Puerto Rico Votes to Become 51st U.S. State

Aroma Lady Rose
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
7
I did briefly mention this in the 2012 election thread in the Campaign Bus, but (unless I am mistaken, mods, in which case, feel free to move this) this seems like something that could be discussed here. So what does everyone think about this development?

It should be noted that just because Puerto Rico voted for this, it's not necessarily going to happen; iirc, I believe that Congress and the President have to approve a territory becoming a state before it can officially happen.

Hank Green of the Vlogbrothers breaks it down here:

[video=youtube;aSgVRkDD_m0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSgVRkDD_m0[/video]
 
Because I like Tophats
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
27
When did a territory last time become a state in the US, now that I think about it? Wasn't it over 100 years ago?
 
Registered User
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
8
1951, with the Alaska and Hawaii territories being admitted into the union as full states.

It's a neat idea and I'm not really against it, more tax money is always nice. However, I've been making the joke that we should demote Florida to territory status if Puerto Rico joins as a state, because it took them until today to call a winner in the election. They're always screwing up electoral counting, they're not american! >:O
 
Gather round, people, I'll tell you a story
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
21,104
Reaction score
1,249
I'm for it, but PR might have a tough time getting Congress to approve.
 
I! AM NOT! A MORON!
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
1,413
Reaction score
2
I don't see why Congress would block it, but welcome aboard Puerto Rico (hopefully they'll join)!
 
Gather round, people, I'll tell you a story
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
21,104
Reaction score
1,249
I don't see why Congress would block it, but welcome aboard Puerto Rico (hopefully they'll join)!
House republicans might not be eager for a new state with a high Hispanic population, especially since they've had a lot of trouble courting Hispanic voters in the past.
 
Nemo me impune lacessit
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
357
Reaction score
0
1951, with the Alaska and Hawaii territories being admitted into the union as full states.

It's a neat idea and I'm not really against it, more tax money is always nice. However, I've been making the joke that we should demote Florida to territory status if Puerto Rico joins as a state, because it took them until today to call a winner in the election. They're always screwing up electoral counting, they're not american! >:O
*1959, sorry for the correction, but yeah...

Personally, I think it would be good to add a Spanish-speaking state to the Union. It would make our culture a little more interesting culturally, and many, many countries have regions with significant language minorities. Puerto Rico, however, has a high unemployment and poverty rate, far greater than any other state. The thing is, though, that they already receive federal aid, and don't pay income taxes as a territory. Income taxes are already unequally distributed (most large states, like California, pay more taxes than they receive back from the federal government). It's extremely unlikely that Puerto Rico will pay for all of its aid, but there will be a source of revenue that never existed before.

Regarding the political situation, I think there will be debate in Congress. But here are the party platforms for 2012:
Democratic Party said:
We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling.
Republican Party said:
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.

While both are "in favor" of admitting Puerto Rico if the residents vote for it, there could be trouble because Puerto Rico will most likely definitely be a blue state. However, I suspect that, as Republicans need to adapt their policies to be more favorable among the changing demographics fo the U.S., they might be more supportive than one might expect from the economic and, yes, language standpoint.

I hope that Congress respects the wishes of their fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and decides to admit the island as a state.
 
I will burn my dread!
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
7,155
Reaction score
357
It's a neat idea and I'm not really against it, more tax money is always nice. However, I've been making the joke that we should demote Florida to territory status if Puerto Rico joins as a state, because it took them until today to call a winner in the election. They're always screwing up electoral counting, they're not american! >:O
We're not complete idiots, we just go at a different pace than the rest of the country. >:I
 
Level 7
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
4,304
Reaction score
7
This could provide a needed boost to our economy: We'll have to replace EVERY. SINGLE. FLAG.
 
I! AM NOT! A MORON!
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
1,413
Reaction score
2
Ah, don't worry about partisan politics. The Republicans in Congress will be desperate for the Hispanic vote, and bringing in Puerto Rico would be seen by them as a promotion of Hispanics. And also, the smart ones know that majorities do not last forever. Over time, the South, the North, and the black vote have shifted; so too will the Hispanic population (and remember, Congress brought in Alaska in 1959 despite knowing that it would probably be Republican).
 
Spec
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
0
I think it would be fantastic to see a new state added to the US in my lifetime, I wonder how long it will take for all the paperwork and political stuff gets sorted.

This could provide a needed boost to our economy: We'll have to replace EVERY. SINGLE. FLAG.
Unfortunately nothing to go straight to the government as it is illegal to charge taxes on the US flag within the US. But the added revenue into the businesses could be a big boost.
 
Nemo me impune lacessit
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
357
Reaction score
0
Puerto Rico might want to rewrite its constitution, which could take a while too.
 
Aroma Lady Rose
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
7
Over time, the South, the North, and the black vote have shifted; so too will the Hispanic population (and remember, Congress brought in Alaska in 1959 despite knowing that it would probably be Republican).
Without turning this into a discussion more appropriate for the Campaign Bus, in the cases you're mentioning, it was more that the two major parties' policies totally changed than the actual concerns of those demographics did.

Also, Alaska and Hawaii were both admitted to the union at the same time, so I'm pretty sure that the political composition of Congress in 1959 didn't have much to do with it since those states tend to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum and have been throughout their histories (with the exception of electoral landslides like 1964, 1972 and 1984).

Anyway, since I didn't say much about how I felt about this, I'll say now I'm pretty excited, just to be alive during such a historic moment as a new state being admitted into the union, and I feel hopeful about the party platforms quoted above meaning that politics won't get into it too much. It is interesting that among all the big historical milestones that happened on Tuesday (first openly gay Senator, first disabled Congresswoman, etc.) that this would probably be the biggest thing if PR's statehood is approved.
 
Level 7
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
4,304
Reaction score
7
Over time, the South, the North, and the black vote have shifted; so too will the Hispanic population (and remember, Congress brought in Alaska in 1959 despite knowing that it would probably be Republican).
Without turning this into a discussion more appropriate for the Campaign Bus, in the cases you're mentioning, it was more that the two major parties' policies totally changed than the actual concerns of those demographics did.
That's part of it, but I think it was the social conservatism of those demographics (which has scarcely changed, either in regard to demographics or parties) that deemed them likely Republican to begin with.
 
Aroma Lady Rose
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
7
@Master Mew; "Social conservatism" as we understand it now wasn't really a thing until the middle of the 20th century. The original political re-alignment of both the formerly "Solid South" as well as African-American voters was pretty much entirely about desegregation; the rise of the religious right only came later, and it didn't affect African-American voters because of the GOP's history on race issues, and it still doesn't because the Republican Party tends to be at odds with most black voters on fiscal issues. Just because someone is socially-conservative doesn't mean they pick their candidates that way, and repeatedly the GOP hope of appealing to African-American voters over those issues has not worked out; this election in particular should have sounded the death knell on that notion.

A lot of Hispanic voters did vote Republican in the past (Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, for example, compared to Romney's 27%), until the party embraced its current hard-line stance on immigration. Bush's administration had a more moderate course planned for the issue before the intra-party revolt on the issue in 2006.

Anyway, I really want don't want to turn this into a political debate and get it moved to the Bus, and this is getting pretty far afield from the original topic anyway.

Puerto Rico might want to rewrite its constitution, which could take a while too.
Yeah, that could take a while, depending on how much they'd need to rewrite. What about it specifically prohibits statehood? (Or do you mean that it's at odds with some aspect of rights in the U.S. Constitution? Because those clauses don't necessarily need to be re-written; they're just invalidated. Hence why there are unenforceable things about religious tests for voting in a bunch of state Constitutions that have never been removed, because they don't need to be and it would just waste time better spent debating and voting on real shit.)
 
Last edited:
Steel Pokémon Master
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
463
Reaction score
0
This could provide a needed boost to our economy: We'll have to replace EVERY. SINGLE. FLAG.
Unfortunately nothing to go straight to the government as it is illegal to charge taxes on the US flag within the US. But the added revenue into the businesses could be a big boost.
Am I missing something here, or are you suggesting that Puerto Rico, which would then be a part of the U.S., would somehow boost the U.S.'s economy by importing even more flags from China?
 
Spec
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
0
Am I missing something here, or are you suggesting that Puerto Rico, which would then be a part of the U.S., would somehow boost the U.S.'s economy by importing even more flags from China?
If you take into effect the thousands of flags private citizens and businesses will need to replace, yes flag stores will get some more business. Not to mention some local fire,police, government buildings will have to take the cash out of their budget (not a lot but it still has to be counted) in order to pay for new ones.
 
Level 7
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
4,304
Reaction score
7
This could provide a needed boost to our economy: We'll have to replace EVERY. SINGLE. FLAG.
Unfortunately nothing to go straight to the government as it is illegal to charge taxes on the US flag within the US. But the added revenue into the businesses could be a big boost.
Am I missing something here, or are you suggesting that Puerto Rico, which would then be a part of the U.S., would somehow boost the U.S.'s economy by importing even more flags from China?
I didn't say it would help U.S. manufacturing, but yes, it would boost retail.
 
Steel Pokémon Master
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
463
Reaction score
0
But if burning down all flags in Colorado once about every week, and importing new ones from China boosts the U.S. economy, why don't you do that more often?
 
I! AM NOT! A MORON!
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
1,413
Reaction score
2
Globalism is good for the economy, if not for manufacturing. And at the risk of being moved into the Campaign Bus, I think we can all agree that it's about time that the Republicans to shift ideology on immigration. It's time for more Jeb Bushes, not more Michelle Bachmanns or Mitt Romneys.
 
Top