I mean, it wouldn’t be the craziest part of your hypothetical…
But as you say, assuming Puerto Ricans really want statehood, it’s pretty recent and pretty recently allowing it to become a state would simply create safe seats for the Democrats. Lots of Democrats love to explain every position of the GOP in terms of ‘race’, and perhaps that’s not always entirely wrong. But no major party in any country would favor changing the status of a place to simply hand national legislative seats to the other. The Democrats wouldn’t either, if the highly questionable logic of ‘they’re pro-life’ was really of any political significance (Latino’s on the US mainland have a roughly similar religious break down to Puerto Rico and don’t vote that much for the GOP).
By the same token the result of votes in Puerto Rico when everyone knows statehood is a dead issue for now in Congress are questionable for that reason besides the others. Ordinary people, not just politicians, vote for stuff when they know it’s not going to happen so they can ignore the downside.
As is ‘if they were a state we could collect all kinds of income tax!’ That’s obviously not as great an aspect if you live in Puerto Rico and make enough to pay. Likewise ‘moneyed interests’ aren’t using Puerto Rico as a tax haven. The tax policy is to try to boost the Puerto Rican economy and again loss of that advantage would be a real downside to statehood. It’s not as if every other state’s Congressional delegation is itching to give Puerto Rico special treatment once it’s a state, even Democratic ones. They get re-elected by helping their own constituents.
Minor note, Puerto Rico has been a US territory since 1898. The particular appellation ‘Commonwealth’ dates from 1952. It doesn’t actually mean a whole lot though, any more than it does in case of states that call themselves ‘Commonwealth’. Puerto Rico’s current status isn’t basically different than Guam, Northern Marianas, American Samoa and USVI.
You’re welcome. I’m sorry it took me so long to realize that I wasn’t being clear. Glad we got it sorted.
This is incorrect. By your own cite, the PR tax rate only applies to monies earned in PR. Monies earned anywhere else are subject to normal US taxes.
And even with the weird referendum in 2012 that was constructed to give statehood a bigger majority than it really had, statehood only got ~6,000 more votes than the status quo. (The 500,000 blank ballots on the second question were people who refused to choose an alternative to the status quo.)
No; it isn’t.
Let’s assume that you have that correct: so what? That in no way refutes what I wrote.
Correct. With regards to Puerto Rico, the GOP is mainly interested in keeping their majority. Which they wouldn’t with PR statehood. Because of race. Otherwise, who knows how the party system in PR would shake out, due to the policy views in PR not exactly falling along party lines. But when one party is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be prejudiced against you, you’re more likely to feel less welcomed and vote for the other party or stay home.
Actually, I wonder if PR residents wouldn’t be even more inclined than the average mainland-dwelling Latino to vote for the Democratic Party since they would be more likely to keep their health care system. Who knows, they might even elect congressional candidates who support true UHC and thus shift the balance of the debate even further toward UHC.
As usually Cecil has a solution.
As it is right now, the biggest political issue in Puerto Rico is the question of its status in the first place. If that were resolved, then the entire political structure of the island would be re-aligned, with who-knows-what effects.
Personally, I think that the question of Puerto Rico’s status is entirely the business of the Puerto Ricans. If there’s a clear consensus among them that they should become a state, then I support letting them in. If there’s a clear consensus for independence, then I support letting them out. Right now, there’s not a clear consensus for anything, so the status quo is maintained basically out of inertia, and I’m fine with that, too. I suppose my view could be construed as “don’t care”, except that there are some points in it I do care about: I care that, if a clear consensus were to emerge, that consensus shouldn’t be opposed by outsiders.
The Stars issue is easily fixed: simultaneously with a new state being admitted to the union, North and South Dakota are merged into "Dakota ". There is no reason for those to be two separate states. Yes there are differences between them in economics and culture, differences ways smaller though than northern and Southern California, or the city of and up-state New York. We could even bring it down to a more pleasing seven rows of seven - do we really need Oklahoma?
I honestly can’t tell whether you’re serious.
Texas wants to secede; can we make an even up trade?
If that’s not acceptable mebbe add a Canadian provence to be named later. 
So, they are citizens of the USA, but they can’t vote can they?
If Puerto Ricans can’t vote, then who choses the elected governor?
Depends on your definition of “vote”.
They have minor representation in the House (similar to DC) and they have a delegate presence in the presidential primaries.
That’s pretty much the extent of their vote counting at the federal level.
But to answer the question that you actually asked instead of the one you meant, they are, like everyone else, free to vote for whomever and whatever they want. When I was in third grade, we had a day where we, as a school, to learn about the various electoral processes, voted for president on copies of sample ballots.
So, yes, they can vote. Just like everyone else. Nobody is going to stop Canadians from holding a US Presidential election, nor would they stop my elementary school or Puerto Rico. The results of those elections would all be meaningless, but it doesn’t mean they can’t vote.
They can vote if they move to a state, which they are free to do. This is meaningful.
51 stars lay out just fine. 51st state - Wikipedia
Cost to update flags could be a lot, but the difference would be subtle enough that I doubt most 50-star flags in private use would be replaced with 51-star flags until they would have needed replacement in the ordinary course of things. Major government buildings would probably replace right away. I’m not sure about schools and the like - big good-quality flags ain’t cheap.
I would emphasize what we agree on rather than disagree. But, ‘because of race’ is as almost always is an assertion that can’t be proven factually so should be as easy to dismiss as assert. Like I said, it can’t be proven to never be any of the explanation.
But for example Puerto Rico is a poor place with a high rate of govt dependency. And not in the clever sense of counting military expenditures or Social Security and Medicare expenditures as is sometimes used to come with questionable ‘state dependency’ figures. The general orientation of the Democrats toward a bigger welfare state would benefit Puerto Rico more than probably any other state if it were a state.
As well, allowing a state where the principal language isn’t English would be a change compared to the concept of US national identity as generally previously understood. Again here, Democrats can say resistance to that change is ‘racist’. Many of them seem to think it’s surefire political debating tactic to call pretty much any disagreement with Republicans as due to ‘racism’. Doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Anyway we basically agree, and I believe anyone with common sense does. By far the leading reason Republicans don’t want to make Puerto Rico a state is handing the Democrats two Senate seats. Same reason the Democrats give a crap about the issue (even using it as another way to paint the GOP as ‘racist’ is secondary).
I don’t believe it. They’re all foreigners just like those folks in How Ah Ya (Hawaii) 