• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

51st State?

Should we even care?


  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

Dooble

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should we even care whether Puerto Rico says 'Yes' to Statehood?
 
Last edited:
If Puerto Rico says 'Yes' to Statehood then I guess we should honor it.
Is Puerto Rico telling us what to do as well?
 
sure. if they want to be a state, that's fine with me.
 
Is Puerto Rico telling us what to do as well?

No? It will go to Congress and Congress will vote on whether or not Puerto Rico becomes a state.
 
I say yes, but no need to rush in to things. We need to be conservative and thoughtful about this.

First of all, did they really say "yes" to statehood?

The ballot response is confusing. The question was actually asked in two parts... but I will quote the Christian Science Monitor because their explanation is quite good:

"On the first of two ballot questions yesterday, 54 percent voted to change its current status from a United States commonwealth. The problem is that those 54 percent are divided among statehood, independence, and a third option. Those who want statehood and those who want independence are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to Puerto Rico's sovereignty, yet both vote "yes" when asked to change the current status.

On the second question about what alternative should be chosen, 61 percent chose statehood, 33 percent chose "sovereign free association" and 6 percent chose independence. However, one third of the voters who answered the first question didn't bother answering the second question, meaning none of the options reached a majority."

Further complicating things, the Puerto Ricans just tossed out their pro-statehood government in favor of a government that likes the status quo. So what does that say about the will of the people?

So I would say, guys, that this isn't going to happen any time soon.

Should we even care whether Puerto Rico says 'Yes' to Statehood?
 
Should we even care whether Puerto Rico says 'Yes' to Statehood?

Why not? They're already considered US citizens, why not grant them the same benefits states get?
 
Let's do it. First, it's exciting, two, they are moving in a clear direction of wanting it, and three, AMURICA!
 
Let's do it. First, it's exciting, two, they are moving in a clear direction of wanting it, and three, AMURICA!

Three, it will be hilarious to see people freak out about "Oh sweet Jesus, we'll have to reorganize the stars on the flag!"

But it would be interesting to see if we actually do that or not.
 
If the people of Puerto Rico want to be a state, I fully support them. It should be their choice IMO.
 
I don't think Puerto Rico statehood has anything to do with pursuing more diversity. The fact is Puerto Rico has been in part of the United States since the 1800s. The people there are US citizens and have expressed a desire to have their territory, which is already a part of the United States become a state.

I think people are getting hung up on the differences and commonalities with statehood vs. territory. The United States of America is the country of which we're all a part of. States are subsections of The United States of America. Washington, DC is a subsection of The United States of America. Finally the US territories are subsections of The United States of America. Everybody born an any of these subsections are equally American citizens. The only difference is the role of state governments vs. territorial and district governments in the US Constitution, which has absolutely nothing to do with the status of the people living there.

-States send US Senators to Washington while the territories do not.
-States send Representatives to the House while the territories do not. However in efforts to be more inclusive without changing the constitution the district and the territories eventually were allowed to send 'delegates' to Congress who do everything a Representative to Congress does (chair and serve on committees, introduce bills, argue for or against bills on the floor, conduct hearings, etc.) The only thing they can't do is vote on bills in the full house (but they can in committee) and they represent their whole territory regardless of population, not congressional districts.
-States can send Electoral College Delegates to Washington to select the POTUS.
-States can participate in amending the US Constitution.
-States get their own star on the US Flag.

Territories have the equivalent of state legislatures, a Governor and Lt. Governor, their territory's National Guard that gets called up and sent the Afghanistan, etc. US currency is used. The people have US Passports. People there can appeal their court cases to the US Supreme Court. Its just like living in a state as far as being American goes. The only difference for the people is statesiders can vote for President but only because of the Electoral College and the fact that all of the state governments eventually gave their citizens the authority to vote for President when it was originally done by the state legislatures. Also important to understand, if someone from one of the 50 states moves to a territory they become residents of the territory and no longer can vote for President.
 
Last edited:
Three, it will be hilarious to see people freak out about "Oh sweet Jesus, we'll have to reorganize the stars on the flag!"

But it would be interesting to see if we actually do that or not.
Should we grant all our territories statehood? "Territory" sounds a little too arrogant & controlling, anyways, don't you think?
 
Should we grant all our territories statehood? "Territory" sounds a little too arrogant & controlling, anyways, don't you think?
How many "territories" do we have?

Yes, I say we do, the US having territories is an imperialist anachronism. Of course, it's up to the residents of those territories whether they want it or not.
 
We support them militarily, we give them rights, but they only have to pay some taxes (no federal income tax unless they make their money outside of Puerto Rico). I see this as a win win, because we already spend federal money there, it would just be another source of income.
 
How many "territories" do we have?

Yes, I say we do, the US having territories is an imperialist anachronism. Of course, it's up to the residents of those territories whether they want it or not.
Looks like 13 in all. Perhaps we should extend offers of statehood to all of these, or cut them loose. I hate imerialist anachronisms.
 
If Puerto Rico says 'Yes' to Statehood then I guess we should honor it.

Dream on. The Republicans in Congress will never allow another Democratic leaning state. Are you kidding me? Two more Democratic Senators they have to worry about?
 
If the people of Puerto Rico want to be a state, I fully support them. It should be their choice IMO.

Why isn't it our choice?
 
Looks like 13 in all. Perhaps we should extend offers of statehood to all of these, or cut them loose. I hate imerialist anachronisms.

I count 12, and the Wake Islands only have 300 total people, it is simply an air force base.

EDIT:

In fact most territories besides Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are private or small populations with only military inhabitants.
 
Last edited:
How many "territories" do we have?

Yes, I say we do, the US having territories is an imperialist anachronism. Of course, it's up to the residents of those territories whether they want it or not.



Unincorporated organized territories

Guam (since 1898): also the home of a U.S. Naval Base and a U.S. Air Force Base.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: formerly a United Nations Trust Territory under the administration of the United States, it established itself as a U.S. Commonwealth in 1978.
Puerto Rico (since 1898): established as a U.S. Commonwealth in 1952.
United States Virgin Islands (since 1917): these were purchased by the U.S. from Denmark.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States

And BTW, there's nothing particularly new about US territories becoming states. Its be done 37 times since the country was started when we only had 13.
 
Last edited:
How many "territories" do we have?

Yes, I say we do, the US having territories is an imperialist anachronism. Of course, it's up to the residents of those territories whether they want it or not.

It's only anachronistic in the fact that America's more explicit imperialist past is long since behind her, but it in of itself is not anachronistic for the United States.
 
Unincorporated organized territories

Guam (since 1898): also the home of a U.S. Naval Base and a U.S. Air Force Base.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: formerly a United Nations Trust Territory under the administration of the United States, it established itself as a U.S. Commonwealth in 1978.
Puerto Rico (since 1898): established as a U.S. Commonwealth in 1952.
United States Virgin Islands (since 1917): these were purchased by the U.S. from Denmark.



Territories of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And BTW, there's nothing particularly new about US territories becoming states. Its be done 37 times since the country was started when we only had 13.
Do you agree that the US having territories is anachronistic?
 
It's only anachronistic in the fact that America's more explicit imperialist past is long since behind her, but it in of itself is not anachronistic for the United States.

It just seems to me like a remnant of that period.

I am not familiar with the offer of statehood to the US territories. If they haven't been offered, they definitely should, and Congress should approve.
 
Do you agree that the US having territories is anachronistic?

Academically, yes. As a practical matter, no. I lived in a US territory and the people there are content and in fact feel privileged to be part of the US as US territorial citizens. Unlike European colonialism, the US treats its territories rather well (I know that sounds horrible like good slaves masters :lamo) but its true. Natural disasters hit and FEMA and the National Guard are there immediately. Part of the US federal budget so a decent infrastructure compared to neighboring places that are essentially third world countries. No restrictions whatsoever on travel and relocation to anywhere in the states. Eligibility for all the services any US citizen gets from student loans and Pell Grants to joining the US Armed Forces as Commission Officers. And operating under the principle of "no taxation without representation" since their Congressman can't vote bills into law in the full House and to vote for POTUS, the federal government has a VERY favorable taxation relationship with the territories. All federal taxes raised in a territory stay in the territory to operate the territorial government while still being eligible for various federal projects funding the rest of the country gets.
 
Last edited:
I guess one could argue against it geographically, but then Alaska, Hawaii are states.can't see why anyone else would object? Politically?
 
Back
Top Bottom