The reason why there are only 50 states: we don't wanna share

Great Debates
1

First, a factual question: has any country, or any part of a country, tried to become a state of the US–and been rejected?

I haven’t heard of any such appeal, but the fact of the matter is that we’re the US! We’re proud! And we sure don’t want any poor, non-English speakers to join our union!

Whether most US citizens and Mexican citizen desire it or not, we have looong and porous border with that country, over which cross Mexicans looking for work in the US and Americans looking for jollies in Mexico. God forbid that we should open up that border and say, “Come on down! You’re the next contestant on the labor price is right!” We might have to start giving our “illegal aliens” health care and (hush! children) a little respect. They speak Spanish, too, which is also a minus.

Puerto Rico–for some odd reason those people are actually allowed to move into our fair land–something about being citizens or what-have-you. I think they speak Spanish there, which, again, is not a good thing, since we should be working and thinking in English. They’ve got more people than Wyoming, however, which has barely enough people to make a decent-sized city.

It should be noted, however, that GWB speaks Spanish–a real f*ckin’ Ren-e-sauce man. He can say “que tal” and numerous other phrases. He does not want condoms distributed in school, however, and pot will be illegal forever.

The Canucks probably don’t want us. We might have to give health care to people in this country, were we to merge, and that just ain’t our style! No jobs for non-USA Hispanics, no health care for Americans! Ain’t the US just the best combo of everything, ever!?

2

No idea what you are ranting on about. Mexico is a soveriegn nation…afaik they’ve never expressed a desire to join the union. Same with Canada. What are you suggesting…anexation to force them in? As for Puerto Rico do you have any idea what you are talking about? They VOTED not to formally join the union as another state and seem quite content with what they have. Guam too for that matter (they speak mainly Japanese there as well as their own local dielect…and English of course).

What are you banging on about? Could you be a bit more clear??

-XT

3

As for wealth… since the US is one of the wealthiest nations on earth, any country wanting to join would necessarily be at least slightly poorer (perhaps with the exception of Brunei or Bahrain).

Many of the problems that are going on these days are the reverse of people wanting not to have quite so much US influence.

Surely some inconsistency?

4

Yes, I thought “duh,” as soon as I wrote it, but the joke is on the US, actually.

Illegal aliens are too scared to stand up for their rights; they won’t get health care at their companies (through private plans, etc.).

Americans on the whole, however, don’t want actually to give everyone decent health care through a national plan–it just wouldn’t be American!

As to the other poster’s point–sure, Mexico is a soverign nation. We have a border with them. We say to her citizens, Can’t work here–different country! Totally artificial. First we rip the land from the Indians, then we say, Y’all can’t work here–you’re Mejicanos!

Brilliant political strategies…

5

I’m honestly not sure what your talking about. Mexico is another nation, just like the U.S is, countries have borders, a U.S citizen couldn’t just waltz over to Mexico and start living there, just like an Italian citizen can’t just go over to Austria and live there. I honestly am not sure what you are trying to debate about, is this thread supposed to be about the U.S opening its borders?

6

Hamster ate ANOTHER of my posts. Whats up with the things these days?

Really? Thats facinating. I was born in Pitiquito (its a village in Senora…thats in Mexico btw). I’m now a naturalized citizen of the US. I have a job. Oh ya…I have health care too. What were you saying again?

I really have no idea (still) what you are ranting on about. Afaik neither Canada nor Mexico has formally (or even informally) asked to join the union. Do you have some kind of cite saying differently? As to letting in whoever wants to come into the US…how would that be “Brilliant political strategies…”??

What exactly is the debate here?

-XT

7

I don’t know that they had tried to become states, but after the Spanish American War of 1898, the constitutional thing to have done would have been to begin the process of allowing Cuba, Puerto Rico, and The Phillipines to all begin the process of becoming states. I can’t think of an exact quote, but when I read The Federalist Papers I seem to recall that a point was made that the framers wanted to avoid allowing the US to become another European style country with colonial territories where the subjects had less than equal protection under the law.

And, honestly, had the US been willing to extend that kind of recognition to those territories and the people there, I doubt, strongly, that given the feeling on the ground in all those areas, that English fluency would have been accepted as a requirement, so the language difference would have been moot.

Of course, allowing such degenerate furriners into the US would have had terrible consequences. Yellow journalism was all very well, yellow Americans? Hell, no.

8

er… that was supposed to be ‘would NOT have been accepted’. Whoops.

9

What part of the Constitution required the United States to begin the process of making Cuba, Puerto Rico, or the Phillipines into a state? Or Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, and Arizona for that matter.

Marc

10

There is no direct order in the Constitution, but on re-reading, the only permanent district, that is part of the US, without being a state, mentioned is the capitol district. Again, I mentioned that much of my basis for my opinion comes from reading The Federalist Papers. Certainly, until the Alaska purchase, I can’t think of any territory that the US had that wasn’t immediately entered into the process of becoming a state. Or states.

11

Slight Nit-pick. Austria is now part of the EU and, IIRC, any citizen of one EU country can move to another and work w/o a visa.

Austria and NZ have that type of treaty with each other as well.

I don’t think it would work for the US and Mexico because of the economic disparity, but I’d certainly be in favor of a similar treaty between the US and Canada (even for the Quebecois :slight_smile: ).

12

When the U.S. conquered and occupied Mexico at the end of the Mexican-American War, some American leaders wanted to annex, not just the territories over which the war had been fought (which is now the American Southwest), but all of Mexico. But they didn’t carry the day. The vast area known as “New Mexico” was mostly empty except for Indians, and relatively few of them. But Mexico proper was a completely settled country. It just had too many people in it, Spanish-speaking and Catholic people. John C. Calhoun opposed annexation because he did not want to give Mexicans the vote. The idea of the U.S. ruling over Mexico indefinitely as a subject colony, with no political representation in Washington, apparently was not a conceivable option at that time.

But by the time of the Spanish-American War, the U.S. had absorbed enough of the conventional wisdom of European imperialism that Yanks saw no reason not to get in on the game. So when we won the Philippines and Puerto Rico as prizes of war, we decided to keep them – as colonies. Early on the question arose, “Does the Constitution follow the flag?” And in a series of cases known as the “insular cases,” the Supreme Court effectively ruled that Congress could govern the conquered islands any way it damn well pleased. (Eventually we decided that hanging on the Philippines wasn’t worth the trouble, but that’s another story.)

Why isn’t Puerto Rico a state yet? Because the island’s people themselves are highly divided as to whether they want statehood, independence, or continuation of the status quo. But also because its people are Spanish-speaking Catholics. No American territory has been granted statehood until it has been thoroughly settled and colonized by cultural Americans, predominantly white English-speakers. Even Hawaii has been culturally Americanized even though white people are a minority there (Asians are the majority). But Puerto Rico, so much closer to our shores, will never be Americanized in this way; it is too densely populated to be settled by newcomers to any extent that would make a difference. If we grant statehood to Puerto Rico, we will be granting full membership in the American political community to a place which will never achieve full membership in the American cultural community. And that would mean making a crucial, unprecedented decision about what kind of country we are. If we are a nation-state, based on a shared national culture and heritage, then Puerto Rico simply does not belong. If we are an idea-state (like the Soviet Union, but based on liberal democracy rather than Marxism-Leninism), then there is no reason not to grant statehood to non-English-speaking territories, provided some form of democratic and constitutional government has been well established there (as it has been, in Puerto Rico). In theory, that would open the door to eventual union with Canada-including-Quebec, or even with Mexico. Perhaps this is a decision that we simply want to put off as long as possible.

13

Do you have a cite for all that about Puerto Rico, BrainGlutton. My understanding is that a good faith offer of statehood was made to Puerto Rico but that it was voted down by the people that live there. Guam is also in the same category btw. And my understanding, again, is that a good faith offer was made and the people themselves voted it down.

-XT

14

…and I would say that Spanish-speaking, mostly Catholic and Indian, Alta California was sure snapped up by the US of A in a hurry, in 1850. There were a lot of white (and other) American settlers rushing in, granted, but it was even admitted as a non-slave state, so everybody was free and equal from the start (at least in practice).

15

No cite, it’s just something I’ve read in so many different sources that I figured everybody knew it. The Puerto Ricans are divided, as I said. Those who want statehood are, apparently, a minority, but there is no actual majority on this question, because the people are divided between three options – territory status, statehood, and independence. According to the Commonwealth’s official website (http://welcome.topuertorico.org/government.shtml), “The major political parties are: Popular Democratic Party (PPD) 787-725-1992, which supports an enhanced commonwealth status. The New Progressive Party (PNP) 787-721-1992, which supports full U.S. statehood for the island. And the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) 787-782-1455 which supports the independence from the US.”

I also think a lot of people in PR would to preserve the island’s U.S. territory status indefinitely, because that keeps the options open for the future; but either statehood or independence would be an irreversible step. No state gets to leave the Union, we established that in 1865, and no sovereign foreign country has been admitted since Hawaii (which was a native kingdom, then an independent English-speaking republic established by American “filibusterers,” then a U.S. territory, and finally a state).

Here’s a link to the U.S. Council for Puerto Rico Statehood: http://www.prstatehood.com/

And to Puerto Rican Independence Party (Partido Independista Puertorriqueno): http://www.independencia.net/ingles/welcome.html

I know almost nothing about Guam, but the same reasoning probably applies.

16

This is precisely the kind of thinking that I am opposing here: We don’t want those poor Mexicans on our dole! That is basically what this whole thread is about.

The US likes to blab that it is somehow different: freer, nicer, gooder, braver, tougher–whatever. And I think part of the fantasy, at least at some point in the now distant past, was that other lands could learn from US–in fact, they could even join us.

Where has that joy, that spirit, gone? Or was it just a sham to begin with?

Here is a cite that documents the change in attitude: http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/lee_americas.html

**In the intervening years between Moy Dong Kee’s first arrival in the United States in 1854 and Lee Chi Yet’s landing in San Francisco in 1918, Chinese immigration to the United States had changed dramatically. Entry into the country in 1854 was relatively uncomplicated, because immigration to the United States was generally free and unrestricted. America welcomed immigrants from around the world to “settle” the land and provide the labor for its newly industrializing economy. Although some states regulated migration across their borders, federal policies—for the most part—promoted and encouraged immigration. Moy Dong Kee thus probably packed his bags, said good-bye to his wife in China, booked passage on a ship in Hong Kong, arrived in San Francisco, and simply disembarked. No gates barred his entry; no gatekeepers demanded immigration documents or subjected him to rigorous interrogations.

By the time Lee Chi Yet arrived in San Francisco, however, new laws had severely limited Chinese immigration into the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act, passed in 1882, barred all Chinese laborers from entering the country for ten years and prohibited Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens. It expressly allowed only a few specific classes of Chinese to continue to immigrate to the United States.**

17

By the way, there is a (very small and marginal) political party, the Expansionist Party of the United States, devoted to granting full statehood to Puerto Rico, Guam, and then some. In fact, the idea seems to be to put the whole British Empire back together, but under the United States Constitution. See the website at http://members.aol.com/XPUS/index.html.

18

Did you mean to type Australia?

19

<nitpick> Italian citizens can just waltz over to Austria and live there. Citizens of EU members states have the right to live and work in whichever EU state they choose, by virtue of their passports. A truly free market requires unrestricted movement of labor, not just of commodities.

20

Nitpick : an Italian citizen can do that, actually.