Why isn't Puerto Rico a state?
By DoriLentrich
@DoriLentrich (1016)
United States
September 6, 2008 3:33pm CST
Was anyone else surprised when the Puerto Rican delegation to the RNC referred to themselves as the "future 51st state of the union?"
I've always wondered about that. Why isn't Puerto Rico a state? They receive the benefits of statehood, including voting in our elections, but haven't been admitted. Is this because they don't want statehood? If that is the reason, why not? Isn't it a little unfair to get all the privileges of the US without the responsibilites, primarily paying taxes?
However, is there another reason why they aren't a state?
1 person likes this
6 responses
@coolseeds (3919)
• United States
6 Sep 08
There is a saying. Why buy the cow when the milk is free. The same applies to this situation. They get food stamps, welfare, voting privileges and everything else a US citizen receives but they are not a state. Just a territory. That sound a little demeaning to me. But I think they do not want to become a state for stated reasons.
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
7 Sep 08
That might be. I agree that only being a territory does sound a bit demeaning. However, there must be benefits to being a state. Hawaii and Alaska both petitioned for statehood. Our country has grown, both literally and figuratively, because of their contritbutions.
@coolseeds (3919)
• United States
11 Oct 08
Hawaii and Alaska are key positions in a war. Midway to Japan and right beside Russia. So I can see why the U.S. would want to acquire them.
One must also consider the fact that they became states a long time ago. Probably before the U.S. was so generous. Back then people were proud to earn their keep. Today a lot of people think it is the governments responsibility to see to it that they eat regardless if they contribute to society.
BTW... Thanks for the BR.
1 person likes this
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
12 Oct 08
Alaska and Hawaii didn't become states that long ago, midway through the last century. People are still alive who remember 49 states or 48 states. Strategically, I agree with you, it made sense. But, Puerto Rico makes sense too, with all that is going on South America. It's a stretch, I grant you. And I'm not sure if we have military installations there.
I agree that times have changed. And what you call generous, some might call stupidity. I make no judgment either way. It's a strange world.
You're welcome.
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
22 Sep 08
Fair point. But, it seems logical that a territory with as many electoral votes as they have might want a little more say in how the cash cow they get their money from does things. Well, logical to me at least. At least California tries to throw its weight around and New York and Texas, etc.
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
7 Sep 08
What servitude? California hardly seems to be a servant to the nation. The lacking of representation would seem to be an issue. Yes, Puerto Rico receives all the benefits, but they are also powerless. There is no legislator petitioning for their interests on the floor of Congress. If the U.S. decided to change how it treats its territories, what could they do? They have voting rights in the election, it appears, but do they have Congressional power. While the president is important, it's the Congress who actually gets things done.
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
7 Sep 08
But wouldn't they want to be able to exert some control over the programs. According to the Republican convention, they have more electoral votes than some states. It would make sense that they might want to exert that power in the halls of Washington. However, this is a choice for the people of Puerto Rico to make.
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
8 Sep 08
You may be right. Perhaps I'm a bit too Americanized. I would think having representation in the government to be a greater asset then just receiving benefit programs which could dry up at any time. The U.S., great though she is, is not a permanent fixture. The benefits they receive could vanish in one vote in Congress. Not likely, but it would seem logical they would want a say in that.
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
7 Sep 08
Doesn't that make the people of Puerto Rico sound like free-loaders? Is that what they are? Taking the largesse of the United States and then thumbing their nose at the very people who help them. How would they be cutting off their noses? They would receive the same benefits they are receiving now, and have the added benefits of statehood, which would include representation in government.
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
12 Oct 08
As a US territory they have everything all the regular states have except representation in congress and senate although they are allowed to vote. They also have the distinction that they are still their own country and not US American so to speak and are as such represented everywhere else including their own Olympic delegation.
1 person likes this
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
13 Oct 08
Thank you for your explanation. I was not aware of all the details. However, it still begs the question, wouldn't representation be important to them? For all intents and purposes they are part of the U.S., wouldn't they want some say over how we handle things? As I've said above, it would make sense to me, but apparently I'm missing something.
Representation seems vital to me. But it must not be to others.
@cmoneyspinner (9218)
• Austin, Texas
22 Aug 15
Empathetically, I try to understand that as passionate and patriotic as Americans are about America, there are people in Puerto Rico who have equal fervor about the place of their birth. Some people want P.R. to be a state and some don't. It's not really about paying taxes. It goes deeper than that. It's a clear divide. You could say it's about pride in your birthplace and a desire to be independent. That's what I gathered from my limited trips to Puerto Rico. Whereas it may not be worthy of debate for outsiders, it is a serious political conflict to insiders. Frankly, I hope one day that Puerto Rico will be a state.
