> For example, if you had a national majority vote to decide Puerto Rico’s political status (independence or statehood), Puerto Ricans probably wouldn’t be happy about that.
"Two in three Americans (66%) in a June Gallup survey said they favor admitting Puerto Rico, now a U.S. territory, as a U.S. state. This is consistent with the 59% to 65% range of public support Gallup has recorded for Puerto Rico statehood since 1962." https://news.gallup.com/poll/260744/americans-continue-suppo...
> The majority of supporting Puerto Ricans is quite slim (especially compared to the national support). A couple percentage points lower and the majority wouldn't be in favor.
So? Majorities are often slim. Just look at US elections. The difference is whether you have majority rule or minority rule.
> Although, if you're now switching to argue that the national opinion is _against_ (or at least the republicans would block it)
I'm not switching, I'm just saying it's a partisan issue, and Republicans happen to be over-represented in the national government due to territorial representation, which is how they're able to block Puerto Rican statehood, against the wishes of the majority. And it's pretty obvious why Republican leaders want to block Puerto Rican and D.C. statehood, because that would likely lead to additional Senate and House seats for Democrats.
> The operative word is probably: the most recent referendums were designed to provoke the statehood option
The most recent referendum was held only because the federal government preferred another referendum to honoring the statehood win in the prior referendum, which had 78.19% turnout, and a two-question format where a clear majority chose not to continue territorial status and a clear majority chose statehood as the new status.
> I suspect that Puerto Rico will eventually become a state, but it's politically difficult for that to happen without a clear mandate
There was a clear mandate after the 2012 status referendum. It is difficult when a majority of Congress doesn't want it to happen for reasons for mostly partisan political reasons, and will seize on any excuse to ignore thr clear desire to end the colonial relation.
They keep voting for statehood, and the opposition boycotting those votes to delegitimize them favors the present status quo. Why should it be independent?
> I would say the more relevant consideration is whether the existing American states want Puerto Rico to formally join the Union.
That's obviously legally dispositive, insofar as those states representatives are who votes in Congress and we are discussing a potential action of the incoming Congressional majority.
> Puerto Rico may want statehood, but Turkey also wants to join the EU.
Turkey, wasn't incorporated into the EU by conquest and then denied voting participation in Union decisionmaking.
> All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College.
Probably the majority, at any rate, is political calculus (not just partisan, but also on specific policy issues; and not just the Senate/EC, as the House isn't insignificant.)
But that's always been the case with the causes for (and against) new states. (And why “continental US”, do you really think Hawai’i is an exception here?)
> As an American, would I say Puerto Rico is one of the very last things that ought to ever be cut in the federal budget? Heck no! Puerto Rico has repeatedly decided it’d rather not be a state, but at least it’s still genuinely ruled by the USA; if Puerto Rico decided to switch to full home rule, I think I and the average American would care even less about them.
Yeah this part is almost entirely wrong. First, Puerto Rico has repeatedly voted to become a state most recently a few months ago (edit: June 2017). Full home rule for anyone is hardly the American way, though I’d speculate the Marshall Islanders and Samoans have fairly significant self determination a la Hong Kong. Further, America would never cede territory to anyone for fiscal reasons either because, well, nationalism. Once you start ceding territory for fiscal reasons I speculate you’re viewed principally through an emperor has no clothes lens and you’re a few steps from being what’s left of the U.K.
> Puerto Rico is a part of the United States and its real shame that we don't do more to help it.
Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States, and the purpose of a colonial relationship isn't for the imperial power to aid the colony. That's sometimes a side effect, but the intent is for benefit to flow the other way.
If Puerto Rico were part of, rather than a territory subject to, the United States, they would have representation in both houses of Congress and in the Electoral College.
> Puerto Rico should really be a state by now. Would it being a state given it any distinct advantages (or are there any specific problems in light of it not being a state) in this type of situation?
In the narrow sense, traditional municipal bankruptcy would have been available to it in this situation (and creditors would have acted with that knowledge, which would likely have forestalled it getting to the current situation) were that the case.
More broadly, PR would have greater influence in federal policy were it a state with voting representation in Congress and electoral votes for the Presidency, which would also make it less likely that things would have gotten this bad.
> Puerto Rican residents can vote on everything aside from federal elections.
So, a colony? Taxation without representation. We might not get taxed IRS federal planillas, but all the levies and duties plus the harmful Jones Act beg to differ with your characterization.
The US is choking our economy in its current status. Statehood or independence, a binding referendum is urgent at this point.
Oh, and don't you remember how the US Supreme Court declared us second-class citizens recently? [0]
> was never an effort from the mainland to introduce this into Congress seriously
Statehood and its benefits isn’t something to be unilaterally demanded. Puerto Rico should have the option to declare independence. But it’s far too corrupt for political integration.
> Puerto Rico should really be a state by now. Would it being a state given it any distinct advantages (or are there any specific problems in light of it not being a state) in this type of situation?
Puerto Rico's economy has been crippled by the Jones Act, which affects all US states/territories that rely solely on sea transportation for trade with the US. Hawaii is the only state that fits that description, and they've also been suffering deeply due to the Jones Act, although not as badly as Puerto Rico (for reasons due to the specifics of Hawaii's economy, not its statehood).
>> Guam and Puerto Rico are already part of the US.
> But they can't vote and have no (useful) representation in Congress. Citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico are treated as second class citizens ("US Nationals", not "US Citizens").
It's a similar situation in Washington DC. DC residents were given a few electoral college votes, I believe that was put into effect only relatively recently in the 1960s. They have no vote in the US house and no senators.
> All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College. If PR was a red state instead of solid blue, I'd sincerely doubt you'd see statehood regularly discussed at the top of /r/politics.
Probably, but that's also been the case for basically every state ever admitted to the union. Remember when the US used to consider whether a state was slave for free before admission?
Even the statehood of Hawaii was politically charged. People genuinely feared the kind of people Hawaiian would send as representatives. Including, but not limited to Communists and anti-segregationists.
Alaska was opposed on the grounds that it would be a welfare state and that it would add a bunch of democrats to Congress.
> I understand it in this referendum “yes” referred to “become a state” while “no” referred to “become independent”, with no option for “keep the status quo”.
You understand incorrectly. The question asked was:
“Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State? ( ) Yes ( ) No”
"Two in three Americans (66%) in a June Gallup survey said they favor admitting Puerto Rico, now a U.S. territory, as a U.S. state. This is consistent with the 59% to 65% range of public support Gallup has recorded for Puerto Rico statehood since 1962." https://news.gallup.com/poll/260744/americans-continue-suppo...
reply