NationStates Jolt Archive


Question to Americans

Wisjersey
19-05-2005, 20:20
I've been wondering, would the US let other countries in to become states in the US. Like Jamaica or post-communist Cuba (some day, hopefully)? Or do you think that the US will never increase beyond it's current number of states (50, if i reckon right)?

Just curious. :)
Sdaeriji
19-05-2005, 20:22
If all the other states voted to accept them, then yes. We accepted Texas when they were a sovereign nation.
Utracia
19-05-2005, 20:24
I don't believe anyone wants to join. Puerto Rico said no. Besides 50 states and 100 senators are nice round numbers.
Riverlund
19-05-2005, 20:24
If I recall correctly, New Caledonia tried to push to be the 51st state back in the late 80s or early 90s with the offer of changing their name to New California. The gov't (US) at the time wasn't keen on it.
Wisjersey
19-05-2005, 20:24
If all the other states voted to accept them, then yes. We accepted Texas when they were a sovereign nation.

Interesting, didn't know that about Texas.
Texpunditistan
19-05-2005, 20:26
If all the other states voted to accept them, then yes. We accepted Texas when they were a sovereign nation.
I agree with the first part, but you need to reread your Texas history.
Aronian States
19-05-2005, 20:31
Depends. A Republican or independent majority in Congress, yes. Democrats, no.
Eriadhin
19-05-2005, 20:33
We could, conceivably add more states....but I think we are all pretty comfy. I think we are really past the territorial expansion part of our history. One of the main reasons is that I don't think they want to change the flag. It hasn't been changed for a loooooong time and I think everyone is rather used to it. That and 51 stars just wouldn't work very well.

But texas ...yeah...that is another issue. Not really their own soveirn nation...though they like to think they were.
Sdaeriji
19-05-2005, 20:37
I agree with the first part, but you need to reread your Texas history.

Annexation of Texas (1845)
In 1845, Texas became the first and, to date, only internationally recognized independent, sovereign state directly admitted to the United States as a constituent state of the Union. (Vermont, which declared itself an independent Republic in 1777, and joined the Union in 1791, operated autonomously of the United States during that period, but was not internationally recognized. The self-proclaimed California Republic and the internationally-recognized Republic of Hawaii were both annexed by the United States, but were not immediately admited as states. The territory included in the California Republic operated under military rule from 1848 until California's admission to the Union in 1850. Hawaii was annexed in 1898, but was organized into a territory in 1900 and remained such until its admission in 1959.)

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas#The_Republic_of_Texas_.281836.26ndash.3B1845.29)


Resolution Annexing Texas to the US, March 1, 1845 (http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/annex.htm)

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit:

First, Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the constitution therof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.

Second, Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owning to said Republic of Texas; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.

Third, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And as such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted to the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking permission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

3. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgement and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then,

Be it Resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extant and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.

Approved, March 1, 1845.

But texas ...yeah...that is another issue. Not really their own soveirn nation...though they like to think they were.

The Republic received diplomatic recognition from the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Yucatán.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas)
Wisjersey
19-05-2005, 20:39
The flag? Heh, that's an interesting point i haven't been thinking about. But yeah, the flag would be a problem. 51 is only dividable through 17 and 3... that wouldn't work well with the current proportions on the flag. :)
Texpunditistan
19-05-2005, 20:39
But texas ...yeah...that is another issue. Not really their own soveirn nation...though they like to think they were.
We actually WERE our own soverign nation for a few years. But we, as a final outcome, did not ask to be included into the US. The US invaded with military force, rounded up our leaders and carted them off to prison, annexing the soverign nation of Texas against its collective will.

I need to go back and get the exact dates and details and the connections with the Civil War, but I *think* I got that right. :)

EDIT: Thanks for looking that up Sadjeri, but I was talking about the way Texas came into the US... political pressures and other factors.

Hell, *I* need to reread things to get them straight. Texas history was back in the 7th grade for me. :D
Sdaeriji
19-05-2005, 20:45
We actually WERE our own soverign nation for a few years. But we, as a final outcome, did not ask to be included into the US. The US invaded with military force, rounded up our leaders and carted them off to prison, annexing the soverign nation of Texas against its collective will.

I need to go back and get the exact dates and details and the connections with the Civil War, but I *think* I got that right. :)

EDIT: Thanks for looking that up Sadjeri, but I was talking about the way Texas came into the US... political pressures and other factors.

Hell, *I* need to reread things to get them straight. Texas history was back in the 7th grade for me. :D

I shall continue.

The Republic of Texas (http://www.slate.com/id/1057)


Historians dismiss McLaren's argument: 1) His citation of the international law of annexation is vague. 2) If his international-law objection is valid, why didn't anti-slavery senators who opposed admission of another slaveholding state raise it at the time? 3) A majority of Texans voted in favor of annexation in an 1845 plebiscite. 4) And even if the 1845 annexation was illegal, the argument is moot: Texas and the other secessionist states rejoined the union after their defeat in the Civil War.


Emphasis mine.
Markreich
19-05-2005, 20:47
I've been wondering, would the US let other countries in to become states in the US. Like Jamaica or post-communist Cuba (some day, hopefully)? Or do you think that the US will never increase beyond it's current number of states (50, if i reckon right)?

Just curious. :)

Any new territory needs Congressional approval and no less than 50,000 residents to apply.

Also:
US Constitution Article IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
Markreich
19-05-2005, 20:48
The flag? Heh, that's an interesting point i haven't been thinking about. But yeah, the flag would be a problem. 51 is only dividable through 17 and 3... that wouldn't work well with the current proportions on the flag. :)

They could admit 2 at the same time, as was done with Alaska/Hawaii.
Sdaeriji
19-05-2005, 20:50
The flag? Heh, that's an interesting point i haven't been thinking about. But yeah, the flag would be a problem. 51 is only dividable through 17 and 3... that wouldn't work well with the current proportions on the flag. :)

They'd probably do some fancy set up.

Like so (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Us_flag_large_51_stars.png)
Wisjersey
19-05-2005, 20:52
Yeah, i see that would work. :D
Texpunditistan
19-05-2005, 20:54
Sadjeri,

Ahhh.. got it. I had some event order mixed up. My point was that the 1845 annexation was illegal.

Although, I just have this fascination with Texas becoming it's own soverign nation again. ;)
Zenocide
19-05-2005, 20:55
I am a Texan, Texas willingly joined the US. Sam Houston, our first President and one of Texa's 'heroes', set it as his goal to join with the United States. It took several years and our second president was against it (Lamar had a dream of his own Manifest Destiny and wanted to expand to the Pacific and claim California and everything in between). The nation was recognized by many of the great powers of the day, the US was independent.

When we seceded during the Civil War we were returned to the United States by force. This is where the Texas extremist groups come from. They claim the US annexed them again against their will and that Texas is still independent (crackpots).

Puerto Rico is a pain to hold on to. It costs us a lot of money (mostly in welfare). Puerto Rico is a parasite. They rejected statehood as if they had a state government that government would have to somehow fund things the federal government funds now.

We don't want another state as we would be obliged to try to raise their standard of living (only a few European countries could integrate without massive changes and they don't want to). Cuba is a relatively impoverished nation and we'd have to pour money into it.
Wisjersey
19-05-2005, 20:58
Sadjeri,

Ahhh.. got it. I had some event order mixed up. My point was that the 1845 annexation was illegal.

Although, I just have this fascination with Texas becoming it's own soverign nation again. ;)

Heh, funny that. To be honest, i had imagined that the preveledge of seceding from the US would have fallen to California... :D
Libertistia
19-05-2005, 21:03
I've been wondering, would the US let other countries in to become states in the US. Like Jamaica or post-communist Cuba (some day, hopefully)? Or do you think that the US will never increase beyond it's current number of states (50, if i reckon right)?

Just curious. :)


Depends. For a while the Republicans didn't want Puerto Rico in because they thought the people there would vote Democratic. However, now it is the other way around. So it really matters who the congress think the people of that territory will voted. I think it is inevitable that more states will want to join and we'll have to let them in.
Sdaeriji
19-05-2005, 21:04
Depends. For a while the Republicans didn't want Puerto Rico in because they thought the people there would vote Democratic. However, now it is the other way around. So it really matters who the congress think the people of that territory will voted. I think it is inevitable that more states will want to join and we'll have to let them in.

However, right now Puerto Rico doesn't want in. The majority still supports the status quo.
Wisjersey
19-05-2005, 21:09
I am a Texan, Texas willingly joined the US. Sam Houston, our first President and one of Texa's 'heroes', set it as his goal to join with the United States. It took several years and our second president was against it (Lamar had a dream of his own Manifest Destiny and wanted to expand to the Pacific and claim California and everything in between). The nation was recognized by many of the great powers of the day, the US was independent.

What do you mean with 'Manifest Destiny'?

When we seceded during the Civil War we were returned to the United States by force. This is where the Texas extremist groups come from. They claim the US annexed them again against their will and that Texas is still independent (crackpots).

Now i see. Extremist groups? Sounds scary. :(

Puerto Rico is a pain to hold on to. It costs us a lot of money (mostly in welfare). Puerto Rico is a parasite. They rejected statehood as if they had a state government that government would have to somehow fund things the federal government funds now.

I have to admit... i didn't think about Puerto Rico. Very unfortunate situation there...


We don't want another state as we would be obliged to try to raise their standard of living (only a few European countries could integrate without massive changes and they don't want to). Cuba is a relatively impoverished nation and we'd have to pour money into it.

Well, i wasn't thinking about European countries at all... i mean, they're on the wrong continent (it would be difficult calling it 'United States of America then, wouldn't it?). Plus, you're right, i doubt they'd want. (Also, we Europeans now have our own little US-lookalike - the EU ;)). Regarding Cuba... no wonder they're poor. It's all stupid Castro's fault. :p
Ashmoria
19-05-2005, 21:11
oooooooo cuba as the 51st state
we coud add in puerto rico at the same time so the flag is better balanced.
Celticadia
19-05-2005, 21:13
Cuba is a possibility if Fidel Castro is no longer around but they'll probably want to remain their own country. If Cuba becomes Democratic though, the US might have a lot of interest and it would get built up.

Before Castro, Cuba was a place of leisure for rich Americans as there was a Capitalist system in place. However, the government was corrupt too. I can see it eventually returning to that type of place minus the corruption if Communism finally loses its power there.
Vaitupu
19-05-2005, 21:14
currently, the only territories we have are Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. The only recent pushes for statehood are Puerto Rico and Washington DC. I doubt Puerto Rico will become a state any time soon as they get all the benefits of statehood without having to pay the taxes.

If another nation wanted to join, it could happen, but I think it would be unlikely.
Wisjersey
19-05-2005, 21:15
Well, as i initially said, i was talking about a post-communist Cuba. And yes, i think without Castro communism in Cuba will be doomed. :)
Celticadia
19-05-2005, 21:16
If another nation wanted to join, it could happen, but I think it would be unlikely.

Yeah, I don't see any other country that would want to join the US. There are none in the area that seem like they would, not that it's a bad thing.
Kiue
19-05-2005, 21:28
I'm American, raised partially in Britain but have American citizenship so I'm qualified to answer :P

In all honesty, if you asked me what the US would look like 50 years from now, the only way we will have gained a new state is if we lost another one, and I'm mainly referring to Hawai'i. They have actually been actively pushing to no longer be under US jurisdiction. They have their own language and culture, they're way the hell out of the way of the other 49 states, and they have much closer historical ties with the UK than the US (as evidenced by the British flag in the corner of their state flag.) I see the US as possibly admitting a new state (likely Guam or the US Virgin Islands) only if Hawai'i successfully seceded. Washington DC will never be a state because it was intentionally designed not to be. Puerto Rico probably won't be because they don't want to be and I don't blame them. Another country never will be, and Jamacia's not an option... its ties are too close to the UK.

There's my input.
Swimmingpool
19-05-2005, 21:29
I've been wondering, would the US let other countries in to become states in the US. Like Jamaica or post-communist Cuba (some day, hopefully)? Or do you think that the US will never increase beyond it's current number of states (50, if i reckon right)?

Just curious. :)
That's called imperialism.

Depends. A Republican or independent majority in Congress, yes. Democrats, no.
Elaborate. Democrats are more protectionist regarding admission of new states?
Sdaeriji
19-05-2005, 21:33
That's called imperialism.

Not if the nations are willing to join the US, and aren't coerced.


Elaborate. Democrats are more protectionist regarding admission of new states?

Not specifically. But the closest there is to a potential 51st state is Puerto Rico, which has been trending Republican in local elections, I believe. So Democrats would not likely want to admit a new state that would bring more (likely) Republican senators and representatives.
12345543211
19-05-2005, 21:40
Interesting, didn't know that about Texas.

Yeah its pretty funny now that we look at it. I mean we could have not had Texas as part of our country. How great would that be?
Unidox
19-05-2005, 21:43
We actually WERE our own soverign nation for a few years. But we, as a final outcome, did not ask to be included into the US. The US invaded with military force, rounded up our leaders and carted them off to prison, annexing the soverign nation of Texas against its collective will.

I need to go back and get the exact dates and details and the connections with the Civil War, but I *think* I got that right. :)

EDIT: Thanks for looking that up Sadjeri, but I was talking about the way Texas came into the US... political pressures and other factors.

Hell, *I* need to reread things to get them straight. Texas history was back in the 7th grade for me. :D


Actually I think it was more like Soverign Texas had stretched its military to thin trying to clime some of the New Mexico territory. Which put us in dept, in turn devalued Texas currancy, and weakened our economics. Then the heads of state printed more money than we could and we went into economic collapse. Previously though Sam Houston wrote to the U.S. Government and asked if they would consider annaxing Texas; the refused... Later we were annexed as a "get out of dept deal."
Kaitonia
19-05-2005, 22:06
Puerto Rico is a pain to hold on to. It costs us a lot of money (mostly in welfare). Puerto Rico is a parasite. They rejected statehood as if they had a state government that government would have to somehow fund things the federal government funds now.


You never know when a Puerto Rican could be reading this, take offense, and then track you down and poop in your mouth while you sleep.

Anyways, you make it sound as if Puerto Rico as a whole is simply a leech stuck on the side of the US, drying it of life and funds. You probably don't have the first clue regarding the actual politics of that tiny lil' island off the coast of Florida.

There are three main political parties in Puerto Rico, the three which in basic order represent the three main choices the island can make - Become a State, Remain a commonwealth, or become it's own independent nation.

Of the three, the two strongest groups are the P.D.P. (Remain commonwealth) and N.P.P. (become a state). The third, independists group (P.I.P.) are much smaller - however, can sometimes be considered militant but nothing worth mentioning. Minor robberies and the like (by a group called the Macheteros).

Problems abound when decision time comes to decide the political future of the island. Can it survive on its own? (I don't believe so; not anymore) Can it become a state but keep it's own latin culture intact? (Probably not.) There's more to it than these issues, but these issues alone cannot be ignored.


Lastly, the governer of the island generally represents one of the three parties (and in general, has been a member of either P.D.D. or N.P.P. - and the debates and arguments - street brawls and bar fights regarding citizen members of either party abound during election years. Actually, the fights can happen whenever, really. A popular sign at pool halls reads; "Keep politics and trick shots out of my bar". It's uglier down there than a group of people freeloading, as some would like to think.

Regardless, this was just a quick bit of Puerto Rican politic for you'se guy'se, and for the record I'd appreciate not hearing my home being refered to as parasitic. Gracias and all that.
Personal responsibilit
19-05-2005, 22:18
I'd love to see the U.S. adding states personally. Heck, we could destroy the notion of the U.N. altogether and just annex the whole world... ;)

Seriously, I doubt there is any country for whom it would be mutually beneficial to join. I think it is unlikely, but not completely impossible.
Midnight Blue Froggies
19-05-2005, 22:22
If all the other states voted to accept them, then yes. We accepted Texas when they were a sovereign nation.
i lived in texas ill a few years ago. WHEN was Texas a nation!!! Hawaii was at one time but not exas e your facts right
Sdaeriji
19-05-2005, 22:25
i lived in texas ill a few years ago. WHEN was Texas a nation!!! Hawaii was at one time but not exas e your facts right

The Republic of Texas, 1836-1845. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas)

Seriously, stop telling me I'm wrong. I know I'm right.
Great Beer and Food
19-05-2005, 22:29
Or do you think that the US will never increase beyond it's current number of states (50, if i reckon right)?

Just curious. :)

Jesus H. Christ, I hope not ><'
Rummania
19-05-2005, 22:33
Depends. A Republican or independent majority in Congress, yes. Democrats, no.

It's the Republicans who don't want statehood for PR or DC (the only two reasonable candidates) because these areas are full of liberals and minorities.
Battery Charger
19-05-2005, 22:34
We could, conceivably add more states....but I think we are all pretty comfy. I think we are really past the territorial expansion part of our history. One of the main reasons is that I don't think they want to change the flag. It hasn't been changed for a loooooong time and I think everyone is rather used to it. That and 51 stars just wouldn't work very well.

But texas ...yeah...that is another issue. Not really their own soveirn nation...though they like to think they were.Any number of stars can fit perfectly on the flag. 51 state flag (http://flagspot.net/images/u/us-51st.gif)
Woldenstein
19-05-2005, 22:35
Cuba is a possibility if Fidel Castro is no longer around but they'll probably want to remain their own country. If Cuba becomes Democratic though, the US might have a lot of interest and it would get built up.For historical interest, to annex Cuba the US would have to repeal the Teller Amendment (passed shortly after the spanish-american war) which prohibits the US from exercising control over Cuba.

Fourth. That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said Island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the Island to its people.
Parthini
19-05-2005, 22:43
Well, we could always reassert our Spanish-American claims and annex Spain :P
Rummania
19-05-2005, 22:44
Well, we could always reassert our Spanish-American claims and annex Spain :P

Spain just legalized gay marriage. We need to liberate them from activist judges. REMEMBER THE MAINE!
Battery Charger
20-05-2005, 00:39
I've been wondering, would the US let other countries in to become states in the US. Like Jamaica or post-communist Cuba (some day, hopefully)? Or do you think that the US will never increase beyond it's current number of states (50, if i reckon right)?

Just curious. :)I think we have too many states as it is. The political power of each individual state is dilluted while the total power of the US is overwhelming. Federalism is dead. :( If anything, I'd rather that some states were let go, ideally including the one I'm in. Okay, that's probably not going to happen, but I don't really see anyone else voluntarily joining the union anytime soon either.
Vaitupu
20-05-2005, 04:23
They have actually been actively pushing to no longer be under US jurisdiction. They have their own language and culture, they're way the hell out of the way of the other 49 states, and they have much closer historical ties with the UK than the US (as evidenced by the British flag in the corner of their state flag.) I see the US as possibly admitting a new state (likely Guam or the US Virgin Islands) only if Hawai'i successfully seceded. Washington DC will never be a state because it was intentionally designed not to be. Puerto Rico probably won't be because they don't want to be and I don't blame them. Another country never will be, and Jamacia's not an option... its ties are too close to the UK.

There's my input.

Hawai'i, legally speaking, should not be a state. The US has recognized that we obtained it illegally, but decided to keep it. The Hawaiian monarchy was actually almost exactly the British monarchy...which I think is kinda cool (actually, their state flag is the old monarchy flag, meant to show the influence of the british and the 8 major islands)

I don't see guam or the usvi becoming states because they are too small and really offer very little as far as joining the union.

I know that DC was designed not to be a state, but I think it is important that they become one. They are among the poorest cities in America and can get very little done because they don't have a voice in Congress. They had to be given the right to vote, just because of where they live. Personally, I think at the very least they deserve voting congressmen.

As far as Puerto Rico goes, they were amazingly close to voting yes at the last poll, but their current governer is against statehood. I think they would be smart to stay as they are now, but hey, I don't live there, so I dont really know


And yeah, the only 2 independent nations close enough to the US to become states are Mexico and Canada...and lets face it, it jsut ain't gonna happen. Maybe some if the caribbean islands, but culturally they are too Spanish and French (well, really too caribbean if that makes sense) to become "American"
Americai
20-05-2005, 07:20
I've been wondering, would the US let other countries in to become states in the US. Like Jamaica or post-communist Cuba (some day, hopefully)? Or do you think that the US will never increase beyond it's current number of states (50, if i reckon right)?

Just curious. :)

Yes. As long as they meet the requirements for statehood, they will be given the option of admittence.

Take Puerto Rico. We have given them the option. They opt not to join however due to the fact they would rather sacrifice the ability to have their own represnatives in order to not have to pay taxes.
RonaldLuhnd
20-05-2005, 07:29
I know Al Sharpton is an avid supporter of Washington DC becoming a state.
Rebecacaca
20-05-2005, 08:34
Regarding Cuba... no wonder they're poor. It's all stupid Castro's fault. :p
Actually, no its all stupid America's fault. Castro did a very good job of educating and getting the Cubans to work, but when your traditional trading partner puts a load of taffifs on you, it really doesn't help your economy, and the only reason America was really interested in Cuba was because a load of Americans had interests in sugar in Cuba, and they lost those. Cuba is small enough for communism to work, regardless of whatever the right-wing media say.
Texpunditistan
20-05-2005, 08:36
Actually, no its all stupid America's fault. Castro did a very good job of educating and getting the Cubans to work, but when your traditional trading partner puts a load of taffifs on you, it really doesn't help your economy, and the only reason America was really interested in Cuba was because a load of Americans had interests in sugar in Cuba, and they lost those. Cuba is small enough for communism to work, regardless of whatever the right-wing media say.
Yep...and that's why Castro has a $500million stash while the Cuban people have their food rationed and routinely eat nothing better than onion skin soup.

Yeah! That's America's fault. :rolleyes:
Brizoa
20-05-2005, 08:42
Hell, *I* need to reread things to get them straight. Texas history was back in the 7th grade for me. :D

I moved from Texas to Illinois in the seventh grade. I was amazed that there was no Illinois history class, same goes for Iowa. :eek:
Texpunditistan
20-05-2005, 08:44
I moved from Texas to Illinois in the seventh grade. I was amazed that there was no Illinois history class, same goes for Iowa. :eek:
Well, Illinois and Iowa were never their own nations. Texans are kinda proud of being soverign and independent at one point in time. ;)
Wondsing Island
20-05-2005, 08:52
Hawaii said no, and it became a state anyway.
[NS]Alisle
20-05-2005, 09:00
I believe Americai is accurate when he says we would accept any state that voted itself into the United States. I'm not positive though. I suspect that's the case though, and I've heard that before - I'll try and find out for certain from someone who would know though.

And yes, what he said about Puerto Rico is accurate. They've had a standing offer to become a state, but have chosen (sometimes narrowly) not to - and we actively spend money down there on campaigns to help make sure that doesn't change.
Wondsing Island
20-05-2005, 09:05
Do you think Iraq should become a state?
Texpunditistan
20-05-2005, 09:06
Do you think Iraq should become a state?
Oi! *smacks palm to forehead*
Wondsing Island
20-05-2005, 09:10
I take that as a...no?
Pilmico
20-05-2005, 10:32
That is very good, that was-is very smart.
A good one.
Dragons Bay
20-05-2005, 10:42
Even if any Caribbean island was to "self-appoint" as a US state, the US federal government may not accept it. The reason is simple: immigration laws are non-existent within the same nation. The US would be introducing a flood of Caribbean immigrants into Florida and Texas, which is not in the best interests of the entire nation.
La Habana Cuba
20-05-2005, 11:03
As a native cuban thank you for your comments on Cuba.
Katganistan
20-05-2005, 11:38
What makes anyone think other nations necessarily WANT to be part of the US? Heck, Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state... I hear about theories of annexing Canada and Mexico and I wonder why anyone would think sovereign nations would want simply to assimilate.
Katganistan
20-05-2005, 11:45
currently, the only territories we have are Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. The only recent pushes for statehood are Puerto Rico and Washington DC. I doubt Puerto Rico will become a state any time soon as they get all the benefits of statehood without having to pay the taxes.

If another nation wanted to join, it could happen, but I think it would be unlikely.

You also forget that like Washington D.C, they have no voting representation in the Congress. HOWEVER, as D.C. residents DO pay taxes, there is a great irony in their not being represented.
Markreich
20-05-2005, 12:40
It's the Republicans who don't want statehood for PR or DC (the only two reasonable candidates) because these areas are full of liberals and minorities.

Er... that is hardly the point. PR gets to vote on statehood at it's own volition -- all US territories can. In theory, if Samoa could get more people, they could do the same.

As for DC, the district should (IMHO) NOT be a state. The minute that happens, it would get all sorts of special attention beyond what it does now. (I lived in DC for 3 years. There are lots of problems, but none of them will be solved by making the Mayor a Governor.) Further, the land was GIVEN/TAKEN (depending on whom you talk to) from Maryland, so it'd be unconstitutional to make it into a state.
Markreich
20-05-2005, 12:43
And yeah, the only 2 independent nations close enough to the US to become states are Mexico and Canada...and lets face it, it jsut ain't gonna happen. Maybe some if the caribbean islands, but culturally they are too Spanish and French (well, really too caribbean if that makes sense) to become "American"

Half of Mexico is already in the US: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada & part of Colorado...

As for Canada, only if it ever broke up.
[NS]Alisle
20-05-2005, 15:40
You also forget that like Washington D.C, they have no voting representation in the Congress. HOWEVER, as D.C. residents DO pay taxes, there is a great irony in their not being represented.

Um... yeah, DC has (http://www.house.gov/house/MemStateSearch.shtml#DC) Congressmen.
Wondsing Island
20-05-2005, 18:04
Half of Mexico is already in the US: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada & part of Colorado...

As for Canada, only if it ever broke up.

Yes, it's called taking lands the US owns and immigrating there so much that they believe (groups like mecca) it will be inherited by mexico.
Texpunditistan
20-05-2005, 18:07
Yes, it's called taking lands the US owns and immigrating there so much that they believe (groups like mecca) it will be inherited by mexico.
It's MECHA (and the Aztlan movement) and they're basically the mexican version of the KKK.
Markreich
20-05-2005, 18:31
Yes, it's called taking lands the US owns and immigrating there so much that they believe (groups like mecca) it will be inherited by mexico.

You misunderstand me (or maybe I'm not being clear): the US took over half of Mexico during the Mexican-American War under President Polk.
Markreich
21-05-2005, 12:26
It's MECHA (and the Aztlan movement) and they're basically the mexican version of the KKK.

Perhaps the US could fight MECHA with MECHA?

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/cpf/Veritech.jpg
Eutrusca
21-05-2005, 12:28
I've been wondering, would the US let other countries in to become states in the US. Like Jamaica or post-communist Cuba (some day, hopefully)? Or do you think that the US will never increase beyond it's current number of states (50, if i reckon right)?

Just curious. :)
There's a process to handle this issue, but I suspect that most Americans would conclude that the US was big enough already.
Midnight Blue Froggies
21-05-2005, 12:42
If the US let in a new country we would have to deal with all its problems like people being illiterite. it would take a lot of tax money and most people would be upste by that.
Markreich
21-05-2005, 13:17
If the US let in a new country we would have to deal with all its problems like people being illiterite. it would take a lot of tax money and most people would be upste by that.

As you so aptly demonstrate. :D