Puerto Rico votes for statehood

[cpzilliacus]

As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland.  There's no good reason not to.  It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature.  But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.

Agree with all of the above.

D.C. is highly dependent on warehouse and distribution centers located in Maryland (since there are effectively none in D.C. itself, and no intermodal facilities either).  The only intermodal facilities in Virginia that serve D.C. are the two airports (Dulles and National), and three large pipeline terminals for petroleum products. 

But other goods generally come in to D.C. from Maryland now.  And a large part of D.C. depends on a trauma center in Prince George's County, Maryland (Prince George's General Hospital), because it is closer to much of D.C. than the trauma center at George Washington University Hospital (that was the place that saved Ronald Reagan's life in 1981).

[vdeane]

As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland.  There's no good reason not to.  It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature.  But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.

You sure about that?  I just looked it up.  DC only has 100,000 people less than Alaska.

(OT: I don't support a national language - we have quite a few within our boundaries, English, French, Spanish, Navajo, etc.)

Selecting one as a national language doesn't mean we have to exclude others - we could just set a baseline.  It's not like the US is Quebec.

[bugo]

Selecting one as a national language doesn't mean we have to exclude others - we could just set a baseline.  It's not like the US is Quebec.

We need a single language that everybody understands for practicality's sake.  If a cop says something to you and you don't understand what he's saying, you could get shot in the back.  It's just a good idea.  The government shouldn't subsidize every language out there, because it's too costly.

[agentsteel53]

If a cop says something to you and you don't understand what he's saying, you could get shot in the back.

if you think that a cop yelling at you excitedly means "turn and flee", then you're just an idiot.

[realjd]

The dubiousness of the wording of PR ballot questions aside, I welcome PR as a new state. If nothing else they have fantastic food, and I'm looking forward to the heads of the racist faction of the anti-immigration lobby exploding when we have a primarily Spanish speaking state.

[kphoger]

PR statehood would also bring up the "national language" debate.

No, if anything, quite the opposite. The only reason that's a debate right now is that except for Hawai`i, all of the states were established by English speakers. (Never mind who lived there first.) Adding another non-English state means that we have that much less footing to argue that there should be a national language. (OT: I actually support a national language.)

All of the states?  Louisiana was originally settled by French speakers, and was mainly French until after statehood.  Then you have New Mexico which was originally settled by Spanish speakers and continues to have both English and Spanish as official state languages.  (OT: I don't support a national language - we have quite a few within our boundaries, English, French, Spanish, Navajo, etc.)

If the facts don't conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.....

Selecting one as a national language doesn't mean we have to exclude others - we could just set a baseline.  It's not like the US is Quebec.

We need a single language that everybody understands for practicality's sake.  If a cop says something to you and you don't understand what he's saying, you could get shot in the back.  It's just a good idea.  The government shouldn't subsidize every language out there, because it's too costly.

Choosing a national/official language does not mean that everybody would be require to learn that language, any more than people in Hawaii are required to learn Hawaiian or people in New Zealand are required to learn Maori.  These places have more than one official language, yet I don't believe police officers are required to know both languages.  It might also be a bad idea to have non-Spanish-speaking police officers in parts of the country where, say, 75% of the population speaks Spanish.

Québec is mostly French-speaking, Puerto Rico is mostly Spanish-speaking.  I assume the police in Québec speakk French; one would assume the police in Puerto Rico would speak Spanish, whether or not it's a state.

If a cop says something to you and you don't understand what he's saying, you could get shot in the back.

if you think that a cop yelling at you excitedly means "turn and flee", then you're just an idiot.

A friend of mine had the police tell him one time, 'Desist!'  He didn't know what the word 'desist' meant, and ended up getting beaten up by the cops.  Then again, he is an idiot.  (Actually, he has a learning disability; while he uses that to his advantage sometimes, it certainly worked to his disadvantage on that day).

[agentsteel53]

A friend of mine had the police tell him one time, 'Desist!'  He didn't know what the word 'desist' meant, and ended up getting beaten up by the cops.  Then again, he is an idiot.  (Actually, he has a learning disability; while he uses that to his advantage sometimes, it certainly worked to his disadvantage on that day).

I've learned, from crossing borders in foreign countries, that if a uniformed authority says anything at all whatsoever in a commanding tone of voice, you should - at the very least - pause what you're doing and look at him.

he might just be telling you that he likes the flowers growing just outside the guard shack, but why take the chance?

(I did once accidentally run a border from Switzerland to Italy because their hand gestures were ambiguous and I had not been sure of Switzerland's status vis a vis Schengen - but when they started waving frantically, I certainly backed up and apologized in about four languages!)

[kphoger]

A friend of mine had the police tell him one time, 'Desist!'  He didn't know what the word 'desist' meant, and ended up getting beaten up by the cops.  Then again, he is an idiot.  (Actually, he has a learning disability; while he uses that to his advantage sometimes, it certainly worked to his disadvantage on that day).

I've learned, from crossing borders in foreign countries, that if a uniformed authority says anything at all whatsoever in a commanding tone of voice, you should - at the very least - pause what you're doing and look at him.

he might just be telling you that he likes the flowers growing just outside the guard shack, but why take the chance?

(I did once accidentally run a border from Switzerland to Italy because their hand gestures were ambiguous and I had not been sure of Switzerland's status vis a vis Schengen - but when they started waving frantically, I certainly backed up and apologized in about four languages!)

My fun one was when we drove up to a police officer on our honeymoon in México.  He asked where we were going, and then proceeded to say a couple of long sentences in Spanish; I only understood that we should be careful of.....some sort of danger.  Plus the English word 'buggies' that he threw into the mix.  Exactly what that danger was, I wasn't sure; I wasn't even sure if it was OK to drive there at all.  Eventually I gathered that it was OK to proceed.  So we were tootling up this dirt road, enjoying the mountainous scenery, and then these dune buggies go flying past us, spraying dirt all over our car!  Then some more, then some more.  Now I know:  'carrera' means 'race'.

But now we've gone over the line into Driving where you don't speak the native language.

[SP Cook]

Once it's a state, PR will be the same as everywhere else. I presume it would resolve to a similar status as Hawai`i - tourism is its main draw, plus a variety of tropical crops, but most people live in the shadows of poverty while the money flows into the tourist areas and the wealthy entrepreneurs there. I don't see the economy being devastated, but it will shift toward industries most suited to the island climate/location rather than the cheapness of being there.

Umm, Puerto Rico, which offers passport free travel form the mainland USA, already has a highly developed tourist economy.  Making it a state would not change that.  (At least not for the better, even now PR suffers relative to other Caribbean destinations, because labor costs are far higher, even with exceptions from most US labor laws.  It is also exempt from the US casino tax now.  As a state all US laws would apply, further pushing up costs there relative to nearby islands.)    It would, however, destroy the remainder of the island's economy, which is based on its unique relationship with the USA.

And this leaves out the effects of the Jones Act.

I saw "6 congressmen" below. So let's say it's down to 5 after the next census. Besides the fact that five states will end up minus one representative they'd otherwise have had, there's no significant shift in the balance of power. Right now, there are a lot more than 6 votes separating Democrats and Republicans.

Puerto Rico has a population of 3,725,789, placing it between Oklahoma and Connecticuit, both of which have 5 congress seats.  Any way the key word in your post is "right now".  If you project back in history, and assume PR is always going to elect democrats (PR has elected a single non-voting member to a 4 year term since the 1920s, who has only been a Republican once in all that time), the ballance of power in the House, Senate, and Electoral College would have been changed by 2, 5, and 7 additional democrats several times, and it seems safe to assume that would happen in the future.

[Alps]

Puerto Rico has a population of 3,725,789, placing it between Oklahoma and Connecticuit, both of which have 5 congress seats.  Any way the key word in your post is "right now".  If you project back in history, and assume PR is always going to elect democrats (PR has elected a single non-voting member to a 4 year term since the 1920s, who has only been a Republican once in all that time), the ballance of power in the House, Senate, and Electoral College would have been changed by 2, 5, and 7 additional democrats several times, and it seems safe to assume that would happen in the future.

The composition of those bodies would change, but the balance of power is a defined term based on who is in the majority. I again offer that both parties tend to adjust to align approximately equidistant from the center of the political spectrum, with just enough different to attract 30% of the voters each way, give or take per election. So adding more Democrat votes would probably shift the Democratic and Republican parties both slightly left over a few years. Look at this nation in a world context, and you'll realize how minimal this effect actually is. Both parties agree on the type of government and on maintaining the framework of the Constitution. That's actually really conservative compared to most developed nations.

[ibagli]

Another reason for a cap on representative count could be the physical size of the chamber. You can only fit so many people in there. As it is, they've already once had to put additions onto the Capitol for the current chambers (which are considerably larger than the original chambers).

They don't really need a seat on the floor for each member. 99% of the time, the chamber is very empty. It only fills up for things like the State of the Union Address, and if they absolutely had to find seats for everybody they could just use a section of the gallery for things like that. The British House of Commons chamber can only seat around two thirds of MPs.

[cpzilliacus]

As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland.  There's no good reason not to.  It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature.  But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.

You sure about that?  I just looked it up.  DC only has 100,000 people less than Alaska.

The land area of the District of Columbia is tiny, and aside from lands owned by the National Park Service and the Department of Defense, is 100% urbanized.  It generates essentially none of its own electric power, and all of its intakes for drinking water are located in Maryland.

And as I suggested above, Maryland ceded what is now D.C. to the federal government to become the seat of the national government, not to create a new State of New Columbia. 

(OT: I don't support a national language - we have quite a few within our boundaries, English, French, Spanish, Navajo, etc.)

Selecting one as a national language doesn't mean we have to exclude others - we could just set a baseline.  It's not like the US is Quebec.

The national language of the U.S. is English.  But I don't have a problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as a primary language and English as a secondary language.

[kphoger]

The national language of the U.S. is English.  But I don't have a problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as a primary language and English as a secondary language.

English is the de facto national language in most of the US.  However...
*  Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;
*  22 states plus our nation's capital have no official language; and
*  The prevalence of English as the common spoken language is not ubiquitous nationwide, especially in the Southwest.

[oscar]

English is the de facto national language in most of the US.  However...
*  Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;

Our statutes and most of our other laws (with exceptions such as for treaties, including those with domestic Indian nations) are written only in English, and there's no official translation into other languages let alone any provision for which version prevails, as is sometimes seen in officially bilingual countries.  That seems to me enough to make English the official language of the Federal Government, even though there's no law saying so in so many words. 

[vtk]

Pick a nice round number like 500.  (We like our base 10 numerical system.)

Not all of us.  Calling 500 "a nice round number", and especially favoring it for that reason, is blatantly radixist.

[kphoger]

English is the de facto national language in most of the US.  However...
*  Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;

Our statutes and most of our other laws (with exceptions such as for treaties, including those with domestic Indian nations) are written only in English, and there's no official translation into other languages let alone any provision for which version prevails, as is sometimes seen in officially bilingual countries.  That seems to me enough to make English the official language of the Federal Government, even though there's no law saying so in so many words. 

Note, however, that if you are accused of breaking one of those laws and go to federal court (either civil or criminal), an interpreter must be provided if a party or witness doesn't speak English (ref. 28 USC §2461).

[oscar]

English is the de facto national language in most of the US.  However...
*  Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;

Our statutes and most of our other laws (with exceptions such as for treaties, including those with domestic Indian nations) are written only in English, and there's no official translation into other languages let alone any provision for which version prevails, as is sometimes seen in officially bilingual countries.  That seems to me enough to make English the official language of the Federal Government, even though there's no law saying so in so many words. 

Note, however, that if you are accused of breaking one of those laws and go to federal court (either civil or criminal), an interpreter must be provided if a party or witness doesn't speak English (ref. 28 USC §2461).

Yeah, even if one speaks only a language like Norwegian, Russian, Korean, or Arabic that isn't even close to being a semi-official language.

[lamsalfl]

As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland.  There's no good reason not to.  It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature.  But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.

DC should be left the way it is now.  Did the people not know when they moved there that they weren't eligible to vote in Congress?  The law was written when DC was being planned.  It's not like it was enacted two years ago.  If the residents don't like it, tough.  It's like moving next to an airport, then bitching about the noise when you're trying to sleep!

[vdeane]

That law is also very outdated.  When it was passed, DC was to be a ceremonial city.  DC turned into a real city and should be treated as such.

[Alps]

As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland.  There's no good reason not to.  It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature.  But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.

DC should be left the way it is now.  Did the people not know when they moved there that they weren't eligible to vote in Congress?  The law was written when DC was being planned.  It's not like it was enacted two years ago.  If the residents don't like it, tough.  It's like moving next to an airport, then bitching about the noise when you're trying to sleep!

At this point, most of the residents have been there several generations. Many, if not most, of them cannot afford to move, let alone leave DC. Those who know about the situation and are able to leave it are the minority, so take that into account. (In the airport situation, again, oftentimes that's where poor families end up - it's that, a dangerous slum, or no house.)

[WillWeaverRVA]

Pick a nice round number like 500.  (We like our base 10 numerical system.)

Not all of us.  Calling 500 "a nice round number", and especially favoring it for that reason, is blatantly radixist.

We're talking about Puerto Rico, not Alanland.

[vtk]

Pick a nice round number like 500.  (We like our base 10 numerical system.)

Not all of us.  Calling 500 "a nice round number", and especially favoring it for that reason, is blatantly radixist.

We're talking about Puerto Rico, not Alanland.

I'm serious.  Sort of.  More serious than a joke among mathematicians, less serious than a cause worth marching on Birmingham.  Alanland is utter nonsense, and I resent the comparison.

[Beltway]

That law is also very outdated.  When it was passed, DC was to be a ceremonial city.  DC turned into a real city and should be treated as such.

Then give it back to Maryland, at least everything except the about 1/2 square mile of federal district.

[Mr_Northside]

Then give it back to Maryland, at least everything except the about 1/2 square mile of federal district.

I'd have to agree with this.  Either leave it like it has been, or have it absorb into Maryland. 

[oscar]

At this point, most of the residents have been there several generations. Many, if not most, of them cannot afford to move, let alone leave DC. Those who know about the situation and are able to leave it are the minority, so take that into account. (In the airport situation, again, oftentimes that's where poor families end up - it's that, a dangerous slum, or no house.)

How many current D.C. residents have not only lived there their entire adult lives (except maybe with short breaks such as for college or military service), but also have never moved within D.C.?  I'd venture a guess that most of the people who have moved within D.C. could have about as easily moved instead to more or less comparable communities just a few miles away in Virginia or Maryland, if they really cared about living in a state rather than D.C.  It's not as if D.C. is an oasis of affordable housing in a sea of wealthy suburbs -- many of D.C.'s close-in suburbs, especially to the east and south, are not real pricey either, and indeed many former D.C. residents now live there.  Arlington and Bethesda also have lively, densely populated urban corridors (especially for Arlington, within a few subway stops from downtown D.C.), for those with more money who like that aspect of D.C.'s environment. 

My preference, too, would be to return most or all of D.C. to Maryland.  Good luck getting Maryland to go along with that, though.