Let’s say, hypothetically, a smallish European country- let’s say Iceland, purely as an example*- finds itself in a situation where US Statehood would be seen as a desirable thing, and after a properly organised referendum in the country, with a substantianal majority (say, 82%) in favour, petition the US for entry into the Union as a full State of the United States of America.
Would the US accept the new State, or would they knock it back with concerns about having nothing in common culturally, or the new state being a financial liability, or something like that?
*I’m well aware Iceland is the world’s oldest parliamentary Democracy and has no intention of becoming a US State. This is purely an academic discussion/hypothetical situation, not a “Which European Country could be a US State?” debate
Assuming we’re not pretending decisions are made in the interests of the people or the nation anymore, it would depend if it serves any corporate interests and how much those corporations spent on Capitol Hill and across the media.
The U.S. is past the point of wanting land just for the raw acreage. Also there’s a psychological comfort with having 50 states.
So, the Powers That Be would only consider it if the country offered major economic or military benefits, and few liabilities.
We won’t be making a former Soviet satellite the 51st state if it’s going to dramatically increase political tensions. Not even if they’ve got millions of barrels of oil.
I’d wondered about something like this for awhile now—though I figured it’d be an impossible question to figure out an answer to, as probably any country that would rather be annexed by the United States than remain (or become, if they were already part of another country) independent would probably be in such a bad state that the US wouldn’t want to accept it into the union.
I can’t speak for pro-statehood cultural shifts, though. Kinda out of my field.
However, at the risk of stating the obvious, admitting a country as a new state doesn’t happen in a vacuum—the rest of the world’s reaction is going to have to be taken into account. Other countries might start raising a fuss about US “expansionist imperialism,” or just get alarmed that we’d be horning in on their racket. I mean, probably no one would start a war if the would-be 51st state was like Nauru, or Tonga. But if the petitioning country was Ukraine? Or Kuwait? Or Taiwan?
Even if the population of the new state would be completely cool with it, and annexation would make the US a lot richer and better placed strategically, it might not be worth the trouble.
News to me. And I was in school the last time we had that argument. Although I’d like to see you explain to the folks in Russian America and the Sandwich Islands that they don’t deserve to be states. (Yeah, I’m being snarky – but some people did have that view at one time. I thought we’d gotten over it, after 50 years of Alaskan statehood and 49 of Hawaiian.)
The sticking point, moreso, would be that Iceland is probably full of liberals. They’d really need to either poll as being able to go to either party, or we’d need a second country that voted the other way asking to become the 52nd state.
Alaska is not too far away, and there is nothing but water between California and Hawaii. Both states can be reached without passing through or over another country.
Fwiw, in July, the Icelandic parliament voted in favour of application for EU membership - currently Iceland has access to the single market but is not a member.
Presumably to do with going tits up in the banking crisis.
If there were some upheaval - such as Quebec becoming a completely independent country - I could see some chance of the Atlantic Provinces becoming a state.
Iceland? Beyond the population issue (it would be our least populous state), there’s a language and culture issue.
Iceland could pretty much kiss their language and culture goodbye within about 50 years.
Other than chunks of Canada if it were to dissolve over the Quebec issue, or Puerto Rico, which is already a US Territory, I can’t see the US accepting any other areas as states.
Although I’d like to extend an offer to Great Britain to dump the Monarchy and join the US as 5-8 new States. Those states would be: Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, with England given the option of breaking into 2-5 separate US states for greater Senate representation.
The culture shock and public outrage at the mere suggestion would be priceless. The public comments would be highly entertaining, wouldn’t they?
I think we’d take Cuba, if given the chance, especially if, at some point in the future, Cuba opens up and half of Dade County moves back, bringing capital, organizational skills, and American culture with them. I don’t see this happening in the next 25 years, but it seems plausible that it could happen in 50.
The U.S. isn’t looking for new territories. We MIGHT accept one if it just fell into our laps, but it’s hard to imagine that happening.
Look at it this way: we’ve owned Puerto Rico for a century. It’s very close to us, geographically. We’ve had longstanding political and economic ties. And STILL we’re not sure that statehood would be a good idea, and nether are the Puerto Ricans, who still have a strong sense of nationalism and a desire to retain their own distinct language and culture.
IF Puerto Rico had become a state decades ago, and nationalism made a big resurgence there, how eager would the U.S. be to use military force to keep them in the Union?
If Puerto Rico hasn’t been integrated yet, it’s hard to imagine what OTHER entity could become the 5st state.
You already have Kosovo. Everybody knows it’s an American protectorate and it’ll be eaten by one of the neighbours sometime in the 21st or 22nd century when America is looking elsewhere. And there’s the problem. Do you want to consign yourself to protecting a small area so far from your mainland? Not just for the term of the next three presidents, but for the following hundreds of years. Do you want to, and do you believe you’ll be capable of.
This is what I came into this thread to post. I think it would take some fairly significant change in the country applying and/or in the geopolitical situation of the US for us to want an already established country to enter the Union. With the Maritime Provinces, you have no issue with language and you have continuity of territory. No small things in this case.
And Sage Rat has a good point of most of the industrialized world being much more left leaning than that US as a whole. Politics has a habit of getting in the way of many ideas-- good or bad.
I say no. Every territory previously admitted to statehood first had been colonized/settled by (mostly) Anglo-Americans to the point where they were the majority or at least dominant culture. Puerto Rico has been U.S. territory since 1898 and still is not a state because it still is culturally Spanish-speaking, Latin-American and Catholic. That is because it was full up by the time it was annexed, no room for Anglo-American settlers to make a difference. It is not part of the American ethnocultural nation and never will be. Nor will Iceland.