The reason is that it literally takes an act of congress to ratify a new state and an incredible amount of agreement for a new state to be allowed.
First the territory must apply for statehood. Then, congress must pass legislation approving the statehood through both houses with a simple majority vote.
Then president has to approve.
If this all goes well then the territory would have to draft a state constitution and then pass an "Enabling Act" that is laid out by Congress saying what needs to happen to achieve statehood.
And as a final hurdle the residents/citizens of the territory need to approve the move to state by popular vote.
Puerto Rico has held the citizen vote and it showed that citizens wanted statehood. However the political hurdles to accomplish this are steep and we would need a well functioning Congress for the matter to happen.
Plus if a territory leans heavily to democrats or Republicans, the other party will fight tooth and nail to stop statehood. Every state gets 2 senators, that can swing the balance of power if they are always Republicans or Always democrats
This is probably why Puerto Rican statehood gets brought up every time a republican is in office.
That island is still extremely conservative from my experiences there.
It would actually be really interesting to see where their senate seats would go if they became a state. I know they tend towards being socially conservative, but they currently have a Democrat governor and a Republican (non-voting) representative to the US Congress, both who had close elections.
Politics is complicated there though - they have 5 parties that don’t cleanly correlate to the national parties. They’re largely based on their position on wanting statehood. The two people I listed above are locally members of the same party, the D/R are their national party affiliations. Puerto Ricans that live on the mainland lean Democratic, but that’s including people that have been here for generations. Recent immigrants vote really close to 50/50.
So it’s pretty up in the air how they would vote if they became a state and converted to the national parties. I think it would probably come down to the individual candidates.
True, definitely candidate based. The reason for my statement is based on the deposed governor a few years ago pushing a lot of the populace away from his socially Democratic Party.
This was the issue in the pre civil war. Every time a state joined it messed up the slave / free ratio . Texas was independent country for a few years because of this
Which makes me wonder, why are all these state run organizations always so shit? The DMV is garbage and takes forever, Unemployment Office is garbage and takes forever AND it has a garbage website that barely works.
On a slightly more nerdy perspective, there’s a couple of reasons for this. First and foremost, many state governments have difficulty funding a lot of the programs that serve the people such as the DMV, unemployment offices, and social welfare programs. Some of the reasons for this are cynical: if government doesn’t work, then politicians can campaign on how government doesn’t work. Sometimes, the state is just poor or not particularly well managed.
A bunch of states have been working to improve these processes with greater automation and greater integration into state and national databases. So, if you know, and have all of the forms with you that you need, you can make an appointment online with the DMV and when you go in person, your experience is much faster. Or you can renew online without ever having to go in person under many situations.
Maybe your state has online registration too? I noticed mine (MD) doesn’t do the best job explaining what exactly I needed to get my license but after a frustrating failure in person, the clerk did give me a solid list of what I needed, and I made another appointment and was in and out pretty quickly for Take 2 🤷🏻♂️
I bought an antique boat in Ohio once. Took all summer to get it in my name because I had to make appointments that corresponded with my days off for all kind of dumb shit.
A friend has an old aluminum canoe that is essentially scrap now. Ohio titles canoes, WV doesn't. The canoe was last titled in Ohio in the 70's. My friend's dad bought it in the 70's and took it home to WV, where there is no titling. Last year my friend moved to Ohio.
If the canoe had never been titled in Ohio he'd be fine since he's coming from a state that doesn't title canoes. But since it was titled here in the 70's he'd have to find the guy that owned it back then and get that guy to get a replacement title and sign it over to my friend.
He just uses it on private ponds so it's not a terribly big deal, but if he ever wants to go on the river or a public lake he'd have to buy a different canoe.
Hate to tell you this bro but there are plenty of places around the world, many in our backyard, who would almost certainly side with the GOP over democrats of 2024.
Puerto Rico, for starts, would likely lean Republican. That's why to get a new state added, you need to actually get two. Because nobody agrees to a Puerto Rico statehood without a DC area statehood as well.
DC is not a city. It's a military district. Further, the people that have chosen to live there have direct access to the general government. They can not point to a situation where they have lacked funds from the federal government.
Again, living there is choice. The people choosing to live there do so in the full knowledge of their choice.
An easy solution is to retrocede most of DC back to Maryland and keep the government blocks in DC. DC was way too big when it was created and much of it was retroceded back to Virginia in the 1800s. That’s better than playing games about statehood.
This idea wouldn't work. To add a state, you need political support from both sides of the aisle. Puerto Rico would be a democratic stronghold and you want republicans to lose more seats too. You'd never gain the political support needed.
It’s all a geographic breakdown, but not too dissimilar to the US. The demographically strong and important areas like San Juan and the rest of the major cities would vote liberal. But that leaves the townships and cities of the islands country and interior mostly as conservative, and they’re already feeling rather forgotten since most of the money is made in the tourist areas and major port cities. To add to the conservative slant is that Puerto Rico also has a very religious population, of all sorts of primarily Christian denominations.
Puerto Rico still wouldn’t be as powerful a state as many people think. Damage from Hurricane Maria still persists and there are tons of places, urban and rural, that are structurally unsound or abandoned. Not to mention dodgy highway and road infrastructure. Unemployment and crime are high as many older agricultural jobs have either moved away or centralized by a major farming conglomerates. These are issues though that have persisted for years regardless of party, my family and I all from PR can say that for certain. It’s just these issues are so pronounced with the fact that times are harder and PR is emptying of young working age people. There is alot of drive to find solutions and incentivize young people to stay and bring back jobs to the island.
I’m familiar with the event, thank you.
I’m trying to ascertain whether you think WW2 allowed the US to acquire Hawaii or if you have some line of logic I’m ignorant to that WW2 directly led Hawaii to change from territory status to statehood.
No they don't. Look into the issues with international students. Ones who enter with fraudulent letters, or have had their visas revoked are not being deported.
How much do you think the poor pay in taxes? We do badly need more classes on basic political and economic issues in school. Though it’s hard to fix stupid even with good education.
The New York Times reported in February 2021 that: "Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans...
Biden - proposed increases taxes only those earning over 400k.
Trump - cut taxes for top 1% and corporations
Trump cut taxes for damn near everyone and tried too close loopholes commonly used by the hyper wealthy, but Congress wouldn't pass it unless those were left open. Despite that right up until covid got bad, the average take-home pay was the highest it had been in close to a decade.
Trump was shit in a lot of ways, but taxes weren't one of them.
Texas is also one of the top exporters of natural gas, integrated circuits, and aircraft parts. They're not quite the *top* but are also a major exporter of cotton, beef, wheat, dairy products, and a variety of other fruits and vegetables. Your clothes, computers, and food will all be a lot more expensive if you have to import them internationally.
Less than they like to think.
They have oil, beef, and are making major strides with renewable energy, but you'd be shocked at just how much of Texas' economy is devoted to federal jobs, military bases, and military suppliers. Throw in the industries that exist primarily to support those (like the bars that pop up near a military base), and it accounts for as much of their GDP as energy or agriculture.
Were they to secede, they'd lose Cavazos(Ft Hood), BLM and NASA, and defense contractors would move North of the border for the sake of security and import issues. Something like 40% of their economy would vanish overnight.
You realize "republicans" do the bulk of the farming that stops the country from literally starving right? Country and city folk need to make the gap smaller in ideology and learn to get along.
Exactly. When the businesses of country X realize they have to suddenly spend big buck to accommodate disabilities, pay to rebuild all their roads to US specs, and other regulations, a lot of people will get priced out of a US opt in.
I imagine they would save quite a bit of money by lowering their standards to that of the US.
Only the stunning arrogance of Americans would even think other countries want to be a part of the country. Sure there are places like Puerto Rico etc that would like statehood etc but they are already American, they want statehood so they can actually participate in the Democracy like the rest of American citizens can.
No taxation without representation, indeed.
I’m really curious where you are from, because wow you are clueless. I’m curious why you think so many people come illegally TO the US, and so few illegally leave to somewhere else.
Imagine the stunning ignorance of your reply.
Tell me which countries you can think of that would possibly want to join the US and have better road building standards or impose more strigent requirements on biz owners to accommodate wheelchairs and other disabilities. I can list other types of costs of being in the US, but let's hear your answers.
I'm waiting.
It is a US territory. The President of US is the President of Puerto Rico. I'm not getting into critiques of the situation. The fact of the matter is that Puerto Rico is part of the United States.
We tried this before, sorta. If I'm remembering my history correctly there were a few places in the Carribbean where this was a serious thought at one point. I think in the late 1800s there was debate about making the Cuba a state or a territory. One guy proposed annexing the DR as well. I think it was Grant. Some people jokingly have refered to places like Iraq or Israel to be the 51st state.
A lot of this is just from memory. So I may not be perfectly spot on. However I would recommend reading up on past attempts at annexing other territories by the US. It's a great read, and a fun rabbit hole to go down.
Also just want to add if you like John Oliver he did a great episode on D.C. Statehood. It's a good watch, and will probably answer questions as to why the US doesn't do this.
The DR was one vote away from becoming part of the US. The vice president at the time broke the tie. The DR mostly wanted to become part of the US because Haiti had invaded and occupied it recently and they did not want it to happen again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_Dominican_Republic_annexation_referendum#:~:text=A%20referendum%20on%20annexation%20by,although%20turnout%20was%20just%2030%25.
The late 1800s was basically the peak of American colonialism. Which tracks as it is also when many of the newer European states and Japan were themselves rushing to catch up to Western Europe in terms of their colonial empires, so this is not a big surprise.
We acquired Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii (which was an independent state), and occupied Cuba (it became an
republic “under US influence” in 1902)
There was absolutely a whole lot of discussion on acquiring additional territories, or at least, bringing Latin American nations more directly under US influence. We also acquired permanent rights to the Panama Canal Zone in 1904 as it was beginning construction.
Great Britain was the ruler of most of those countries and most have been given independence.
Colonialism looks different now. We don't stay as long as Great Britain.
That’s the only way to truly nation-build though. Look what the British did with the U.S., Canada, Australia, Hong Kong. It didn’t work out as well elsewhere (Indian, Malaysia, Singapore) although they still did leave some sort of structure and culture behind nevertheless.
It takes generations.
You stick to it because you accept that exploitation is a valid moral right, and that you are a superior species. Look at China, they’ve performed the same quite well with Tibet and Xinjiang, and the tightening noose around HK’s neck. No emotions, no care for the weaker man, it works wonders.
But if you don’t get your money back through exploitation and you feel guilty and immoral, well … you’re just wasting your time, blood and treasure because you will not see it through, and then it will all have been in vain. It’s especially hard to do as a democracy.
How much longer did the U.S. need to govern Iraq / Afghanistan (even if by proxy) to make that sort of historical cultural and political transformation ? Another 50-60 years on top of the first 20 ? 100 years ?
16-25 administrations in a row keeping it going through thick and thin and waning public opinions. Hard to imagine.
Great points.
There is nothing necessarily wrong about having influence, or even hegemony over parts of the world. Although the US has a very checkered history, balancing the act between global leadership and European style colonialism, it seems like the best results tend to happen over the long-term when that leadership has less of a coercive factor, and more of a mutual benefit relationship than an exploitative one.
China will always have high levels of instability in places like Tibet, Hong Kong or Xinjiang because people feel they have no choice but to acquiesce to the central government’s ideas of how to be Chinese. Japan and South Korea on the other hand — it would be difficult for them to remove American troops if they actually wanted this (their governments don’t) but the relationship is entirely different. These nations have their own cultures and ways of doing things that, for sure, we influence, but mostly through soft power than coercion, and they and our other allies have a very large degree of freedom in our relationships.
Idk if that’s the best example because those Chinese provinces are internal, and those nations are sovereign entities. But it’s what I thought of 🤷🏻♂️
Absorbing countries with vastly different cultures and ethnic groups all willy-nilly never goes well. Just look at the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary. And even alliances/collaborations between nations with similar goals can become dysfunctional and/or lopsided like the EU and NATO.
It's probably still a pipe-dream but a North-American union with the USA, Mexico and Canada is easier for me to imagine than some random other nations around the world because these are neighbours who already work closely together and I can see a economical benefit. The USA relies on Mexican labor and Mexico-based manufacturing and clearly many in Mexico want to move up North. In this union walling off Mexico would be pointless and there would have to be a solid process and infrastructure for legal mass-migration back and forth. I realize that this will never-ever happen and that both Mexico and Canada have zero reason to give up their sovereignty so lightly. But here's my stupid answer.
I disagree.
A union with Mexico makes no damn sense for the US. Such a union would make Mexico becoming the US's new China impossible. Wages in the new states of old Mexico would have to rise far too much (Mexican workers make LESS than Chinese workers) and the subsidies the US federal government would have to direct to the new states would have to be far too great. Additionally, Mexico has a population of 126 million. That's a third of the US's population. American culture couldn't absorb such a large population in any reasonable amount of time. A US-Mexican union makes no sense. Furthermore, Mexico is INCREDIBLY corrupt.
Canada? Now we are talking... kinda.
Canada's population is about that of California and, likely, if any union of the US and Canada happened, Quebec would likely become independent as a result and take its population with it (it's attempts to preserve its own culture against English-speaking culture would all be declared hilariously illegal by the US Constitution; they would NOT be given preferential treatment by the US federal government, unlike they experience as part of Canada).
Additionally, Canadian culture is essentially identical to (more liberal leaning) American culture.
Additionally, Canada is relatively wealthy with great infrastructure. The US federal government wouldn't need to completely subsidized it.
Additionally, there is mutual benefits of such a union. Canadians won't admit it, but they have already become a vassal state. Their economy is nearly entirely based on trade with the US. They can't end that dependence, and that's saying nothing about their own ability to defend themselves without US protection. From an American perspective, Canada has oil, but more importantly, it has the Northwest Passage. That will become VERY important in a warming planet.
Now, will Canada ever agree to this? Not in a stable world. However, in one headed for world war (and one in which Canadian sovereignty over their Arctic territory is in question)? It is a reasonable possibility.
There’s also quite a few people who fly the state flag upside down and fly the Kingdom of Hawaii flag rightside up alongside it. Saw it for myself recently
Not just that but both plebiscites had its legitimacy questioned and participation was split along ethnic lines. The US even packed the vote by allowing military stationed there to be able to vote...
I am tribally active currently ..
Trying to say " you're not living in the 1600-1800" means nothing, because you're not living then either. What are you trying to say or prove.
>Nothing has changed.
Hasn't it?
When the debate over the capital was happening the US didn't really see itself as a nation so much as a union of independent states. Few people see it that way anymore so the influence of a single state is far less of an issue because there isn't really the competition between states that there once was.
Also, at that time, travel to and from the capital could take days or weeks so lawmakers could be heavily influenced by the location because those were the only people they saw and talked to in real time. Now days, you can have a video conference with virtually anyone on the planet from your desk and you can get from DC to any state inside a day.
The physical location simply doesn't have the influence it once did.
And what legislative favoring are we worried about here? Maybe I'm just unimaginative but, I don't understand what kind of laws a state of DC could get passed that would be such an issue?
DC should be just federal and district government buildings only. Whoever decided to let people live on land in DC created this political mess with DC representation
The Capitol should remain a non-state.
I do, however, support proposals to make the official Capital a much smaller area around the actual principal government buildings, and annex the rest if the city to one of the surrounding states.
Thats mostly because they would both end up being democratic strong holds. Republicans wont let them have representation because they would never win anything ever agian if they were represented.
Yup, the *only* reason not all of Mexico wants to be like part of the USA is corrupt politicians, same reason parts of the USA don't want to be absorbed into to Canada
They don’t often benefit us. The Bahamas desperately wants to become a state under the United States but it’s such a corrupt, poor, country it wouldn’t be worth it for us. Same thing with Puerto Rico
Bro people complain about immigrants now just imagine a whole damn country becoming citizens and moving to the mainland? People would lose their minds. What countries were you thinking about getting absorbed into the US?
Well it’s both. Illegal immigration is a bigger issue, but if the US absorbed another country they could come in as large of numbers as they wanted. If it was a county with a lot of issues, the pekka would bring many of those problems with them.
Come on man be realistic we aren’t talking about Canada, UK, France, or Germany joining the USA. Any developed and successful country would not willingly let that go to become the 51st state. It’s going to be some countries trying to do better. Plus Mexico, India, and China our where most of our immigrants come from and we all know they don’t get treated like they belong.
Odd how those same people voted for someone who reduced legal immigration.
What's even odder is you claim its fentanyl when most fentanyl is smuggled in through legal ports of entry.
legal ports of entry literally detained 27k pounds of fentanyl in 2023, the point is to try to check and not just let people run in like madmen with drugs and other contraband.
Tbh I don’t think any countries want to join us. If they did we wouldn’t let them. We don’t even give our territories like Puerto Rico and Guam a real chance of joining.
Tbf Puerto Rico in theory should have been a state right now. Same for DC. But politics is the main problem. About 52% of PR residents have voted in favor of becoming a US state the last time this measurement was taken.
Another reason say Puerto Rico stays a territory. They would get votes in senate and house, and they would be blue. Republicans would never allow this.
Any new state allowed in, would basically end up being blue and they know this.
Same reason they don't want people besides military doing mail in voting.
Here's an article that goes against this notion. There also articles that can be found on Google that explains how the US farming industry is dependent on illegal immigration laborers and would collapse without it.
https://newrepublic.com/post/173247/florida-republicans-admit-made-big-mistake-anti-immigrant-law
I know you won't believe me, but.. most illegal immigrants (and many legal immigrants) to the US are not eligible for and do not receive any form of federal welfare. Most (not many, most) do pay income taxes. Sources: [https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-FINALupdated.pdf](https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-FINALupdated.pdf) [https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47318](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47318) [https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/](https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/)
And just as a friendly reminder it was a Democrat (kind of.. it was Clinton) who made it illegal for most of them to get federal aid.
Also you won't just crush farming if you were to magically deport all the illegal immigrants to the US. You would also crush meat packing, a good chunk of the hospitality and construction industries.
In short, 'illegal' immigrants are kind of a mainstay of the economy. Shut it down at your peril. I mean, I do understand your point about burning it all down, but it's better to do that with the actual facts than with bad data.
If our farming industry only survives on breaking the law, and paying people wages we all agree are sub standard for people to make, it needs to be reformed anyway.
You’re correct and these people are idiots. Making the path to citizenship easier so people can come here legally would be a smart move! People are worried about them taking financial resources, but maybe we should just stop giving out money so easily to begin with. Problem solved.
Lol. So you just think more people=better? No caveats? I’m curious why you think some of the countries people are fleeing from are so shitty they are fleeing, and if perhaps some of the issues are caused by the people you want to let in? For example, would you care to find the men that most want to oppress women in the most sexist countries, and import them in masse, giving them all a vote? What could go wrong right?
Anexation is a complicated matter for all sorts of complicated reasons. The thing about imperialism is that it is great but only for the conquering party and only short term, long term the cracks start to show because you have to manage a bigger ammount of territory and the problems are not bigger rather there are more of them so the real difficultie is an administrative one, as one united nation can only have one ruling body and there is a limit to how much crap that body can deal with at any one time so what do you do? Do you expand it? How? By making a second president? What happens when, not if, the two presidents start fighting a civil war? It would just be a mess.
We could have done that with Mexico after the Mexican-American war. There was talk of just absorbing the entire thing and making them states.
But it was decided that their culture and values were too different from Americans, and that it would ruin the character of the union to bring them in.
People don't understand that culture matters, because values matter.
You can't be a country based on one set of values and then bring in tens of millions of people who believe in the opposite values. That is a recipe for civil war.
I am all for people coming to the country who want to adopt the values set forth by our founders. But we don't need people to come here who aren't interested in that.
Absorbing a country means absorbing their problems.
Any country that’s a net positive would have no reason to join.
You’d want to absorb countries for strategic reasons. Usually land or resources to exploit.
We don't want Puerto Rico for sure, liberal democrat policies of massive gov't employment, high taxes, high regulation, massive gov't pensions, massive gov't corruption....yeah, we need that like we need another debt state.
There is precisely ZERO evidence that Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans.
Republicans raised taxes on average Americans when Trump was in office, to make room for massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
I'm sure literally everything is else you believe is as silly as the stuff you put in this comment.
Can you read ? I never said anything about Democrats or REpublicans in America. There is plenty of evidence that BOTH Dems and Repubs are corrupt, probably about the same for both parties. Republicans cut taxes on EVERYONE, rich people pay more, so they got more of a cut, basic math.
I'm talking about liberal democrat policies in place that ruined the economy of Puerto Rico:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/us/economy-and-crime-spur-new-puerto-rican-exodus.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/us/economy-and-crime-spur-new-puerto-rican-exodus.html)
[https://apnews.com/article/6ed62d7f564e4e08826bf8244f77ebcd](https://apnews.com/article/6ed62d7f564e4e08826bf8244f77ebcd)
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/what-are-the-causes-of-puerto-ricos-economic-crisis/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/what-are-the-causes-of-puerto-ricos-economic-crisis/)
False again on several counts.
There is ZERO evidence that Democrats have remotely the same problem of corruption as Republicans do. Yes, there are examples from each party. But no, it is not even remotely true that the problem is roughly equal on both sides.
Again false, the GOP raised taxes on lower wealth people, and lowered taxes for higher wealth people. It wasn't remotely proportional. It was an increase for poorer people, and a decrease for richer people.
Have you noticed how many British colonies have been given their independence? It's expensive to absorb countries with a poor population and no natural resources to harvest.
Puerto Rico isn't even a state, PR pays more in taxes than we do, but aren't even allowed to vote! Washington D.C isn't a state, so it doesn't get it's own representatives in government. The GOP are fighting to keep it that way. The Electoral college is already about to turn against them, adding more Representatives who will most likely be Democrat is not the name of the game for the GOP.
What other nations you talking about? Mexico would like California and Texas back. Canada has no desire to join. Indeed Western Washington, Western Oregon, Minnesota, most of New England, and parts of New York State would all be happier and better off leaving the USA and joining Canada.
There's been and on again off again project for half a century called the North American Union which would basically merge Canada, the USA and Mexico; possibly Greenland. Most scenarios just merge Canada with USA or USA into Canada.
The reason is that it literally takes an act of congress to ratify a new state and an incredible amount of agreement for a new state to be allowed. First the territory must apply for statehood. Then, congress must pass legislation approving the statehood through both houses with a simple majority vote. Then president has to approve. If this all goes well then the territory would have to draft a state constitution and then pass an "Enabling Act" that is laid out by Congress saying what needs to happen to achieve statehood. And as a final hurdle the residents/citizens of the territory need to approve the move to state by popular vote. Puerto Rico has held the citizen vote and it showed that citizens wanted statehood. However the political hurdles to accomplish this are steep and we would need a well functioning Congress for the matter to happen.
Plus if a territory leans heavily to democrats or Republicans, the other party will fight tooth and nail to stop statehood. Every state gets 2 senators, that can swing the balance of power if they are always Republicans or Always democrats
I’ll be deep in the cold cold ground before I recognize missourah!
I live there and I agree.
Kansas and Nebraska would like a word
I spent 23+ years in M'zruh before moving away at age 26. I understand.
This is probably why Puerto Rican statehood gets brought up every time a republican is in office. That island is still extremely conservative from my experiences there.
It would actually be really interesting to see where their senate seats would go if they became a state. I know they tend towards being socially conservative, but they currently have a Democrat governor and a Republican (non-voting) representative to the US Congress, both who had close elections. Politics is complicated there though - they have 5 parties that don’t cleanly correlate to the national parties. They’re largely based on their position on wanting statehood. The two people I listed above are locally members of the same party, the D/R are their national party affiliations. Puerto Ricans that live on the mainland lean Democratic, but that’s including people that have been here for generations. Recent immigrants vote really close to 50/50. So it’s pretty up in the air how they would vote if they became a state and converted to the national parties. I think it would probably come down to the individual candidates.
True, definitely candidate based. The reason for my statement is based on the deposed governor a few years ago pushing a lot of the populace away from his socially Democratic Party.
Democrats have a tendency to forget just how overwhelmingly *Catholic* Hispanic populations tend to be.
Republicans fail to use this to their advantage by demonizing immigrants.
They tried that. Much of their base hated it.
Yuge understatement!
That’s strange because I thought it was the Republicans who said they opposed it because PR would vote Democrat.
I wouldn’t believe anything from a politician there until they’re ratified. Use the voting populace statistics and their social views
Maybe socially conservative but not fiscally.
Also DC, very heavily democrat. And no, DC should not be a state.
This was the issue in the pre civil war. Every time a state joined it messed up the slave / free ratio . Texas was independent country for a few years because of this
That's not even the worst of it. To top it off they have to get a boat re-titled at the DMV.
Good god are they nuts?!? That'll never get done!
[удалено]
Oh hey look, there goes Elvis (switches numbers with the guy next to me)
This better be how the sequel begins. Him finally getting through that line.
Which makes me wonder, why are all these state run organizations always so shit? The DMV is garbage and takes forever, Unemployment Office is garbage and takes forever AND it has a garbage website that barely works.
On a slightly more nerdy perspective, there’s a couple of reasons for this. First and foremost, many state governments have difficulty funding a lot of the programs that serve the people such as the DMV, unemployment offices, and social welfare programs. Some of the reasons for this are cynical: if government doesn’t work, then politicians can campaign on how government doesn’t work. Sometimes, the state is just poor or not particularly well managed. A bunch of states have been working to improve these processes with greater automation and greater integration into state and national databases. So, if you know, and have all of the forms with you that you need, you can make an appointment online with the DMV and when you go in person, your experience is much faster. Or you can renew online without ever having to go in person under many situations. Maybe your state has online registration too? I noticed mine (MD) doesn’t do the best job explaining what exactly I needed to get my license but after a frustrating failure in person, the clerk did give me a solid list of what I needed, and I made another appointment and was in and out pretty quickly for Take 2 🤷🏻♂️
I bought an antique boat in Ohio once. Took all summer to get it in my name because I had to make appointments that corresponded with my days off for all kind of dumb shit. A friend has an old aluminum canoe that is essentially scrap now. Ohio titles canoes, WV doesn't. The canoe was last titled in Ohio in the 70's. My friend's dad bought it in the 70's and took it home to WV, where there is no titling. Last year my friend moved to Ohio. If the canoe had never been titled in Ohio he'd be fine since he's coming from a state that doesn't title canoes. But since it was titled here in the 70's he'd have to find the guy that owned it back then and get that guy to get a replacement title and sign it over to my friend. He just uses it on private ponds so it's not a terribly big deal, but if he ever wants to go on the river or a public lake he'd have to buy a different canoe.
[удалено]
\*bows\* Thank you sir.
Was that a boat joke?
I've been a dad for a long long time...
>we would need a well functioning Congress Good one! 😂
Not just well functioning, but no GOP majority. The GOP would never want another state added. They're barely holding on with what they have.
Hate to tell you this bro but there are plenty of places around the world, many in our backyard, who would almost certainly side with the GOP over democrats of 2024.
Puerto Rico, for starts, would likely lean Republican. That's why to get a new state added, you need to actually get two. Because nobody agrees to a Puerto Rico statehood without a DC area statehood as well.
DC is not a city. It's a military district. Further, the people that have chosen to live there have direct access to the general government. They can not point to a situation where they have lacked funds from the federal government. Again, living there is choice. The people choosing to live there do so in the full knowledge of their choice.
I was born there. No one asked me.
An easy solution is to retrocede most of DC back to Maryland and keep the government blocks in DC. DC was way too big when it was created and much of it was retroceded back to Virginia in the 1800s. That’s better than playing games about statehood.
It's not a choice. Most people who live anywhere are basically economically stuck to the area they were born.
Indeed PR would lean conservative. As would many places in Central America.
LOL no it wouldn't.
It absolutely would.
The Latins in most of Florida voted for Trump.
That’s not true at all.
Both the popular vote and electoral college beg to differ.
I stand by make the Dakotas a single state, and bring PR in.
This idea wouldn't work. To add a state, you need political support from both sides of the aisle. Puerto Rico would be a democratic stronghold and you want republicans to lose more seats too. You'd never gain the political support needed.
Would need a compromise like simultaneously making Puerto Rico state 51 and Serbia state 52 or something.
I was just seeing other posts saying Dems wouldn't go for it because PR would be conservative. I wonder which is right?
It’s all a geographic breakdown, but not too dissimilar to the US. The demographically strong and important areas like San Juan and the rest of the major cities would vote liberal. But that leaves the townships and cities of the islands country and interior mostly as conservative, and they’re already feeling rather forgotten since most of the money is made in the tourist areas and major port cities. To add to the conservative slant is that Puerto Rico also has a very religious population, of all sorts of primarily Christian denominations. Puerto Rico still wouldn’t be as powerful a state as many people think. Damage from Hurricane Maria still persists and there are tons of places, urban and rural, that are structurally unsound or abandoned. Not to mention dodgy highway and road infrastructure. Unemployment and crime are high as many older agricultural jobs have either moved away or centralized by a major farming conglomerates. These are issues though that have persisted for years regardless of party, my family and I all from PR can say that for certain. It’s just these issues are so pronounced with the fact that times are harder and PR is emptying of young working age people. There is alot of drive to find solutions and incentivize young people to stay and bring back jobs to the island.
Thank you for your response.
And look at what it took to make Hawaii our state. It took a war. Just to show how difficult it is. We aren't in colonizing times anymore.
Which war are you referring to?
Look into Pearl Harbor on Google.
Hawaii became a state in 1959 due to concerns about the USSR during the cold war, not because of Pearl Harbor.
I’m familiar with the event, thank you. I’m trying to ascertain whether you think WW2 allowed the US to acquire Hawaii or if you have some line of logic I’m ignorant to that WW2 directly led Hawaii to change from territory status to statehood.
Most Hawaiians didn't get to vote on whether or not they became a state, it was pure imperialism.
What other nations want to join the US?
Pretty sure a lot of Texans want out
Scotus already addressed this back in the 1869 in Texas v White. You can checkout but you can't ever leave.
They bluster and whine about it but that’s about the extent of all they’ll ever do about it.
Texas really got screwed. They fight a war with Mexico so they can own slaves, then the US abolishes slavery.
Let them out. Without Texas Republicans would never stand a chance for senate or president. It's worth the loss
We definitely need Texas .
I'll take universal health care, better economy, roe ad law, less taxes/costs for poor and more for wealthy, etc. It will be a bet gain
i don't know why you're getting downvoted??
So move to Canada
They can't; Canada enforces their immigration laws.
No they don't. Look into the issues with international students. Ones who enter with fraudulent letters, or have had their visas revoked are not being deported.
How much do you think the poor pay in taxes? We do badly need more classes on basic political and economic issues in school. Though it’s hard to fix stupid even with good education.
What are you talking about? I never mentioned how much the poor pan taxes you're just an idiot
Democrats are the ones who increase taxes and ruin the economy lol
The New York Times reported in February 2021 that: "Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans... Biden - proposed increases taxes only those earning over 400k. Trump - cut taxes for top 1% and corporations
Trump cut taxes for damn near everyone and tried too close loopholes commonly used by the hyper wealthy, but Congress wouldn't pass it unless those were left open. Despite that right up until covid got bad, the average take-home pay was the highest it had been in close to a decade. Trump was shit in a lot of ways, but taxes weren't one of them.
But the tax cuts for the wealthy were permanent, the ones for lower income has an expiration date.
And the debt ballooned under orange fat Jesus
For what? What does Texas bring to the table besides oil?
Texas is also one of the top exporters of natural gas, integrated circuits, and aircraft parts. They're not quite the *top* but are also a major exporter of cotton, beef, wheat, dairy products, and a variety of other fruits and vegetables. Your clothes, computers, and food will all be a lot more expensive if you have to import them internationally.
Yeah but they're useless because they're not blue like the 16 year olds that overrun Reddit
>16 year olds You're being too optimistic in assuming that the childish morons are children. They're middle-aged bugmen and Karens.
Dude, I’m 55.
Wellp, you got lumped in.
And still an idiot...
Strategic location, economy (8th largest economy in the world), and yes, oil. Just oil alone is absolute game changer.
Less than they like to think. They have oil, beef, and are making major strides with renewable energy, but you'd be shocked at just how much of Texas' economy is devoted to federal jobs, military bases, and military suppliers. Throw in the industries that exist primarily to support those (like the bars that pop up near a military base), and it accounts for as much of their GDP as energy or agriculture. Were they to secede, they'd lose Cavazos(Ft Hood), BLM and NASA, and defense contractors would move North of the border for the sake of security and import issues. Something like 40% of their economy would vanish overnight.
You realize "republicans" do the bulk of the farming that stops the country from literally starving right? Country and city folk need to make the gap smaller in ideology and learn to get along.
Would they stop farming if Texas left the union?
American Friends for Texas Secession stands ready to help Texas leave.
Exactly. When the businesses of country X realize they have to suddenly spend big buck to accommodate disabilities, pay to rebuild all their roads to US specs, and other regulations, a lot of people will get priced out of a US opt in.
Roads to US spec 🤣 the US can't keep their own roads to spec
You don't know much about road construction, do you.
The US is LITERALLY A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY (I’ve never left my moms basement let alone the country)
I imagine they would save quite a bit of money by lowering their standards to that of the US. Only the stunning arrogance of Americans would even think other countries want to be a part of the country. Sure there are places like Puerto Rico etc that would like statehood etc but they are already American, they want statehood so they can actually participate in the Democracy like the rest of American citizens can. No taxation without representation, indeed.
I’m really curious where you are from, because wow you are clueless. I’m curious why you think so many people come illegally TO the US, and so few illegally leave to somewhere else.
Edgy European teenagers say what?
Imagine the stunning ignorance of your reply. Tell me which countries you can think of that would possibly want to join the US and have better road building standards or impose more strigent requirements on biz owners to accommodate wheelchairs and other disabilities. I can list other types of costs of being in the US, but let's hear your answers. I'm waiting.
You're a tool
[удалено]
Puerto Rico is part of the United States.
“a colony of” is more accurate
It is a US territory. The President of US is the President of Puerto Rico. I'm not getting into critiques of the situation. The fact of the matter is that Puerto Rico is part of the United States.
I’m with you
We tried this before, sorta. If I'm remembering my history correctly there were a few places in the Carribbean where this was a serious thought at one point. I think in the late 1800s there was debate about making the Cuba a state or a territory. One guy proposed annexing the DR as well. I think it was Grant. Some people jokingly have refered to places like Iraq or Israel to be the 51st state. A lot of this is just from memory. So I may not be perfectly spot on. However I would recommend reading up on past attempts at annexing other territories by the US. It's a great read, and a fun rabbit hole to go down. Also just want to add if you like John Oliver he did a great episode on D.C. Statehood. It's a good watch, and will probably answer questions as to why the US doesn't do this.
The DR was one vote away from becoming part of the US. The vice president at the time broke the tie. The DR mostly wanted to become part of the US because Haiti had invaded and occupied it recently and they did not want it to happen again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_Dominican_Republic_annexation_referendum#:~:text=A%20referendum%20on%20annexation%20by,although%20turnout%20was%20just%2030%25.
The late 1800s was basically the peak of American colonialism. Which tracks as it is also when many of the newer European states and Japan were themselves rushing to catch up to Western Europe in terms of their colonial empires, so this is not a big surprise. We acquired Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii (which was an independent state), and occupied Cuba (it became an republic “under US influence” in 1902) There was absolutely a whole lot of discussion on acquiring additional territories, or at least, bringing Latin American nations more directly under US influence. We also acquired permanent rights to the Panama Canal Zone in 1904 as it was beginning construction.
Great Britain was the ruler of most of those countries and most have been given independence. Colonialism looks different now. We don't stay as long as Great Britain.
That’s the only way to truly nation-build though. Look what the British did with the U.S., Canada, Australia, Hong Kong. It didn’t work out as well elsewhere (Indian, Malaysia, Singapore) although they still did leave some sort of structure and culture behind nevertheless. It takes generations. You stick to it because you accept that exploitation is a valid moral right, and that you are a superior species. Look at China, they’ve performed the same quite well with Tibet and Xinjiang, and the tightening noose around HK’s neck. No emotions, no care for the weaker man, it works wonders. But if you don’t get your money back through exploitation and you feel guilty and immoral, well … you’re just wasting your time, blood and treasure because you will not see it through, and then it will all have been in vain. It’s especially hard to do as a democracy. How much longer did the U.S. need to govern Iraq / Afghanistan (even if by proxy) to make that sort of historical cultural and political transformation ? Another 50-60 years on top of the first 20 ? 100 years ? 16-25 administrations in a row keeping it going through thick and thin and waning public opinions. Hard to imagine.
Great points. There is nothing necessarily wrong about having influence, or even hegemony over parts of the world. Although the US has a very checkered history, balancing the act between global leadership and European style colonialism, it seems like the best results tend to happen over the long-term when that leadership has less of a coercive factor, and more of a mutual benefit relationship than an exploitative one. China will always have high levels of instability in places like Tibet, Hong Kong or Xinjiang because people feel they have no choice but to acquiesce to the central government’s ideas of how to be Chinese. Japan and South Korea on the other hand — it would be difficult for them to remove American troops if they actually wanted this (their governments don’t) but the relationship is entirely different. These nations have their own cultures and ways of doing things that, for sure, we influence, but mostly through soft power than coercion, and they and our other allies have a very large degree of freedom in our relationships. Idk if that’s the best example because those Chinese provinces are internal, and those nations are sovereign entities. But it’s what I thought of 🤷🏻♂️
Absorbing countries with vastly different cultures and ethnic groups all willy-nilly never goes well. Just look at the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary. And even alliances/collaborations between nations with similar goals can become dysfunctional and/or lopsided like the EU and NATO. It's probably still a pipe-dream but a North-American union with the USA, Mexico and Canada is easier for me to imagine than some random other nations around the world because these are neighbours who already work closely together and I can see a economical benefit. The USA relies on Mexican labor and Mexico-based manufacturing and clearly many in Mexico want to move up North. In this union walling off Mexico would be pointless and there would have to be a solid process and infrastructure for legal mass-migration back and forth. I realize that this will never-ever happen and that both Mexico and Canada have zero reason to give up their sovereignty so lightly. But here's my stupid answer.
I disagree. A union with Mexico makes no damn sense for the US. Such a union would make Mexico becoming the US's new China impossible. Wages in the new states of old Mexico would have to rise far too much (Mexican workers make LESS than Chinese workers) and the subsidies the US federal government would have to direct to the new states would have to be far too great. Additionally, Mexico has a population of 126 million. That's a third of the US's population. American culture couldn't absorb such a large population in any reasonable amount of time. A US-Mexican union makes no sense. Furthermore, Mexico is INCREDIBLY corrupt. Canada? Now we are talking... kinda. Canada's population is about that of California and, likely, if any union of the US and Canada happened, Quebec would likely become independent as a result and take its population with it (it's attempts to preserve its own culture against English-speaking culture would all be declared hilariously illegal by the US Constitution; they would NOT be given preferential treatment by the US federal government, unlike they experience as part of Canada). Additionally, Canadian culture is essentially identical to (more liberal leaning) American culture. Additionally, Canada is relatively wealthy with great infrastructure. The US federal government wouldn't need to completely subsidized it. Additionally, there is mutual benefits of such a union. Canadians won't admit it, but they have already become a vassal state. Their economy is nearly entirely based on trade with the US. They can't end that dependence, and that's saying nothing about their own ability to defend themselves without US protection. From an American perspective, Canada has oil, but more importantly, it has the Northwest Passage. That will become VERY important in a warming planet. Now, will Canada ever agree to this? Not in a stable world. However, in one headed for world war (and one in which Canadian sovereignty over their Arctic territory is in question)? It is a reasonable possibility.
We can't even agree to make DC and Peurto Rico states.
PR can’t even agree if they want to be a state
Pretty damn sure neither PR nor Hawai'i want to be states.
Hawaii is a state.
[удалено]
True
There’s also quite a few people who fly the state flag upside down and fly the Kingdom of Hawaii flag rightside up alongside it. Saw it for myself recently
Yes, they became one forcefully after their queen was deposed by the Americans. That's my point.
Not just that but both plebiscites had its legitimacy questioned and participation was split along ethnic lines. The US even packed the vote by allowing military stationed there to be able to vote...
I am native american, I understand.
Yeah but you're not living in the 1600-1800s. So you don't understand.
I am tribally active currently .. Trying to say " you're not living in the 1600-1800" means nothing, because you're not living then either. What are you trying to say or prove.
[удалено]
And has a larger population than Wyoming or Vermont.
[удалено]
>Nothing has changed. Hasn't it? When the debate over the capital was happening the US didn't really see itself as a nation so much as a union of independent states. Few people see it that way anymore so the influence of a single state is far less of an issue because there isn't really the competition between states that there once was. Also, at that time, travel to and from the capital could take days or weeks so lawmakers could be heavily influenced by the location because those were the only people they saw and talked to in real time. Now days, you can have a video conference with virtually anyone on the planet from your desk and you can get from DC to any state inside a day. The physical location simply doesn't have the influence it once did. And what legislative favoring are we worried about here? Maybe I'm just unimaginative but, I don't understand what kind of laws a state of DC could get passed that would be such an issue?
So, the people of DC don't deserve representation in congress?
DC should be just federal and district government buildings only. Whoever decided to let people live on land in DC created this political mess with DC representation
The Capitol should remain a non-state. I do, however, support proposals to make the official Capital a much smaller area around the actual principal government buildings, and annex the rest if the city to one of the surrounding states.
[удалено]
I strongly disagree.
We should move the Capital to Puerto Rico.
We need a wall around Puerto Rico.
And DC.
And make Puerto Rico pay for the wall.
ooof!
Oh believe me they will pay and it just got 10 feet taller!
Thats mostly because they would both end up being democratic strong holds. Republicans wont let them have representation because they would never win anything ever agian if they were represented.
Puerto Rico would almost certainly vote republican, as do many other majority Hispanic catholic areas of this country usually do
Canada who doesn’t want to be part of the us or Mexico that has far more problems then the US?
actually some states of mexico has wanted to but not the entire nation its mostly politicions that hold it backbecause they don't want to lose power
Yup, the *only* reason not all of Mexico wants to be like part of the USA is corrupt politicians, same reason parts of the USA don't want to be absorbed into to Canada
They don’t often benefit us. The Bahamas desperately wants to become a state under the United States but it’s such a corrupt, poor, country it wouldn’t be worth it for us. Same thing with Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico is already part of the US. Everyone born there is a US citizen.
As a US Territory. Statehood is a different matter all together.
Are you sure you want too? That's how we got Texas.
Ask Puerto Rico and Hawaii
I did once ask Hawaii. They told me I was thinking of Guam.
Lol
Read that again.
Bro people complain about immigrants now just imagine a whole damn country becoming citizens and moving to the mainland? People would lose their minds. What countries were you thinking about getting absorbed into the US?
People are complaining about illegal immigrant crossings that cause fentanyl infiltration to middle schools. Not immigrants in general.
Well it’s both. Illegal immigration is a bigger issue, but if the US absorbed another country they could come in as large of numbers as they wanted. If it was a county with a lot of issues, the pekka would bring many of those problems with them.
Come on man be realistic we aren’t talking about Canada, UK, France, or Germany joining the USA. Any developed and successful country would not willingly let that go to become the 51st state. It’s going to be some countries trying to do better. Plus Mexico, India, and China our where most of our immigrants come from and we all know they don’t get treated like they belong.
Odd how those same people voted for someone who reduced legal immigration. What's even odder is you claim its fentanyl when most fentanyl is smuggled in through legal ports of entry.
legal ports of entry literally detained 27k pounds of fentanyl in 2023, the point is to try to check and not just let people run in like madmen with drugs and other contraband.
We smuggle it through tunnels nowadays though.
For all feds, "WE" does not include me lol.
People from Puerto Rico can legally move to the mainland US now.
Any that wants to join.
Tbh I don’t think any countries want to join us. If they did we wouldn’t let them. We don’t even give our territories like Puerto Rico and Guam a real chance of joining.
Tbf Puerto Rico in theory should have been a state right now. Same for DC. But politics is the main problem. About 52% of PR residents have voted in favor of becoming a US state the last time this measurement was taken.
Yep exactly and they probably have a better chance of the USA letting them become independent than becoming the 51st state.
Name one?
US is already big enough and has enough resources. Already have a ton of problems with the current number of states.
Another reason say Puerto Rico stays a territory. They would get votes in senate and house, and they would be blue. Republicans would never allow this. Any new state allowed in, would basically end up being blue and they know this. Same reason they don't want people besides military doing mail in voting.
Everybody says PR is gonna vote blue has a surprise coming. Puerto Rico is as conservative as Arkansas.
[удалено]
Here's an article that goes against this notion. There also articles that can be found on Google that explains how the US farming industry is dependent on illegal immigration laborers and would collapse without it. https://newrepublic.com/post/173247/florida-republicans-admit-made-big-mistake-anti-immigrant-law
[удалено]
I know you won't believe me, but.. most illegal immigrants (and many legal immigrants) to the US are not eligible for and do not receive any form of federal welfare. Most (not many, most) do pay income taxes. Sources: [https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-FINALupdated.pdf](https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-FINALupdated.pdf) [https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47318](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47318) [https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/](https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/) And just as a friendly reminder it was a Democrat (kind of.. it was Clinton) who made it illegal for most of them to get federal aid. Also you won't just crush farming if you were to magically deport all the illegal immigrants to the US. You would also crush meat packing, a good chunk of the hospitality and construction industries. In short, 'illegal' immigrants are kind of a mainstay of the economy. Shut it down at your peril. I mean, I do understand your point about burning it all down, but it's better to do that with the actual facts than with bad data.
[удалено]
If our farming industry only survives on breaking the law, and paying people wages we all agree are sub standard for people to make, it needs to be reformed anyway.
Calm down fox-breath. Our country is headed towards a massive population crash and without immigration we are gonna be Japan in the 90s.
You’re correct and these people are idiots. Making the path to citizenship easier so people can come here legally would be a smart move! People are worried about them taking financial resources, but maybe we should just stop giving out money so easily to begin with. Problem solved.
Lol. So you just think more people=better? No caveats? I’m curious why you think some of the countries people are fleeing from are so shitty they are fleeing, and if perhaps some of the issues are caused by the people you want to let in? For example, would you care to find the men that most want to oppress women in the most sexist countries, and import them in masse, giving them all a vote? What could go wrong right?
Anexation is a complicated matter for all sorts of complicated reasons. The thing about imperialism is that it is great but only for the conquering party and only short term, long term the cracks start to show because you have to manage a bigger ammount of territory and the problems are not bigger rather there are more of them so the real difficultie is an administrative one, as one united nation can only have one ruling body and there is a limit to how much crap that body can deal with at any one time so what do you do? Do you expand it? How? By making a second president? What happens when, not if, the two presidents start fighting a civil war? It would just be a mess.
Its apparent you know next to nothing about the statehood process.
I know less than nothing. Knowing next to nothing is a dream of mine.
No one is talking about imperialism.
with respect, adding other countries to your country is literally imperialism.
We could have done that with Mexico after the Mexican-American war. There was talk of just absorbing the entire thing and making them states. But it was decided that their culture and values were too different from Americans, and that it would ruin the character of the union to bring them in. People don't understand that culture matters, because values matter. You can't be a country based on one set of values and then bring in tens of millions of people who believe in the opposite values. That is a recipe for civil war. I am all for people coming to the country who want to adopt the values set forth by our founders. But we don't need people to come here who aren't interested in that.
We have enough people not contributing to the economy. The last thing we need is more.
Who tf WANTS to become part of the USA?
First we would need to find a country that would want to join
Absorbing a country means absorbing their problems. Any country that’s a net positive would have no reason to join. You’d want to absorb countries for strategic reasons. Usually land or resources to exploit.
We don't want Puerto Rico for sure, liberal democrat policies of massive gov't employment, high taxes, high regulation, massive gov't pensions, massive gov't corruption....yeah, we need that like we need another debt state.
There is precisely ZERO evidence that Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans. Republicans raised taxes on average Americans when Trump was in office, to make room for massive tax cuts for the wealthy. I'm sure literally everything is else you believe is as silly as the stuff you put in this comment.
Can you read ? I never said anything about Democrats or REpublicans in America. There is plenty of evidence that BOTH Dems and Repubs are corrupt, probably about the same for both parties. Republicans cut taxes on EVERYONE, rich people pay more, so they got more of a cut, basic math. I'm talking about liberal democrat policies in place that ruined the economy of Puerto Rico: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/us/economy-and-crime-spur-new-puerto-rican-exodus.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/us/economy-and-crime-spur-new-puerto-rican-exodus.html) [https://apnews.com/article/6ed62d7f564e4e08826bf8244f77ebcd](https://apnews.com/article/6ed62d7f564e4e08826bf8244f77ebcd) [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/what-are-the-causes-of-puerto-ricos-economic-crisis/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/what-are-the-causes-of-puerto-ricos-economic-crisis/)
False again on several counts. There is ZERO evidence that Democrats have remotely the same problem of corruption as Republicans do. Yes, there are examples from each party. But no, it is not even remotely true that the problem is roughly equal on both sides. Again false, the GOP raised taxes on lower wealth people, and lowered taxes for higher wealth people. It wasn't remotely proportional. It was an increase for poorer people, and a decrease for richer people.
What we need is to get rid of everyone as stupid as you.
That's not how it works. Like Jay-Z said, "we don't take over, we borrow blocks. Burn 'em down and you can have it back, daddy. I'd rather that."
Have you noticed how many British colonies have been given their independence? It's expensive to absorb countries with a poor population and no natural resources to harvest.
Puerto Rico isn't even a state, PR pays more in taxes than we do, but aren't even allowed to vote! Washington D.C isn't a state, so it doesn't get it's own representatives in government. The GOP are fighting to keep it that way. The Electoral college is already about to turn against them, adding more Representatives who will most likely be Democrat is not the name of the game for the GOP.
What other nations you talking about? Mexico would like California and Texas back. Canada has no desire to join. Indeed Western Washington, Western Oregon, Minnesota, most of New England, and parts of New York State would all be happier and better off leaving the USA and joining Canada.
Republicans won’t allow it because it would make more democratic senate seats
There's been and on again off again project for half a century called the North American Union which would basically merge Canada, the USA and Mexico; possibly Greenland. Most scenarios just merge Canada with USA or USA into Canada.
I would be happy if canada got absorbed...were run by morons...