NationStates Jolt Archive

For nearly fifty years, there have been fifty states. That's the longest time in US history that the US has gone without a new state. And it's not like there aren't a lack of those that want to come in. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa are all territories of the US, and they all, to a greater or lesser extent, want statehood. I believe that they'd be states long ago if there wasn't such opposition. So that begs the question if the US is a fixed club.
My theory is that we will see many more states form in the 21st century. However, only a handful of states will occupy more land, like PR. Instead, we will see more states divide from within. Take my state, New York, for example. There is a glaring difference between the rich, cosmopolitan, and fast paced Downstate, and the industrial, rural, and more homogenous Upstate. The government in Albany reflects these differences as irreconsible, and is thus among the most disfunctional governments in the US. Other states, like Washington, Pennsylvania, and California, have similar problems. Washington, in fact, had a short-lived proposal to divide the state into two.
This is not without precedent. Early Virgina was divided between a working class and industrial west with an aristocratic and agricultural/trade oriented east. The differences boiled over in the Civil War, with the formation of West Virginia.
In addition to state problems, the growing Hispanic community may, one day, wish to form their own states with a more Spanish flavor. Congress may accept this if, as I believe, the US becomes a bilingual society. So what do you guys think?

I thought Puerto Rico didn't want statehood?

I thought Puerto Rico didn't want statehood?
They don't. Statehood would mean they couldn't be a money sink for the US in the game of RL.

I thought Puerto Rico didn't want statehood?
Last I checked, the pro-Statehood party had the majority in their legislature, giving the island an implied "yes". Now let's get back on subject.

Meh. I figure that once Castro kicks the bucket, we'll move on in and annex Cuba. Then once it's been a territory for awhile (and all the slums have been bulldozed) it will become a state.

Same thing (besides the Castro thing) will probably happen in Hati, as well, if their government keeps collapsing.

As for Guam, Marianas and American Samoa, I don't think their population is significant enough for them to be even considered as a state. With Puerto Rico, I could have sworn there was a debate over this same matter in their legislature a few years back, but I'm not sure whether anything decisive resulted from it (obviously not statehood).

So I can see 52 states in the near future...

Canada... definitely.. our neighbors need some guidance. Or we could just take over their oil (2nd largest reserves in the world). Carve out a piece of Canada and call a state. I can then rule it myself.

Meh. I figure that once Castro kicks the bucket, we'll move on in and annex Cuba. Then once it's been a territory for awhile (and all the slums have been bulldozed) it will become a state.

Same thing (besides the Castro thing) will probably happen in Hati, as well, if their government keeps collapsing.

As for Guam, Marianas and American Samoa, I don't think their population is significant enough for them to be even considered as a state. With Puerto Rico, I could have sworn there was a debate over this same matter in their legislature a few years back, but I'm not sure whether anything decisive resulted from it (obviously not statehood).

So I can see 52 states in the near future...
Neither one will happen, honey. Cuba will probably want its independence in order to capitalize on their great potential wealth, and not ship it to a country that was once their sworn enemy. And no one will want Haiti. It is a disgrace to the Americas, and will simply be a financial sinkhole. At most, the Dominican Republic will occupy Haiti to prevent the spread of instability.

Last I checked, the pro-Statehood party had the majority in their legislature, giving the island an implied "yes". Now let's get back on subject.
Nope. Puerto Rico has a standing invitation to become a state, however they aren't doing it. This is because monetarily it is best for them to remain a territory. They are exempt from many taxes, however they still receive various benefits. Puerto Rico has landed in a very nice situation, we basically support them.

There will be three new states - Cuba, Saskatchewan, and Germany. The U.S. will annex Cuba after challenging Castro to a fight or something. The U.S. will annex Germany in World War III, which will last 20 minutes and end at the U.N. with the Chancellor of Germany crying for his mommy. The U.S. will get Saskatchewan in a one-for-one trade with Canada, with Canada getting Aerosmith.

Also, Tijuana will become a territory, as will North Korea after our next President decides he's had enough of Kim Jong Il's shit and goes over to NK and kicks him in the nads. Hokkaido Island will be administered by U.S. private interests as it's turned into a giant ski resort and/or brewery. In exchange, the Japanese are allowed to administer Berkeley, CA. Not quite sure what they would do with it.

After raiding as much oil as they can, the Bush administration will turn Iraq over to the Saudis, who will drill for all that oil they didn't tell the U.S. about. Gas will reach $8 a gallon in parts of the U.S. by 2008. A car that runs off of mismatched socks will make billions for a drunk guy who still lives with his parents. With that money, he will expand his parents' basement and then buy his parents legally.

Terrorists will drop a nuclear bomb on Washington D.C. Luckily, it will be one that the Reagan administration sold to them in the 1980s, and it will be a dud. Someone will swoop it up and sell it on eBay. Halliburton will buy it. The guy who sold it will buy Halliburton, thereby getting his bomb back. However, Dick Cheney will buy him and take his bomb. Then he will send the guy to Iraq as a contractor.

The Cubs will win the World Series and a national holiday will be declared. After that, Sammy Sosa...wait, this isn't a thread for wacky predictions? Oh well...it was fun while it lasted. One prediction that will come true: My dog will actually succeed in becoming more spoiled, if such a thing is possible.

We should divide California into North California, South California and California Bay. Then we should either make Puerto Rico a state or cut it lose so it can stop sucking up welfare without paying taxes. Then… I don’t know… go the South Park root and bomb Canada?

Puerto Rico doesn't want Statehood.

As for Guam and the Northern Marianas, I don't know where they stand but I do know that they would be smaller than Rhode Island in terms of population.

I'm surprised no one mentioned DC has a possible state. I don't see that happening since it is a federal district though many people say they want it.

i hope we take canada. at least Alberta. nothing is better than an edmonton man.

I don't think such a thread can be mentioned without the possibility of the annexation of Canada. It's time for you all to join the southern neighbor you have for so long envied :cool: .

About language in America, remember that English is not an official language of the United States, so Spanish won't be made one anytime soon. Of course, Asian languages are also becoming tremendously important in certain concentrated areas and China is at the center of it all with its rise as a world power. And we can't have China considered without Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan to round off the huge Pacific trade. My old high school district outside of Atlanta is even offering Chinese and Japanese this year. Hispanics and Asians are going to become increasingly important in America looking at current growth rates, as will knowledge of these languages. But most minorities still absorb English as their native tongue within a generation or two, so they aren't going to take over or anything. Most Asians in fact tend to beat the majority white population in terms of success in America.

Hillary Clinton will die suspiciously early in her first term catapulting Bill to his third term. The U.S. will then annex Iceland for the hot chicks and to replenish America's strategic oral sex reserve. In order to placate the Christian right, Clinton will also be forced to invade the Galapogos Islands and kill all the athiest animals.

Last I checked, the pro-Statehood party had the majority in their legislature, giving the island an implied "yes". Now let's get back on subject.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The pro-statehood party won the majority in the legislature, but the pro-commonwealth party won the executive. What does this tell you? absolutely nothing. The fact is, the PNP won the legislature due to a variety of reasons, one of them being the poor performance of the previous administration. They would have won the executive too except that they ran an unelectable candidate who had previously been implicated in several corruption scandals. People dont vote for legislators based on only one issue.

There have been several referendums in Puerto Rico trying to solve the colonial dilemma. The commonwealth status has won every single time unless you count the time that the majority of electors overwhelmingly voted for the "none of the above" option. Therefore, there is no basis for saying that Puerto Ricans want statehood.

Neither one will happen, honey. Cuba will probably want its independence in order to capitalize on their great potential wealth, and not ship it to a country that was once their sworn enemy. And no one will want Haiti. It is a disgrace to the Americas, and will simply be a financial sinkhole. At most, the Dominican Republic will occupy Haiti to prevent the spread of instability.

Castro is our sworn enemy, not Cuba. And there are already many Cuban immigrants in the U.S.

But they won't become a state. Neither will Puerto Rico. Maybe Guam or Baja California. Or maybe we will just change the name to Estados Unidos to accomodate the majority population. ;)

Castro is our sworn enemy, not Cuba. And there are already many Cuban immigrants in the U.S.

But they won't become a state. Neither will Puerto Rico. Maybe Guam or Baja California. Or maybe we will just change the name to Estados Unidos to accomodate the majority population. ;)Um... Mexico is already the Estados Unidos Mexicanos, if I am not much mistaken...

I can see California splitting along NorCal SoCal lines, partiucarly as NorCal doesn't want to give up more of its water and would like to have its roads reparied sometime in the future. ;)

All the territories, except for the argument that is PR, do not have the population for statehood. Unless that changes, or some REALLY interesting politics occures to suddenly get Mexico or Canada to give up nationalism, I think we're stuck at 50 states.

I think that we will eventually realize that Hawaii is just a big jerk that keeps annoying us about the sun and we'll kick her out. Hawaii will cry a bit, but then Haiti will point out that there are other nations out there and console Hawaii that other relationships can be just as special as her one with the U.S.
At some point, the Canada will steal North Dakota, but the U.S. won't notice. Canada will get bored and try to give it back, but the U.S.'s refusal to take it will result in North Dakota becoming a seperate country, ruled by a shadowy cabal of shadowy figures that lurk in the shadows. As a result of poor lighting all of North Dakota's leaders will develop severe eyesight problems, but most of the population won't notice.
The Texas legislature is eventually going to get roaring drunk and secede from the Union. Next they will invade Mexico, under the battle cry of "REMEMBER THE AL- ALIMONY- ALASK- SOMETHING!" and will succeed in dominating the entire country before passing out in puddles of their own urine and other people's vomit. When Texas wake up the next morning he'll try to rejoin the U.S., and will be let in, but will suffer large amounts of ribbing from all other southern states.
At around this time, Peurto Rico will be set on fire by Bill Gates, and fire services will be prevented from reaching the area. Casualties will be estimated at 110%, but these reports will later reveal to exaggerations, as the death toll was only 103.6%. When asked why he did it, Mr Gates will say "You must learn how to destroy before you can create", and everyone will agree that this is a wonderful reason and he will be let free. Gates will then prove this saying to be true by actually creating something, instead of just ripping other people's ideas off.
Finally, without the Old Man of the Mountain to justify its continued presence, New Hampshire will cease to exist. The resulting area will consume anything that enters (excepting White Castle "food", because even Anti-Matter has better taste than that) completely and permanently. When asked about this turn of events President for Life Fiddlebottoms will say "New Hamwhatsits?" and pass out at his desk. However, the grieving families won't take much offense at this response, as that is the only action that the President for Life ever uses to respond to problems.

So, in summary, the U.S. is going to lose Hawaii, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. However, we'll gain Mexico and that means gaining prodigious amounts of scorpions, so I think that we win.

The Texas legislature is eventually going to get roaring drunk and secede from the Union. Next they will invade Mexico, under the battle cry of "REMEMBER THE AL- ALIMONY- ALASK- SOMETHING!" and will succeed in dominating the entire country before passing out in puddles of their own urine and other people's vomit.
That happens every spring break. Maybe not the legislature, but something very similar.

......... However, only a handful of states will occupy more land, like PR. Instead, we will see more states divide from within. Take my state, New York, for example. There is a glaring difference between the rich, cosmopolitan, and fast paced Downstate, and the industrial, rural, and more homogenous Upstate. The government in Albany reflects these differences as irreconsible, and is thus among the most disfunctional governments in the US. Other states, like Washington, Pennsylvania, and California, have similar problems. Washington, in fact, had a short-lived proposal to divide the state into two.
This is not without precedent. Early Virgina was divided between a working class and industrial west with an aristocratic and agricultural/trade oriented east. .........

In addition to state problems, the growing Hispanic community may, one day, wish to form their own states with a more Spanish flavor. Congress may accept this if, as I believe, the US becomes a bilingual society. So what do you guys think?

Mmmmm, further segregation to create an illusion of a united community.

I find it's especially alarming when you consider that if in New York the more wealthier parts of the city will be segregated from the poorer parts; it will therefore be removing any onus on the rich to help these less fortunate people.
They technically won't even be in the same community so why should they?

I mean, although I don't believe in compulsary taxes, I do believe in helping your fellow human being if you have the ability. Not furthering Hegellian ideals.
Segregation like that which is being suggested, is simply a sign of the intent which people show in regards to whom they feel they have a responsible to help.

In the end, to reason that because two places are different that this means that you split them up (with what's only an imaginary boarder anyway), is an extremely unprogressive way of thinking. By creating and adhering to these fake riffs, we will never bridge the real voids that exists.

i hope we take canada. at least Alberta. nothing is better than an edmonton man.

you can have Quebec if you want... but if you come near our alberta!!!

:sniper:

I'm surprised no one mentioned DC has a possible state. I don't see that happening since it is a federal district though many people say they want it.D.C. will never be a state so long as Republicans remain opposed to the solid Democratic votes that D.C. would provide if it were a state.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I find it stunningly hypocritical for our government to deny voting rights to residents of Washington, D.C. and expect them to pay taxes. Especially since "no taxation without representation" was one of our battle cries when we seceded from Great Britain.

Now, I oppose D.C. statehood. How can I say that and how can I work around that? One of the main reasons for creating a capital district was to prevent any one state from having undue influence over the others. Having the capital in Columbia (if that's what we'd end up calling D.C. should it become a state) would give Columbia undue influence compared to the other 50 states.

My suggested solution, which I also realise the Republicans likely would never go for because of the loss of votes they'd have with two Democratic Senators and one Democratic Representative, is to author an Amendment to the Constitution which gives D.C. full voting rights in the Congress "as if it were a State." A second section could be written to emphasize that it remains a district instead of a state, but giving it full voting rights equivalent to those of any state in the Union could go a long way toward righting the wrongs that have been perpetrated on the people of Washington, D.C. for years.

D.C. will never be a state so long as Republicans remain opposed to the solid Democratic votes that D.C. would provide if it were a state.

Ok, leaving politics aside, why should D.C. be a state since D.C. is the CAPITOL of the United States?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I find it stunningly hypocritical for our government to deny voting rights to residents of Washington, D.C. and expect them to pay taxes. Especially since "no taxation without representation" was one of our battle cries when we seceded from Great Britain.

Read up on the Constitution. They have 3 votes in the electoral college and thus they do vote for the President. They also have a delegate in the House but that is a non-voting post.

Now, I oppose D.C. statehood. How can I say that and how can I work around that? One of the main reasons for creating a capital district was to prevent any one state from having undue influence over the others. Having the capital in Columbia (if that's what we'd end up calling D.C. should it become a state) would give Columbia undue influence compared to the other 50 states.

Indeed you are correct.

My suggested solution, which I also realise the Republicans likely would never go for because of the loss of votes they'd have with two Democratic Senators and one Democratic Representative, is to author an Amendment to the Constitution which gives D.C. full voting rights in the Congress "as if it were a State." A second section could be written to emphasize that it remains a district instead of a state, but giving it full voting rights equivalent to those of any state in the Union could go a long way toward righting the wrongs that have been perpetrated on the people of Washington, D.C. for years.

Amendment 23: Sufferage in the District of Columbia

Proposed June16, 1960 and ratified on March 29, 1961

Section 1: The District constituting the seat of Governmnet of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the pruposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You seem to be deliberately looking past the main brunt of my argument. D.C. may be able to vote for the PRESIDENT, but without a vote in the House of Representatives or two Senators, D.C. does not have a voice in the laws that affect its everyday life. I do not deny that D.C. residents have the right to vote for the President, but they do NOT have any say in the laws that Congress passes that affect their everyday lives. Congress could turn around tomorrow and abolish the City Council and the office of the Mayor and continue to have a committee of politicos run things.

Mmmmm, further segregation to create an illusion of a united community.

I find it's especially alarming when you consider that if in New York the more wealthier parts of the city will be segregated from the poorer parts; it will therefore be removing any onus on the rich to help these less fortunate people.
They technically won't even be in the same community so why should they?

I mean, although I don't believe in compulsary taxes, I do believe in helping your fellow human being if you have the ability. Not furthering Hegellian ideals.
Segregation like that which is being suggested, is simply a sign of the intent which people show in regards to whom they feel they have a responsible to help.

In the end, to reason that because two places are different that this means that you split them up (with what's only an imaginary boarder anyway), is an extremely unprogressive way of thinking. By creating and adhering to these fake riffs, we will never bridge the real voids that exists.
It's not that I am some form of a segregationalist. But I believe that efficiency is better than stagnation. Take my state's legislature. In the Assembly, dominated by Downstaters, a democratic majority reigns. It's opposite in the geography-based senate, as far more districts are in land rich upstate. The governor is a compromise between the two. Furthermore, both of the US senators from this state are playing constantly to the New York market.
Perhaps I believe this because of my liberatarian leanings, but a government must be small and capable enough to work for its voters. It's best if one doesn't cram two different worlds into one state. New York is a mild case. Florida and California, on the other hand, are really three states in one.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The pro-statehood party won the majority in the legislature, but the pro-commonwealth party won the executive. What does this tell you? absolutely nothing. The fact is, the PNP won the legislature due to a variety of reasons, one of them being the poor performance of the previous administration. They would have won the executive too except that they ran an unelectable candidate who had previously been implicated in several corruption scandals. People dont vote for legislators based on only one issue.

There have been several referendums in Puerto Rico trying to solve the colonial dilemma. The commonwealth status has won every single time unless you count the time that the majority of electors overwhelmingly voted for the "none of the above" option. Therefore, there is no basis for saying that Puerto Ricans want statehood.
But this hows that statehood is an inevitability, especially if more Hispanics intergrate into US society, which Puerto Ricans can identify with. Besides, imagine what the island can do as a state. Already, Puerto Rico is the strongest economy in the Carribean. If it becomes a state, the Carribean will become an American lake.

You seem to be deliberately looking past the main brunt of my argument. D.C. may be able to vote for the PRESIDENT, but without a vote in the House of Representatives or two Senators, D.C. does not have a voice in the laws that affect its everyday life. I do not deny that D.C. residents have the right to vote for the President, but they do NOT have any say in the laws that Congress passes that affect their everyday lives. Congress could turn around tomorrow and abolish the City Council and the office of the Mayor and continue to have a committee of politicos run things.
I have an idea. Why not we give most of Washington to Maryland? A federal district would endure, but it'd be as big as the constitution specifies, beiing no bigger than ten square miles. D.C. could thus simply be the area around the mall, Foggy Bottom, and Capitol Hill.

I have an idea. Why not we give most of Washington to Maryland? A federal district would endure, but it'd be as big as the constitution specifies, beiing no bigger than ten square miles. D.C. could thus simply be the area around the mall, Foggy Bottom, and Capitol Hill.
Or we could just blow it all up and not have to worry about it anymore.
I'd say more on this subject, but I'm probably on enough government watch lists as it is, and, though I have heard that you win a prize when your name turns up on all of them, I don't know if it is the sort of prize that I would like. I'll bet its probably free Sprite or something, I HATE Sprite.

I can see California splitting along NorCal SoCal lines, partiucarly as NorCal doesn't want to give up more of its water and would like to have its roads reparied sometime in the future. ;)

All the territories, except for the argument that is PR, do not have the population for statehood. Unless that changes, or some REALLY interesting politics occures to suddenly get Mexico or Canada to give up nationalism, I think we're stuck at 50 states.
No one's population is too small. I believe that there's a law from the 1840s that's still on the books. It says that no territory can have a population less than 160,000. That may not work for Guam and the North Mariana Islands, but there is a possibility that it could if they federated.
Now, one place in the Pacific that has always fascinated me is the Philipines. Sure, they'd be less than enthused to join the US today. But at one time, they were part of the US. The only reason they were granted independence was because of the strong isolationist movements in America around the thirties. But if the Philipines ever want to come back, this American says that they are more then welcome to.

Oh, btw, here's a little food for thought. Some scholars feel that the Hispanic wave will get so intense in the US this century that they will form their own society, parallel and separate from mainstream America. If they do, the least that will happen is that a few states will be predominantly Hispanic. But some even go as far as saying that a new Republic will emerge, one that will emcompass Texas, the SW, California, and perhaps a bit more. Because northern Mexico is so similar, the theory is that this will fold into this new republic.
So what do you guys think?

Dude, why take Canada or Mexico when the real money's in the Falkland Islands. Seriously. England wouldn't mind. Hell, they'd help us take them.