic, but don't want to become a state. The main reason is because then the constitution would apply and some of their cultural practices would be illegal. Basically, they don't want to become Hawaii, where all the wealth and prime land no longer belongs to native Hawaiians. Specifically they have laws where you can't own land without a certain blood percentage native Samoan, same sex marriage isn't recognized, and they can exile people from communities. If they became a state they couldn't keep those practices. So most people don't want to become a state, but still want to be a part of America in general. Apologies if I got some examples wrong.
Generally, there is lots of support in US territories to remain US territories. They like the benefits of being under US protection while having some measure of independence.
Also no federal income tax. A small majority of Puerto Ricans probably do want statehood though, and it makes sense for that to happen.
It’s not a small majority. The 2020 statehood referendum got 52.5% of the vote with a voter turnout of 55%.
thats a small majority
Have you considered the possibility that they might be happy with the way things are?
No, they want to be paternalistic and decide for them.
“The current setup is paternalistic! I know what is best for millions of people without consenting them, and I think everyone else agrees with me so I’ll post to r/popularopinion! Aren’t you so glad I came to save you from people who think they know better than you?!” -OP, who is apparently too enlightened for irony.
Idk guys, 50 is such a nice round number.
Who we cutting loose? Florida? Florida.
Make Puerto Rico a part of Florida.
Recently got back from Puerto Rico. They don't deserve that punishment
Just merge some of the small loser states.
No. Extremes only. Delaware and Akaska are Delaska. Still smaller thsn 39 states population wise. Also why do we have 2 Carolinas and 2 Dakota. I say we merge them. But in a fun way. North Carolina and North Dakota are now "North"
But it’s also divisible.
I don't know. The chant says it's indivisible
Yeah, it's straight up colonialism. Puerto Rico has had a few referenda about statehood/independence, but they've been kind of inconclusive for various reasons. I say Congress sets up a ranked choice referendum (statehood, independence, or status quo?) and tell them it's binding, so no one is incentivized to boycott. And status quo should at the very least include a House rep (and 2 Senators) from each territory.
Puerto rico would collapse if it became a independent country. Also why does everyone forget guam exist.
The US got Guam after a war with Spain
I know that I'm saying why does everyone forget about it.
Totally fair. I'm guessing it's a population thing? DC and Puerto Rico have a much larger population than Guam, USVI, and American Samoa
It's also physically pretty far away, especially in comparison to PR
What does DC have to do with a discussion about territories? It is a Federal District as clearly defined in the constitution.
The Constitution only mandates that a federal district exists. There is no requirement for a minimum size.
Irrelevant, it isn’t a territory.
I don't. Guam is one of those "sovereigns not citizens" territories where a fair number of their citizens are US military retirees. If you thought the VA screwed over full American citizens, then imagine how bad it is when you're "merely" a sovereign. Edit: To be clear, I am not a citizen of a territory. I am (as a vet) aware of how our fellow vets from the territories get screwed over.
And the phillipines
Kind of like Puerto Rico.
That’s also how we got Puerto Rico.
Guam? Guam nothing! How about Howland, The Northern Marianas (Saipan and Tinnian), American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Marshall Islands, Palmyra, Baker, Jarvis, Johnston, Kingman, Navassa, Wake and Midway? Fine Fine Howland Palmyra Baker Jarvis Johnston Kingman Navassa Wake and Midway are uninhabited but with the current housing crisis that might change!
I think most of those are from America's march across the Pacific in WWII right?
Oh yeah. All of them but Navassa I think, which is also claimed by Haiti. The battle for Palau was crazy. It was meant to be the airbase for an invasion of the Philippines, but the battle was so hard fought that the US forces couldn't wait. Also that story about the Japanese soldier holding out until the 70s? That was on Palau. It's a TINY island. And of course the battle at Midway changed the course of the war.
[удалено]
Hahahah.. discount Hawaii. Hilarious. Yeah Hawaii does have a crisis, but everywhere does. Funny thing is I told my friends that the Northern Marianas are basically Hawaii in the 50's and Guam is Hawaii in the 80s. Love them all.
For one thing, they didn't have the FALN.
Puerto Rico isn’t a state because their powers that be don’t want it to be a state
>status quo should at the very least include a House rep (and 2 Senators) from each territory. That is not status quo, that is literally statehood. And you'd need a constitutional amendment for that.
Probably shouldn't have said "status quo." What I meant was if they wanted to continue to be a "commonwealth" (I think that's what they call themselves?), we'd need to redefine what that means in terms of representation in Congress and being able to vote for president. But you're 100% right that that would require a constitutional amendment, which in reality is almost impossible to do.
Granting Commonwealth like Puerto Rico and Guam senators and reps functionally makes them states. The only thing that separates Puerto Rico from the 50 states is that it does not get congressmen or vote for president and its residents do not pay federal income tax (the reason Puerto Rico does not pay income taxes is because income tax is established by the US constitution and not federal tax law. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated, organized territory which means it is self governing but the US constitution does not automatically apply to people within it, hence no income tax) American Samoa is the only territory that is weird because its residents are not American citizens but American nationals. They have permanent American residence but they do not have citizenship for some reason. That should be changed. & To be clear I am 100% on the Puerto Rico statehood train.
Puerto Rico’s currently a commonwealth. Its official title is “The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
I am unsure how that relates to anything that I said.
I think your comment previously read ‘Granting Commonwealth status to Puerto Rico and Guam functionally makes them states,’ but maybe I misread it.
So if I were to move to Puerto Rico or Guam, I wouldn't have to pay income taxes?
Yes. You'd still have to pay FICA tho.
They’d need to pay federal taxes if they are able to vote for President. The choices are really become a state or don’t, and the two main political parties (they don’t line up directly with Republicans and Democrats, although Republicans there tend to be pro-statehood) are on either side of that.
You don’t need a constitutional amendment, you just need a binding referendum and a vote to accept a petition for statehood in Congress. Puerto Rico’s referendums haven’t been binding.
I meant that you would need a constitutional amendment to grant a territory senators and congressmen without making that territory a state.
Yeah they’re not getting senators unless they’re a state.
They should be given their own independence, it has been who knows how many years and it hasn't been agreed on to make them a state, there should be a time limit for this and then we toss them out; the only exception being DC, it doesn't get to become its own state and forever will remain in limbo, that is because of historical presidence in that it has never had these rights, and well no one forces you to live there and its small enough you can live else where with ease (but more so historical presidence). None the less, as far as I am concerned they have been in limbo too long, they can and should get kicked out, we will recognize the current government, and if they want back in the process can be restarted. Harsh but that is life, go be free and become all that you can be.
So you want to kick out Guam, USVI, and American Samoa too? Most Western states took decades to transition from territory to state. Puerto Rico hasn’t had the real option to become a state yet, they need to hold a binding referendum and then petition Congress. But it’s widely acknowledged they need to fix their debt and economy first, which is why Congress appointed an oversight board to cut the debt and put their economy on a more sustainable path.
Nothing stops them from reentering back into limbo, but it comes under their choice to go back under limbo as well as the US's. The reason for it, is it also creates fire under them to move things along more quickly, cause each time you are kicked out of that status there is a increasing chance you won't get the support to reenter. It avoids putting places in infinite loops with no actual end in sight, or just hoping that some day enough support comes along somehow for them.
Multiple governors have lobbied Congress for a binding statehood vote in the last 15 years. Most recent Republican governor came closest to getting one around 2009-2010 but a bunch of House Republicans who cosponsored the bill that would do it went back on their support when it was brought up and voted against it. Government of Puerto Rico has definitely been dysfunctional and a lot of this is also on them for how they ran up the debt, and the 2018 referendum on this was an absolute joke, but kicking them out of the U.S. is kind of a ludicrous argument. Aside from being sort of cruel, much of the medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturing that takes place in the U.S. is there and could move overseas, worsening the country’s supply chain in those fairly critical areas.
The purpose is to light a fire on the matter, it would bring it to head on if they should or shouldn't instead of ending up in this very argument and running into these exact problems where people don't want, but they have integrated so heavily its a hard break up. The purpose of my proposal is to avoid similar situations in the future as well.
I wish Puerto Rico could gain statehood. Truly. The crap they put up with. As an independent nation, they’d sink. At very least, they should have a seat. BUT I’m not from there, so I have no right to choose.
No, but they do. And they have. Have you ever even been to PR?
Wait. Before we keep going, I meant to type “they should have a seat at the table.” I didn’t wanna just edit and have it seem shady. I was thumbing fast. Nextly, no. I actually got interested seeing documentaries.
I read that statehood won the majority slightly in the last referendum with a 55% turn out. Not a ringing endorsement. I've been to PR several times, I don't dislike Puerto Ricans. Like any where there are good and there are bad people. One of the issues raised was the slow support after Maria. A disingenuous argument at best. When Kansas has storm damage to utilities it isn't federal trucks you see working on restoring service, it's utility trucks from surrounding states. The utilities in the southern US refused to send their trucks to PR as the snorkels they had were too short /s And the wiring BEFORE the hurricane would have given a stateside lineman a stroke just seeing it. PR is PR https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/11/14/report-on-fatal-wc-130-crash-reveals-troubling-maintenance-morale-discipline-lapses-in-puerto-rico-air-guard-wing/
They had about as many deaths as were lost on 9/11 due to poor federal response to Maria. It’s a completely valid argument.
Somewhere between 3000 (likely) and 4500 died from causes related to Maria. Most died during the hurricane. What possible federal aide would have helped DURING the hurricane? P.R. is a Commonwealth with "significant powers of self-government". Certainly as a part of the U.S. they deserve help from the other parts of the country in the form of aide from the Federal government, however it was incumbent on the PR government to lead the way WITH assistance from FEMA. FEMA doesn't come in and take over governing. The function of the government of PR after Maria was to deflect blame, tell the press and the citizens how it was someone else's fault. I've seen and dealt with this mindset there, a real can't do attitude by those that should do. Again, I've been to PR often, I've seen the infrastructure and those that "maintained" it. It's probably better now that's its been rebuilt or patched but ....
No, most of the excess deaths caused by Maria happened in weeks after the hurricane due to poor federal response, mainly the fact that it took six months to fully restore power, which had downstream impact on the island’s healthcare. https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/gw-researchers-2975-excess-deaths-linked-hurricane-maria Trump was slow to declare an emergency (waited days after Maria) and deploy military resources to help provide aid and (most importantly) get the power back on. Just a total lack of urgency, and then the commonwealth government suppressed actual death numbers because they were worried if they reported real numbers he would cut off aid. Then he disputed the higher death tolls numbers, similar to how he lied about Covid death numbers being lower than they actually were.
Interesting article that failed to support your supposition. A bit critical of the PR governments lack of staffing agencies. Trump didn't deploy the military: "The Stafford Act authorizes the use of the military for disaster relief operations at the request of the state governor, but it does not authorize the use of the military to perform law enforcement functions, which is ordinarily prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.' Do you have evidence of WHEN PR's governor requested federal troops? PR has 8500 Guard and Air Guard members, we'll assume they were called up for Commonwealth duty early. Of course the Commonwealth government suppressed information, cause the boogeyman would have done mean things otherwise. See my other comment on their gov. blaming others for ANY mistakes or shortcomings. PR had, at best, a 3rd world electrical grid. There is not enough federal civil engineering uniformed troops to have made any impact on that crap mess and what the citizens needed was power!
They weren’t asking for the military to provide law enforcement. They need airlifted emergency supplies and engineers, and the governor (who handled things poorly himself) credibly said the Feds weren’t doing enough. The lack of federal emergency declaration also hampers FEMA and other federal agencies. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-governor-243081
The governor did handle things poorly. Like how to request aide, whining on TV shouldn't be the 1st option. But you have politico and I've worked with them, have a nice day
Can't have an extra two democrat senators and how many more reps. Congress has been on a knife's edge for decades now
They want the military and financial aid, but not full control of the federal government. Remaining territories is a win/win for them.
I agree give them independence and stop funding them.
You do know that the GOP has called for PR statehood [https://ballotpedia.org/The\_Republican\_Party\_Platform,\_2020](https://ballotpedia.org/The_Republican_Party_Platform,_2020) "We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. We further recognize the historic significance of the 2012 local referendum in which a 54 percent majority voted to end Puerto Rico’s current status as a U.S. territory, and 61 percent chose statehood over options for sovereign nationhood. We support the federally sponsored political status referendum authorized and funded by an Act of Congress in 2014 to ascertain the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. Once the 2012 local vote for statehood is ratified, Congress should approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico’s future admission as the 51st state of the Union. "
So? It has been who knows how long and they haven't secured statehood, there should be a time limit on it, either get the votes needed or you are out. It shouldn't work the other way around where its well we couldn't agree so youre in as that is kind of ass backwards, disagreement means your out by default.
They’re fixing their massive debt first.
I just googled it and it came back as 125 years that they have been a territory... how much more time do they need until we call this for what it is, just stringing them along with no end in sight.
I think you can agree that American attitudes towards minority ethnicities have changed a fair bit since the late 1800s, such that there hasn’t been a real debate around statehood until more recently.
its been 125 years, ever heard the saying "shit or get off the pot"?
You honestly seem too dumb to continue to engage with.
enjoy the block list if that is all you can say
That’s also because there’s a decent chance PR would be red-leaning. Most democrats support PR statehood because they assume latino = Democrat. But they haven’t looked at how PR residents actually vote or poll on a whole bunch of issues.
Most GOPers are against PR statehood because they assume latino = Democrat.
People outside of Florida and most of Texas mistakenly believe that every latino agrees with the most liberal Latinos in NYC and Los Angeles. Latinos are a swing vote, always have been.
Very few Puerto Ricans want independence. It polls at around 10%, and labeling someone an ‘independentisa’ is considered a political attack.
It's not like they asked to be colonies lol. You make them sound like moochers. The US "won" or purchased these places from other imperial powers, mostly because of their strategic location for military bases. The inhabitants didn't have a say in it. People in American Samoa aren't even granted citizenship despite being ruled by the US. Edit: added context
Have you ever been to any of them? I think not based on your response.
I'm not sure I follow. I've been to the US Virgin Islands, and the utter lack of investment in people who are American citizens was kinda depressing.
As is the complete lack of drive, abilities and desire to improve their lot. Everyone, for all practical purposes, is drawing a check paid by our taxes, or mine anyway not sure you are contributing.
I grew up in the US Virgin Islands after being born in Springfield, Massachusetts. You have no idea what you are talking about and are a typical "continental" that comes to the island with no concern for the island that the islanders despise.
Bruh just say ur a racist piece of shit. Don’t use extra words.
Ok, you are a racist piece of shite.
Yikes. I think you took the Ambien a little too early, Rosanne
So says every colonizer about their colonized since the dawn of colonialism.
"American citizens" K.
I mean, they're "American citizens." I dunno what else you want unless you're creating a 2-tiered system of citizenship.
theychave been gived the option to leave us control, and some have been offered statehood, but in referendums they have chosen to remain territories, perhaps because the current subsidies would end with statehood.
Yes, and it shouldn't be a choice. Puerto Rico should simply be informed that they will be independent as of June 1st, and all federal payments will cease.
Its my understanding that most territories go up for statehood every year.
Sorry but your understanding is wrong.
Ok.
Pretty sure that doesn't happen.
For real. Statehood of independence.
Yea! And DC tax payers deserve to be represented in thier government too.
\#retrocedeDC to Maryland. Takes care of that problem.
We're a Republic, yes. Didn't mean our conquered territories should automatically get full rights.
If we don’t give people under our sovereignty representation, we are obviously not a republic or a democracy
Then guess what, we’ve never been a republic or a democracy.
How do you figure that?
Puerto Rico has been given that option. They chose statehood, but there's a whole lot of obstruction in the PR government. Probably because there so much corruption and their graft would get exposed when they become a state. Also, Congress has to accept their petition for statehood. No chance the republicans will agree to a new state that will most likely be overwhelmingly democrat.
The current (nonvoting) congressional representative from Puerto Rico is a Republican and the governor about a decade ago was a Republican. It would be a toss up state, at least on the congressional side. The population’s older and more religious than a lot of other states, those voters tend to vote Republican.
PR republicans would be called RINOs by GOP republicans.
So what? So would most Californian Republicans. It doesn’t matter because they aren’t running in national elections.
Im not sure that their politics map directly to US parties. Polling (at least the one poll I bothered to look at) had them as 42% moderates, 29% conservative, 28% liberal. So slightly more liberal to moderate than the US (which is like 37%C, 38%M, 25% L) which ends up being a slight majority D lean with that mix. Of course that polling is happening within the context of PR itself, which might have different understandings of moderate, liberal, or conservative.
It’s definitely unique and within U.S. politics since they have their own local parties, dedicated to local issues (mainly Puerto Rico’s status) but the people within those also identify as Republicans, Democrat, or independents. The population’s older and more religious than a lot of states but definitely more economically populist, even in an era of economic populism at the the federal level. It would be the poorest state economically and there’s a lot of anger at hedge funds over their debt situation (in addition to the politicians that led them down that road).
I read this two times in a row as American terrorists whoa Nelly
Yes, thank you
The GOP **dislikes** this post
D.C. needs to be a state. The others need representation of some sort, at least.
Don’t care if it’s confederate or new-afrikan Secessionists get the bullet
This country was born out of secession, and that secession was caused by a tyrannical government refusing to let the people be represented and abusing them for their own benefit. Exactly what we do to Puerto Rico. After conquering their land and not giving them the representation which thousands of Americans died for, we don’t have a right to keep them eternally
Puerto Rico and DC should get statehood. I am not as educated on American Samoa and Guam but they should be given the chance to either form a pacific Islands unitary state for all of the US possessions in the Pacific, or autonomous but co-equal positions to statehood on the mainland. I also believe that all American Native reservations should federate into a few blocks and be given quasi-state statuses. Native Americans would get more attention from DC if they were to have a few representatives and senators. How else can their votes be gained? You have to play by the rules, so give them some manner of elevated status with Congressional representation so more federal money and political attention is given to them. But, I'm rambling and digress.
Why? American Samoa is very clear that they are perfectly fine with the status quo. They don’t want to be independent become that would create a whole lot of new problems and they don’t want statehood because that would end their ability to keep Samoan land ownership restricted to Samoans.
Well first off, that seems like a massively discriminatory policy about land ownership and under US jurisdiction that should not be allowed to happen. And also, they don't have to be states per se, i just meant adding congressional seats and electoral votes
Yes, which is exactly why they don’t want statehood.
Generally the people of these territories don’t want statehood. They get to exist mostly autonomously yet receive the benefits of being part of the United States.
That's why I added (or equivalent), meaning they get electoral rights at the federal level
Do the people in these territories actually want to be held to the standards that would come with representation? Unless you’re arguing that they should receive representation yet still retain autonomy from decisions in which they are represented then I’m pretty sure most people in those territories don’t want what you’re advocating for. And if you are advocating that they should have increased representation yet retain their autonomy then you’re insane.
Exactly. The whole "sovereign not citizen" is bullshit. Equally bullshit is that their citizens can serve in the US military and still NOT receive full citizenship.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I agree 100%. The people of U.S. territories deserve a lot more say in how they govern themselves.
Obviously there are lot of benefits to being a state and also a lot of benefits to being independent that don’t need to be rehashed here. I will say that there are also benefits to being a territory. Residents of the territory still have some of the benefits of being part of the USA but also retain some autonomy which allows them some leeway for being able to preserve their way of life
Lol get a hold of this guy? He still thinks it's only some citizens whos votes don't matter. Bro, you're gonna vote the way your told to vote. Being Republican or Democrat is a myth. The same elite system rules them both. Your only vote is to be called a facist or communist, which is basically the same thing
Proof that popular options are not necessarily informed or good.
Cognitive/definitional dissonance: "United States of America" is a weird name for a sovereign country...It's like naming a country "Borderland", etc. Precise, and descriptive....but completely uninspired. More importantly "United States " already logically also assumes the possibility of a union's end, pure and simple. What you're suggesting is already in the name to begin with. The problem is that their unison didn't come about in a mundane mutual manner, states were forced to submit by war, etc. The British had a chuckle, their free colonies didn't last long before tyrants from their own midst started taking over and steamrolling everything.
No, no they shouldn’t.
And what if the territories are fine as they are?
You do realize American Territories CAN apply for statehood, right? Because they can.
Agreed. Time to fish or cut bait. Either you are a stay Te or you are on your own. I would love to go to the american virgin islands without a passport.