« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Answers Needed Before Another Star is Added to U.S. Flag

Next week the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, which gives the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to vote on their political future including the possibility of becoming America’s 51st state.  Officially, the bill would create a two-step voting process where the people of Puerto Rico would vote to either maintain the status quo or select a different political status.  If a different political status is desired by the majority of the electorate, Puerto Ricans would have three options: independence, free association with the U.S., or full statehood.

If that sounds unnecessarily confusing, it’s because it is. And there are numerous questions about the implications of this bill that no one is talking about.  For example:

Could this bill create a path towards statehood? Absolutely.  Statehood is the goal of the bill’s backers. It is said the results of the vote is nonbinding, but should the statehood option be declared the winner, it could be used to press Congress to act as soon as next year on a vote to make Puerto Rico the 51st state.  This is troubling since the winner just needs to receive the most votes, not the majority (ie, Statehood could “win” with 34% of the vote.) Shouldn’t a strong majority of people support statehood before admission is considered – as was the case with both Hawaii and Alaska?

Would Puerto Rico statehood mean they would get seats in Congress? Puerto Rico has a population of four million people as a state, they would receive two U.S. Senators and 6-7 House seats. But as long as there is 435 seat maximum in the House, if Puerto Rico receives 6 seats then other states expecting to gain a seat after the 2010 census would lose representation.

If both Spanish and English are the official language of Puerto Rico, how would that work if it became a state? When the House considered a similar bill in 1998, a vote on the issue of English as the official language was allowed, but it’s unknown whether current House Democrat leaders will allow a similar vote this time.

Would a new state add costs to the federal government? A new state would come with significant costs – spending that would measure in the billions of dollar a year.

Shouldn’t the people of Puerto Rico be allowed to vote to express their views on their future political status? I’m very sympathetic to allowing the people of Puerto Rico to express their views – yet they are free to hold such a vote anytime they choose to conduct one.  If a Congressionally-sanctioned vote is going to be held, it must come with an open, thorough understanding of what independence or statehood would mean to Puerto Rico and the existing 50 states.  This approach of voting first and answering questions later is exactly backwards.  Furthermore, it makes no sense that H.R. 2499 allows not just residents of Puerto Rico to vote, but extends voting privileges to anyone in the other 50 states who was born in Puerto Rico.  Why should someone who has lived and voted for decades in Alabama or Wyoming be given special status over their neighbors to vote on whether Puerto Rico becomes a state?

The bottom line is that there are many questions that have not been answered, and there are a great many implications that aren’t being considered or even discussed.  Congress owes it to the citizens of the 50 states and to the people of Puerto Rico to have a full, open debate and resolve these questions before voting on this bill.  If this doesn’t happen, then Representatives should vote NO.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.redstate.com/biggator5/ BigGator5

    I say it’s about time they become a State in the Union. They should join us as equals.

    • vucats

      While admitting PR as a state would add to the budget, they would also be taxed like the other states. To insinuate that adding PR as a state would “cost” the government money without having the facts to back it up goes against the spirit of your post.

      Also, what is the problem with PR having two official languages? As long as English is one of them I’m not sure where the issue is.

      • renny

        Until English is the official language of Puerto Rico, I would never work for its acceptance as a state.

        • Gandalf

          That Puerto Rico was the first U.S. jurisdiction to make English an official language?

          If you mean with English as the sole official language, I’m kind of curious why you don’t apply the same standard to the two States that have two official languages (Hawaii and Louisiana, both include English as one of them).

          And lastly, if we see the Constitution as the source of all American law, where do we conservatives get off being able to tell States which language(s) they can and cannot use when that decision is clearly deliniated as a decision reserved for the many States in the Constitution?

        • alongopr51

          Congressman Hastings is misinformed about the current political situation in Puerto Rico. In the 2008 elections Puerto Ricans elected a fiscally conservative Republican governor, Luis Fortu

    • Randy Haddock

      Thank you your support :)

      • brojohn2

        I have a Puerto Rican sister-in-law, I truly love her she is a woman who has proudly served in our Army 3 years, and then worked for the last 20 + years in the Post Office. My nephews and niece are all 1/2 Puerto Rican and I think it would be really great to have the State of Puerto Rico. Having said that I also agree that there are questions to be answered, here at home and in Puerto Rico. I believe we need to make English (American style) as our official language. It is also necessary that we better protect our borders, and build the wall as it was supposed to be done. Put troops on the border between ourselves and both Canada and Mexico. Both borders are like swiss cheese and there are places where a tank could be driven through and on one would see it.
        I don’t think we can in good conscience rid ourselves of any of our states, unless of course Texas could be allowed to secede so we don’t have to pay these idiotic health costs.
        Just my $2 worth. (Used to be .02 cents inflation you know).

  • Tbone

    It has absolutely nothing in common with the other 49 and the “native” Hawaiians, first class pains in the butt, want it back.

    As for PR, give them their independence.

    • janis

      could unload both at the same time? That would rid us of a lot of major butt-pains. Just think of it, all of Hollywood and LA no longer part of America. When the next administration comes in, we can declare war on California and be done with them altogether.

      Conversely, we could invade California and then set up a provisional government and run the place the way it should have been run.

      • IJB

        What you do, instead, is drive most of the current residents of CA into the sea, and then take the state back.

        As for Puerto Rico, I am adamantly opposed to letting them become a state.

        In fact, like Tbone, I think we may want to revisit Hawaii, and see if maybe they should become an independent nation (though I’m pretty sure that’ll never happen)…

        • janis

          make tbone his press secretary. Erick Brockway would be automatically the head of transportation and Achance could come in and take care of any lingering union thugs.

          Win, win, and win. Can’t you just picture Achance telling the teachers’ union to go pound sand? That’s a thought to dream on tonight. :-)

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            Just let Rod Blagojevich run it.

          • Tbone

            heard is Neil hitting the floor. LOL

  • eva3071

    to Puerto Rico multiple times, and I can tell you that they are ready for statehood. In case you don’t know, Puerto Ricans overwelmingly voted in the New Progressive Party in a super majority in 08. Despite the name, the majority of NPP members are also members of the Republican Party of the United States. NPP favors going for statehood. The people I talked with down there all, well, most of them favor statehood, and believe its been a long time in coming.

    I guess I am a little excited about this because I am an expansionist, and have been advocating that Puerto Rico be added as a state.

    On the political side, Puerto Rico is assuredly a red state, and will remain in the Republican column. A little bonus for us conservatives.

    • eva3071

      to mention this, but the NPP are very conservative in their beliefs.

      • Gandalf

        I always imagined that PR would be fairly Democratic since they rely heavily on welfare and since, unfortunately, the wider Hispanic vote does tend to be favoring Democrats.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      as long as the zero is in office. He won’t give statehood to a bunch of family values voters.

  • Gandalf

    Representative Hastings: Thanks for posting here. I appreciate reading your thoughts on this. One thing I’d like to point out is that PR becoming a State would actually save the federal government millions of dollars in the long run. As it is now, PR residents are eligible for all federal programs, and the territorial government even receives monies equivilent to many States. However, because PR is not a State, residents do not have to be federal income tax, register for the draft, or a number of other basic obligations of U.S. citizens. In short, they have all the priveledges (except voting in general elections) yet none of the responsibilities.

    @ Tbone: PR doesn’t want independence. Neither does Hawaii.

    Personally, I’d love to see Puerto Rico become a State… but it should enter with another to keep the “balance of power” since, honestly, most of their congressmen would end up being firmly Democratic for as far as we can project. All but 2 of the last 12 States to join the Union have been admitted within only a few months of each other, in part to maintain the partisan balance.

    The ideal pair candidate for PR is Cuba, but with our current administration, they would never be offered a chance even if they begged for it.

    • eva3071

      I had thought that Puerto Rico is a red territory, that is, they lean Republican.

    • janis

      She says they are firmly Republican, and you say just the opposite. Which one of you is correct? Why do you say what you do on this matter?

      Not criticizing, just interested in your take on it.

      • Gandalf

        I have no experience with PR, I just assumed it would be heavily Democratic because:

        1) It’s Hispanic and, with the exception of Cuban immigrants, they usually favor Democrats

        2) A lot of residents of PR are dependent on welfare and government handouts

        3) Apparently the Democrats are pushing this

        • JamesSmith130

          in the long term. It could well be that PR is GOP on the local level but D on the national level, or vice versa.

          When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, Alaska was considered the Dim state and Hawaii the GOP one. In 1960, they both were almost 50/50.

        • mom2oneson

          There are high numbers of work age men on disability. Other forms of gov assistance are HUGE there like food stamps, much higher than here.
          Look at the cost of the earned income tax credit if PR residents become elgible for that.

          From everything I’ve read it sounds like a huge money drain. As much as republicans have issues with public assistance I am surprised they never talk about the high high high high numbers in places like PR and HI but seem to focus on urban black mothers.

          • mom2oneson
          • davesinsanantonio

            what are the odds that there will be much money coming out of PR to pay for these and other expenses. Is it just another step in Obummer’s plan to destroy America economically?

      • Randy Haddock

        My name is Randy Haddock. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, lived for a few years in Florida and now I live in New York City. I am a conservative and a strong supporter of statehood for Puerto Rico. I have been my whole life.

        The fight for statehood is about equality. We Puerto Ricans are born Americans yet we are not allowed to vote for the President or have voting representation in Congress. Basically, we are second-class Americans. As soon as I moved to the continental US, my voting rights were magically given to me. I was suddenly able to vote for the President and be represented in Congress. These rights, afforded to us by the US constitution, should be extended to every single American, including those born in Puerto Rico. And it pains me to think that my fellow Puerto Ricans back in the Island do not have the same rights as I do, merely because of my geographical location.

        Democrats have historically opposed statehood and The Republican Party has been a strong ally to Puerto Rico in its fight for statehood. Our party has been the one to stand up for true equality. Those fighting for independence in Puerto Rico are a very small leftist fringe.

        Puerto Rico is ready for equality. Won’t you join us in that battle?

        • Randy Haddock

          I meant to say “[S]hould be extended to every single American, including those living in Puerto Rico.”

          • nvrepub

            The fiscal side usually wins out.

        • Gandalf

          But you’re a bit misguided here….

          Citizens of the U.S. are not guaranteed a right to vote in Presidential/Congressional simply for being citizens of the U.S. Instead, these priviledges are reserved for STATES through the Electoral College, proportional representation in the House, and equal representation in the Senate. Non-State territories such as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are not granted these rights and thus their residents are not allowed to vote in these elections. It’s really as simple as that.

          I fundamentally and deeply disagree with your statement: “These rights, afforded to us by the US constitution, should be extended to every single American”. These rights are afforded not to every American but to residents of the many States. Residents of Guam, DC, and even PR don’t have a right to vote in presidential and congressional elections. They never have and they never should until such a time as they decide to become a State or a part of a State,

          I think you would get a lot further with a lot of people (around here anyway) if you dropped the victim mindset. PR residents are not “second class” citizens: they have had the right to vote on self-determination no less than three times in the last few decades, and each time have voted to remain a territory. The story might be different if a majority of PR residents had voted to become a State and nothing had ever become of it. The fact is that there isn’t a clear majority of Puerto Ricans who have voiced support for Statehood.

          Again, I’m in favor of Statehood, but I think you do your cause a disservice by implying that some injustice has been done against the Puerto Ricans because they aren’t allowed the rights of a State when they have decided, three times, to not become a State.

          • Randy Haddock

            Gandalf,

            Thank you for your reply and your support. I stand by my statement. It is indeed unjust that certain Americans do not have the right to be represented in Congress or vote for their President. It is not my intention to utilize a “victim mentality” in order to further the statehood agenda. I am no victim. I simply want equality for Puerto Rico. It is hard not see the lack equality as anything but an injustice.

          • Gandalf

            I’m happy to support PR Statehood.

            But I also stand by my statement: It is not at all unjust for a territory that has thrice rejected Statehood to be denied equalilty with the many States.

            I want equality for Puerto Rico too. But inequality does not always equal injustice. There are a lot of U.S. citizens who are denied the right to vote in presidential and congressional elections.

            I think now of those under the age of 18. Unequality? You bet ya, Injustice? No way. They don’t have the rights of their parents, but neither do they have the responsibilities.

            It’s rather the same for the many territories of the U.S. I’m all for them maturing, as children do, and earning Statehood and the rights that come with it (except for DC, which I think should be ceded back to Maryland). For PR, this has been a long time coming (due mostly to their own past rejection of Statehood). Incidentally, the idea of a U.S. commonwealth was always intended as a buffer status to prepare a territory for either independence or Statehood.

            But I’m put off by the use of “injustice” (especially since, once again, Puerto Ricans have voted to maintain the status quo, including lack of voting rights, no less than three times).

            It may sound like I’m beating a dead horse, but this is important for Puerto Ricans to understand if they want to become a State: You aren’t given a vote in presidential/congressional elections because you are an American citizen, you are given it because you are a State. We are a nation of States, and the federal government is answerable to the States, not individual citizens. We are not a direct democracy, nor are we a European or South American parliamentary democracy. We are a Republic made up of States, and there is no room for residents of a non-State to be given the same rights residents of the States.

            Again, I tend to favor PR Statehood, but only if Puerto Ricans fully understand how the United States is formed and functions.

          • davesinsanantonio

            that is why we have the right to “petition for redress of grievances”!!!

          • buster2058

            This is another desperate ploy by the Demorats to bring in more minority voters. Nothing more.

        • crassus

          Whenever bills have words in their title like “democracy”, “reform” or “security” alarms should go off in your head. There are two similar things the Democrats have tried to push for during this congress, when they have 60% in both chambers (roughly). One is the “Democracy Restoration Act” from Feingold and Conyers which would give felons votes. The other is the equally outrageous D.C. Voring Rights legislation which Orrin Hatch has always been terrible on. P.R. having a Republican governor means nothing. So does Vermont and Rhode Island. If you think they will be a Republican state in Presidential elections your mind is not working right. If it was really about giving everyone votes it is odd, because there are other territories which don’t vote either. I suspect, but can not confirm, that the majority of Puerto Ricans would not pay income taxes. This would only exacerbate a bad trend.

          http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36605
          see this article on representation without taxation

          Generally I don’t see what we have to gain from making them a state.

          Here is an interesting take
          http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_118/ma_congressional_relations/45328-1.html

          It seems (although not sure) that it is not a very popular proposal in P.R.

      • eva3071

        From what I gathered with my visits over there, the people were solidly in the Republican camp. At least, back in 08

        • Menlo

          The people we know, come into contact with, and are around are almost NEVER representative of the population as a whole.

    • Mario

      but that bill seems to be bad as written. A better option would be to keep the two-step process, but change the options. The first referendum would be on continued association with the US or full statehood (just the 2 options), the second (if continued association were to win) would be between statehood and remaining a commonwealth. That way neither statehood nor independence could win without the support of at least 50%+1 of the population, but in the end at least one of the four options will have achieved majority support.

      Plurality voting has its place, but not in something this important.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        for the Czech Republic and Poland! Four More Republican Seanators!

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          to save us from ObamaDems before anarchy sets in. My plan is to change the status of California, Vermont, Maryland and Delaware to territories and require them to ratify some constitutional amendments to get back in. Eight less Dem senators.

          • hickorystick

            to relearn lessons in self-reliance

        • Doc Holliday

          and maybe Mexico. That way we solve immigration and smite Obama’s plans to side with the other guys.

          • crassus

            How would that “solve immigration”. One thing it certainly would not solve is social security.

            See Robert Rector’s report from the Heritage Foundation on the fiscal costs of low skill immigration.

          • Doc Holliday
          • Randy Haddock

            Just posted a response to this post.

            Link: http://www.redstate.com/randyhaddock/2010/04/26/response-to-rep-doc-hastings-no-more-time-or-answers-are-needed-on-puerto-rico-status-bill-now-is-the-time-to-act-and-pass-hr-2499/

      • Mario

        Sorry, I meant the first referendum should be on “association with the US or full independence.” I re-read it a few times; don’t see how I missed it.

  • http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

    send in the National Guard to get rid of the drug lords, and open up the beaches to resorts.

    Just a thought. :)

  • JoeG

    I fail to see why either Rhode Island or Deleware need to be separate states. There are multiple counties in the US that are both bigger and more populous than both. Heck you can barely see them on a national map, let alone fit their abbreviation inside their borders on the map.

    • JoeG

      If we’re going to have little states, split up Texas 10 ways and all of the other West coast states at least into 3rds. Most still would be bigger and in many cases still more populous.

    • Mario

      As a life-long Rhode Islander, I feel compelled to point out that we are one of the original colonies — and, as such, we are far more “American” that any of these 37 new-fangled giant square blocks you call states. We may be small, but we have character and history — and that’s all American history, not French or Mexican history like some I could mention.

      Now obviously we should lose our representation in Congress, but that’s due to our own negligence, not our size. Don’t even joke about removing our statehood.

      *[Please note that I don't actually find that offensive.]

      • JoeG

        Only one square and one rectangle.

        Although I hear that Idaho is actually a rectangle, at least if you iron the mountains out of the handle.

        • hickorystick

          They have been asking for it longer than PR. It’s not like i’d have to do a border crossing to get to eastern Washington. They would be self-sufficient.

          As far as Puerto Rico, other than human capitol, I don’t know what htey bring to the union. Do they have any industry or commerce? Do they have schools and hospitals? What is there democratic tradition? Can they write a constitution? How much debt would they bring. They need to make the argument, not us. Why aren’t they taking a vote first and petitioning for statehood like the other states have?

          • cactusjack

            in the 1950s and1960s brought a lot of heavy industry there.There is some chemical plant processing there (plastics, petrochem derivatives) that I know of having worked for one of those companies, but the big complex industry there that provides a lot of jobs, is pharmaceuticals. A lot of big US drug companies moved plants there. Last time I heard,, Pfizer was still there, making lots and lots of the little blue pills…Viagra. Also a huge national rainforest, and one can just look on the map and see how strategic PR is, it is to the Caribbean kind of like Hawaii is to the Pacific or Alaska is to Russia and China – our early warning eyes and ears. Uncle Sam must have a lot there, classified and unclassified.

          • hickorystick

            I’d like to brig Scotland and Ireland in, but I don’t think they would meet the standard anymore.

          • C. Marie

            This is a trick to establish a gigantic voting bloc for the New Progressive party. Think of Minnesota, Chi town, etc, Philly, think of Al Franken’s ascent to the Senate. Are you kiddin’ me?All that we at Red State believe in and work for and support will be flooded out, washed away!

            As one whose dark- skinned father was once discriminated against, I declare HR 2499 is not, not, NOT about racism. Nor is this “non-binding vote” about the nobility of American statehood.
            This is a trigger for binding votes leading to the fundamental destruction of our moral republic!

        • misterbill

          it would provide a side door to illegal entry into the country. Puerto Ricans as many Hispanic folks, have stronger ties to their ethnicity than other nationalities. (For example—Luis Gitierrez. Next– I will bet my last dime that it will add almost all as Democrats.

          So, more and better wealth distribution from us to them., a new major industry–false ID, etc to allow hundreds of thousands of illegals into America. And for God’s sake I didn’t think there were many expansionists left in America. I guess if you live in a cocoon, you can lie to yourself about the devastation around you.

          Nothing like adding 4 million m ore to feed and vote for Obama.

          • revivefederalism

            People born in PR are US citizens already. If Hispanics thought it were easier to have their anchor babies in PR, they would do so already. They tend to come through land routes because the bulk of the economic opportunity is in the contiguous states. I don’t think that this would change if PR were to become a state.

          • Gandalf

            The idea that Puerto Rico Stateship would in ANY WAY affect immigration either positively or negatively is utter rubbish.

            Puerto Rico is already a territory of the U.S. People born there are citizens. If any of the things mentioned would occur because of Statehood, they would have already occured under Commonwealth status.

          • misterbill

            You are both correct. I did something I do not usually do–I had a kneejerk reaction. Yes, I know PR is a state. It is my observations of the ethnic loyalty and the fact that I had just read that would be 2 senators and 6-7 Reps. It panicked me since I believe we are moving to a very large Hispanic voting bloc and since my personal observations as well as all my readings do indicate to me that the odds are very high that those elected will be Democrats.

            The welfare attitude already permeates our society. An additional 4 million people added to America will, in my opinion, bring far more expense than revenue to our already financially troubled nation.

      • hickorystick

        claiming rights to two senators, for what. What do you produce/contribute?

        • Mario

          We are the prime example of what happens when you allow public sector unions too much (or any, really) control over policy. We’re like Cuba or the Soviet Union, not good, but necessary in that if it weren’t for us, the rest of you wouldn’t know what not to do.

          Oh, and food. We have some pretty great food.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      done by Roger Williams et al to gain sovereignty, then let them have at it. And I think one of the things that has helped make us the longest continuous constitution is the equality of representation of states in the senate.

      • JoeG

        Many of these large rural counties would love to be separated from the state they are in. They are heavily populated by rugged individualists who want as little government as possible.

        As a resident of a purple state, I don’t want to see them go from the perspective that I’d likely be in the blue part and it would really be BLUE with them gone.

        • davesinsanantonio

          with maybe a heavy majority being rugged individualists. I think they are right in wanting as little government as possible. But, do they accept government farm subsidies? Do they ask the government to build highways in their areas? Do they petition the government for tariffs on agricultural imports?
          If they really want less government, they have to just quit bellyaching about it and actually do something. They have to convince their urban brethren that smaller government will benefit everyone. But, in the meantime they have to quit sucking the government teat.

          • JoeG

            But there are vast differences between many of the midwest vs. the west. The subsidies you speak of are very popular in the midwest, and that’s not the area I’m talking about.

            From the Rockies to the west, the rural areas are pretty strongly against the farm subsidies. Those are also the states with the strongest rural / urban divide, particularly the three coast states.

  • scarlos

    For example, the current governor is a registered Republican (and registered in the NPP), while the island’s representative in Congress chaired Obama’s campaign there, and is a registered Democrat (Despite also being a member of the NPP). There isn’t a direct Partisan comparison like say in Minnesota where the D-FL party is essentially the Democratic party of the state, as they are more or less single-issue parties on the basis of Puerto Rico’s status within the US.

    As for their voting patterns, I’d say it would be likely to become the most Democratic state in the Entire country (Probably at least 75% Democratic), given that stateside Puerto Ricans vote overwhelmingly Democrat (Obama’s best district was the heavily Puerto Rican, South Bronx-based NY-16, where he scored 95% of the vote)

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
  • cactusjack

    1. Yes the raw demographics would equate to what would presumably be majority Democrat representation& stronghold in the future. But when Alaska and Hawaii came in, everyone was **sure** Hawaii would be a Republican lock and Alaska would be a Democrat lock, for the next several generations. Wow did things turn out differently!
    2. Occasional statehood expansion is a good thing for America, just like a family blessed with a new child, it stresses logistics but makes everyone feel good somehow. Ike was a force behind AK and HI in 1959.
    3. Coming in with a new sister is a very wise idea, it was used in 1959 and kept Congress from nitpicking the deal to death (see #1 above). But how could it be done this time? The Dems are thinking: DC! Only if they agree to move the seat of federal gov’t to Kansas. (no I’m not kidding)
    4. I am not Hispanic, so allow this indulgent observation: Hispanics in America have been fantastically patriotic in serving in this country’s military over the last 100 years, and that includes PR. In South Texas alone there are at least 2 highways named after Medal of Honor winners (Roy Benavides and Freddy Gonzalez). When I think of the many who have served from PR, some making the ultimate sacrifice, it is hard to think that sooner or later PR would not come in as a state some day – if they want to. But see #5…
    5. It’s true they have voted in multiple plebecites before and it always it deadlock &r gets hung up dead center. Why will this ever change that the pro-statehood party gets substantially over 50%?
    6. But it would be nice if PR voted for statehood on their own, it would shut up Cuba and its idiotic propaganda machine in the Caribbean.
    7. See Wikipedia, they already have a 51 star pattern figured out for the US flag if needed, and hey it doesn’t look that bad.
    8. Annexing Cuba is not a joke. We had the opportunity 100 years ago (and Mexico 160 years ago), many serious policy thinkers believe, criticism from Europe be damned, we missed an opportunity that would have in the long run been good for everyone concerned, spared Cuba a half century of Castro and spared the world the frightful near-miss Cuban missile crisis. PR statehood might at least pave the way for a new era of American dealings and relations in the near Caribbean.
    9. I trust the current Dem Congress to handle this about as well as they handled health care, which is, somewhere between banana republic and outright unconstitutionally.
    10. Come to think of it, let’s only revisit this if the Republicans take control in Nov 2010 of one of the houses of Congress.
    There you have it, the pro’s outnumber the con’s on this unscientific list, but among the con’s are some real deal killers.

    • Gandalf

      2) I agree. I’m for expansion.

      3) You have got be joking. 4 new Democrat senators plus a potential 7 Democrat representatives, and what do the Republicans get out of it? Oh, we lose Kansas too because of all the big-gove thugs that would move there. No thanks.

  • Return to Revolution

    but I have a hard time buying that Obama and a heavily democrat congress would consider something like this unless they thought it meant more dem votes – that is all “immigration reform” is about. Since when has this congress or Obama done anything otherwise?

    Plus, PR is not subject to the same taxes that the 50 states are, correct? What is the benefit for PR citizens?

    The fact that 1) the bill backers want PR to be a state, and 2) a majority is not needed for it to happen makes me very nervous about this.

    All this is really pathetic because based on principle, I am for PR becoming a state. But instead its all a game to the people running the country.

  • revivefederalism

    I suppose that historically territories and separate sovereign entities have asked to become states before Congress admitted them,, but I wonder if this is required by the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or is just merely a matter of custom.. As a practical matter it would cause a lot of civil unrest to force residents of a territory of the United States to unwillingly transition to statehood, but I don’t see where in the Constitution it says that their consent is required.

    Additionally, some territories of the United States have been the spoils of war, so it’s not clear how much sense it would have made to give a conquered population the right of refusal.

    It seems to me that whatever the end goals of those drafting this legislation, its current purpose is to manage the public perception of the process. I’d appreciate any commentary from constitutional scholars who could shed light on what is actually required for statehood. My reading of Article IV also doesn’t indicate to me whether or not the President has the power to veto the admission of a new state by Congress.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      of the Constitution!

  • misterbill

    Yes, I know that there are expenses already with PR–my main concern is the voting bloc.

  • secondpatriot76

    We dont need anymore states. We dont need anymore governments. We dont need anymore senators or representatives.