Zardnaar
Deity
Well they might want statehood instead.
Cherokee Nation wants to send a delegate to the House
- Thread starter emzie
- Start date
Well they might want statehood instead.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
Statehood is also a good option, what is inpratical is the current state of colony.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Puerto Rico don't want independence. They would like to become a state.
Last vote (2017) for independence in Puerto Rico only got 1.5% support.
Puerto Rico has best case for statehood because of population size (also land area to a lesser extent).
Current Least populated state: Wyoming 581,000
Population of territories:
Puerto Rico 3,285,874
Guam 153,836
US Virgin Islands 87,146
American Samoa 49,710
Northern Mariana Islands 47,329
(just throwing this in here because of the 'vote in congress' thing)
DC 689,545
Land Area:
Smallest US state: Rhode Island 1214 square miles
(Wyoming, the least populated does have respectable land area size of 97,914)
Land area of territories (square miles):
Puerto Rico 3515
Guam 210
Northern Mariana Islands 179
US Virgin Islands 134
American Samoa 76
(again, just adding DC here because of desire for rep in congress)
DC 61
News flash: US isn't the only one still with overseas territories. France has one on your border (they didn't want independence either from vote in 2010)
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
I guess you are talking about French Guiana, who makes border with Brazil.
At least the French Guiana is part of France, not more a colony, they can vote for president and use Euros as currency.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
i would ask those that live there, afaik opinion there is split.
that said, being delegated to territory is also kind of bad, but i'm not sure whether opinions are split there too.
edit: bamspeedy had the numbers. i vastly overestimated wish for independence.
Last edited:
Flip that logic on its head, how do we justify not giving all Americans representation in Congress? Hell, I live in Canada and am represented in Congress!
How sovereign are they really in practice? The relations of the US with the Native American tribes is certainly not the same as with truely sovereign nations (The existence of the Bureau of Indian Affairs is just one example). Federal agencies have interfered (for better or worse) numerous times in the past. And how sovereign can the tribes really be? It would be very hard to form states that are not entirely dependent on the US.
That one is easy: The removal of one injustice should not be prevented by another injustice that may or may not be worse and "should be addressed first"
There could be solutions for size issue if there was a political will:
- Group them into a virtual state (Ocean state?) and have collective representation for all of them
- Copy the Swiss and make "half-states": States that only have half the representation than normal states (e.g. only one senator instead of two)
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
they're not very sovereign. yes, they have their own governments. but they're landlocked and fully entrenched within US policy, completely bound by a number of treates, without UN representation, and fully dependent on US aid to make any sort of local policy. they have local police, but how something is processed within their legal system depends on whether it's a native american or a white that does the crime (symptomatic of this whole problem: territory has very little impact on police jurisdiction, it's all about citizenship), and they're also under the FBI and several federal laws, who sometimes trounces their local police and handles things. the idea that this is granting a sovereign government a seat is completely off as to the actual conditions of native americans. the treaties grant them some protections, but also strip them of rights to sell their land if they want. it's a complete nightmare.
IIRC statehood requires a minimum of 160,000 people. The Navajo nation might qualify.
Tribal nations in the US are sovereign in regards to the states where the tribes reside. They are exempt from state laws if they so choose, but usually adopt many of the state laws or requirements for things out of convenience. Tribes are subject to all federal laws unless specifically exempted. Within their tribal borders most tribes have complete freedom to carry out their traditional cultural practices. Tribes can organize themselves (government wise) either as traditional (under their traditional cultural values and systems) or as constitutional (under a tribal constitution that has parallels to the US one). I spent 12 years working in traditional tribes. Tribal members quickly dispelled all my romantic notions of tribes and their values.
Yes. Apparently, They held a voting referendum and a majority voted Yes. But they can't bind the US to their referendum so in that sense, ironically, that they can't "pass" jack squat because they aren't a US state.
The taxes matter less than the risk off adding two Puerto Rican/Hispanic Senators. I think that the majority of Congress remains queasy about that... for various reasons. You'd also have to add a star to the flag, which is going to make a ton of merchandise... not to mention tattoos... obsolete... so there's that. Thinking about it... I guess making everyone go back out and buy new flags to hang on their houses and/or local telephone poles is a plus for the flag making industry, kind of like how when a new sports jersey design is released, the teams rake in a bunch of money as everyone rushes to get them.
In any case, the holdup isn't Puerto Ricans wanting to be a state, the holdup is Congress ignoring them.
Last edited:
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
If Porto Rico already have their referendum to join the US as another State, why the statehood dind't happend already? What more is needed?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
In addition to other answers, tax implications are that the native american governments do not pay federal taxes. Individuals, as member of the tribes, whether living on reservation or not, do pay federal taxes. At least that is my understanding.
Yes, vast majority is either for statehood or to keep things as they are (a tax haven-no federal taxes). Pre-2017 vote was flawed, with option to choose statehood, independence, or keep things as they are. Statehood question was a 2 part question and many didn't answer the second part, voiding their vote. 2017 was low turnout (22% turnout, 97% in favor of statehood) because those in support of keeping things as they are boycotted the vote. 2020 was much closer, with statehood getting over 50% (after the devastating hurricane, IRC, where federal aid wasn't what it should have been, perhaps party because they weren't a state.)
It would be less of a 'tax haven' if it became a state, but then also federal aid and reimbursements from certain federal programs would be increased. There was that devastating hurricane a few years ago that probably resulted in it being neglected with federal aid/relief more so than had it been a state. But the biggest hurdle is from republicans, as surely Puerto Rico will add more democrat voters....
Members of these groups in Puerto Rico DO have to pay federal taxes:
Spoiler :
Approval of congress. Republicans against it.
Last edited:
Not very, obviously. The US essentially said, "OK we committed genocide against your people, stole your lands and just overall abused and exploited you... so to show our remorse and give our people a fig leaf to morally absolve themselves, we will place you guys out-of-sight, out-of-mind, in remote areas, on the crappiest available land... Go and die in the manner that seems best to you... have a good time." The "sovereignty" of Native nations is technical and somewhat illusory. Native nations do assert it frequently, but at best, it is mostly an allowance granted by the US, rather than true independence.
Of course that's correct in principle. The nature of the injustice here is the real issue. Is the Cherokee Nation intending to remain sovereign or do they want to have their people simply added into the population of the state?
My point was to mention the other people asking for and entitled to representation, not to say that anyone should be denied representation because others don't yet have it. All that does is create a vicious cycle where no one gets representation because the lack in one group because the excuse for delaying giving it to other groups.
The main question I have is whether Native nations should be treated as states with their own Reps and Senators, or if we should just do away with Reservations entirely and just count Native American people as regular US citizens.
Last edited:
Puerto Rico can't force the US to make it a state. The US Congress has to vote to make Puerto Rico a state. The US Congress won't vote to make Puerto Rico a state, for numerous political, economic and social reasons.
A illustrative example was that Trump's statements about the hurricane relief to Puerto Rico clearly indicated that he did not understand that Puerto Ricans were US citizens and instead regarded Puerto Rico as just some random foreign Caribbean island and essentially like any other third world country that he had previously cursed as being a "s---hole".
The 2020 referendum dropped saw the yes vote drop to 52%. Additionally in the general election, pro-independence parties went from a non-entity to nearly a third of the vote. It looks like momentum has been moving from statehood to independence since Hurricane Maria.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,611
This should be a winning issue.
The US pretty much stands alone among federations in not letting territories vote and have representation, it's not justifiable. Be that NMI, AS, PR, DC or anywhere else.
For who? To win what?
The US isn't a Federation, its a Union... c'mon get it right
.Similar threads
- Locked
