Talk:51st state/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about 51st state. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

In this edit, I've tried to obviate the need for a recently added {{cn}} tag by removing the word only from an assertion, and I've removed the tag.

In looking at this, I found that the State of Georgia appears to have lost territory to the Territory of Florida (not yet a state) in an 1827 boundary adjustment; I'm not sure that I'm reading the sources I stumbled across on that correctly, though, and have not mentioned that in the article. Those sources are:

• MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TRANSMITTING A COPY OF THE OPINON OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AWARD OF THE EMEROR OF RUSSIA, UNDER THE TREATY OF GHENT, &c. &c.; 20th CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.; [Doc. No. 256.] HO. OF REPS. Executive.; APRIL 22, 1828.; Read, and laid upon the table., 1828 (See the letter dated 30 March 1827 on pp.26-29 and other nearby correspondence.)
• United States. Congress (1831), Congressional edition, U.S. G.P.O. (See the letter dated 30 March 1827 on pp.38-40 and other nearby correspondence.)
• United States. Congress. House (1831), House documents, otherwise publ. as Executive documents: 13th congress, 2d session-49th congress, 1st session (See the letter dated 30 March 1827 on pp.38-40 and other nearby correspondence.)
• United States. Congress Senate; Augustus Octavius Bacon (1908), Boundary line between Florida and Georgia: Certain documents and reports relating to the locating and marking of the line between the territory and state of Florida and the state of Georgia ..., Gov't Print. Off.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This video should be considered to be added as reference.

U.S. Presidents Support Puerto Rico Statehood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.247.69 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite the fact I can clearly see that these men and know who they are. But we still have to follow WP:NOYT. ViriiK (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-listat0328,0,923448.story

Long island also was a place that was up for a 51st statehood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.97.106 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I'm in class, so I won't add it, but I'm on LI, and that's a thing people talk about now and again. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the sentence in contention: "However, since according to the Articles of the Constitution consent by the governed is required, Congress would have no other choice."

Please provide a source for this. If nothing else, at least we could then reword this so that it actually makes sense. In its current state, it's about as logically sound as "Since there is dirt on the ground, it must rain." -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is gone, which is good, since it was absolute nonsense. Congress can reject statehood requests, and has done so, demanding, for example, that Utah take it's current name and that it's residents ban polygamy before granting statehood. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Castro erected a rival Soviet backed Marxist–Leninist government which has been in power ever since."

The cuban government has been ever since Soviet backed ? What year are we talking about, "ever since", 2012? And the government, today same as in 1959? Probably not, i bet a few R already dead. Maybe you want to say something else? Who knows? Hoffmansk 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)

OMG i thought that wikipedia was a legitimate engiclopedia website, i guess i'm wrong, australia, canada, parts of italy, albania, denmark, poland, new zealand AND EVEN THE UK!? i'm quite sure NONE of those countries would want to be a U.S. state, specially the UK, the ones that CREATED the USA... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Gabriel Viljoen (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of these comments are ridiculous speculation by people with no standing to make them. For instance, the comment on the UK joining the US came from "a British author, broadcaster, and journalist" - not even an MP or as a result of any serious discussion.

Similarly, the various schemes of partitioning states along certain lines exist only in the febrile minds of bottom-tier legislators trying to raise awareness of their perspective of some local schism. Does Wikipedia really need to catalogue such trite remarks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfedder (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a threshold below which the existence of a minority opinion ought not to be acknowledged in any way? —Tamfang (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico looks like it will vote in favour of statehood within the United States. If so, unless this decision is rejected by the United States government, Wikipedia should prepare to have to overhaul existing flag images of the 50-star US flag with what will be the 51-state US flag that will be adopted should the US government accept Puerto Rico's referendum results.--R-41 (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. And you beat me to the news.--Packinheat2u (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The problem is that "statehood" received 60% of the vote of those who bothered to answer the second question. However, that option only received 46% of the total votes cast (those who voted to remain a commonwealth did not select a second option). Therefore it's likely that there will be no change since statehood did not have the support of a majority of the voters as is typically needed. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect. Voters answered the second question regardless of their answer to the first question. 54% of the population said that they wanted to change Puerto Rico's status, and 61% of that same demographic voted in favor of statehood if the status were to change.--Philpill691 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the election results, there were nearly 486,080 blank or protest votes on the second question. That likely means that the large majority of people who voted to remain a commonwealth skipped the second question. In total, the "statehood" position got 802,179 votes out of a total of 1,730,245 votes cast on the question, that's 46% and not enough to claim majority support. See: http://resultados.puertoricodecide.com/2012/elecciones-generales/ (in Spanish). -epicAdam^(talk) 22:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I also believe you are incorrect. Voters answered the second question regardless of their answer to the first question. I agree with that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Both Obama and Romney during the election declared that should Puerto Ricans vote in favour of statehood, that as President they would accept Puerto Rico becoming a US state. The issue is Congress, I am not American - I'm Canadian - so I'm not sure of what the attitude of Congress is towards the results and as others have mentioned, the issue of the numbers of people who voted in favour of it.--R-41 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

On the Plebiscite voted 1,311,727 persons. 802,179 voted in favor of Statehood. 934,238 voted to reject the Current Territorial Status. This is a very clear mandate of Puerto Rico! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Blank ballots (in this case, leaving the second question blank) cannot invalidate the choice that trumped among all three status choices (nor can they nullify votes cast, period: this is the case in any election). If you had an election between two candidates in a congressional district, 10 people showed up, but only three actually marked a choice on the ballot, then whichever candidate for Congress got two votes in that election would win. You can't penalize those that decided to make a democratic choice on account of those that decided not to - regardless of their reasoning. Only 38% of the voting population in the United States voted in the 2010 election: this doesn't render any of the elections that took place that year invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot more steps to come before Puerto Rico can be admitted to the Union, so there's no need to rush around to change flags. The Puerto Rican legislature will have to formally petition Congress, a constitutional convention will have to be held to draft a state constitution, that constitution will have to be ratified by another plebiscite, then Congress must pass and the president must sign the bill (or have his veto overriden). This is a process that will take years. polarscribe (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico., which preamble in part reads: “We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organise ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America. In so doing, we declare: ... We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution; ...

The Constitution was created "within our union" with the U.S.; with U.S. Citizenship and the enjoyment of its rights and privileges; and with loyalty to the Federal Constitution. The Puerto Rico Constitution was approved by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President on 1952.

Has the U.S. Supreme Court recognized anywhere the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico? Yes and I quote Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 652-653 (1980)). Said Justice Marshall in a dissenting opinion: “The first question that merits plenary attention is whether Congress, acting pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. IV, 3, cl. 2, "may treat Puerto [446 U.S. 651, 653] Rico differently from States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions." Ante, at 651-652. No authority is cited for this proposition. Our prior decisions do not support such a broad statement. It is important to remember at the outset that Puerto Ricans are United States citizens, see 8 U.S.C. 1402, and that different treatment to Puerto Rico under AFDC may well affect the benefits paid to these citizens. While some early opinions of this Court suggested that various protections of the Constitution do not apply to Puerto Rico, see, e. g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 , the present validity of those decisions is questionable. See Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 475 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgement). We have already held that Puerto Rico is subject to the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 668 , and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 599 .” (Our emphasis).

The preceding two paragraphs explicitly recognize, in the year 1980, that the fourteenth amendment already applied to Puerto Rico. That is only possible in an incorporated territory, though it has never been formally admitted. Justice Marshall continues in Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 653-654 (1980)): “The Fourth Amendment is also fully applicable to Puerto Rico, either directly or by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Torres v. Puerto Rico, supra, at 471. At least four Members of this Court are of the view that all provisions [446 U.S. 651, 654] of the Bill of Rights apply to Puerto Rico. 442 U.S., at 475 (BRENNAN, J., joined by STEWART, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., concurring in judgement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't make the current constitution a US state constitution, just one of a defacto incorprated territory. I'm not saying it couldn't be accepted by Congess as-is, but it hasn't even been submitted yet. That has to happen and be approved as a state constitution by Congress. There are usually other issues that Congrees will address upon an actual application for statehood, and requirements they may set for entry. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Northwest Ordinance process (1787),

In practice, most of the states admitted to the union after the original 13 have been formed from Territories of the United States (that is, land under the sovereignty of the federal government but not part of any state) that were organized (given a measure of self-rule by the Congress subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution).[10]

Generally speaking, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood. Congress then directed that government to organize a constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Upon acceptance of that Constitution, Congress has always admitted that territory as a state. The broad outlines in this process were established by the Northwest Ordinance (1787), which predated the ratification.

Why the Puerto Rico section belong to this article: The Northwest Ordinance process (1787), which predated the Statehood ratification, was completed by Puerto Rico. 3.8 Millions of U.S. Citizens reside in Puerto Rico.

1. Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens (1917)

2. Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens at birth (1952)

3. U.S. Congress directed Puerto Rico government to organize a constitutional convention to write a constitution. (1952)

4. The organized government of Puerto Rico makes known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood to the President and the U.S. Congress - November 2012.

Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. The Approval of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. President occurred in 1952. The rights, privileges and immunities attendant to the United States Citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a state of the union" through the express extension by the U.S. Congress in 1948 of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Governor of Puerto Rico informed that he will send a letter to the Congress and the President informing the result as soon the 100 % of the vote are counted and the official certification is submitted by the Puerto Rico State Election Commission. The legislature of Puerto Rico meeting should happened before the end of this month.

Finally,

September 12, 1967

Article Three of the United States Constitution, was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, this law was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

August 5, 1947

The Privileges and Immunities Clause regarding the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States was expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law codified on the Title 48 the United States Code as 48 U.S.C. § 737 and signed by President Truman. This law indicates that the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"We made history with this plebiscite," said Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, the island's representative in Congress and a member of both the pro-statehood New Progressive Party and the Democratic Party.

The certified results will be sent to the White House and the congressional leadership, and it would be up to them to begin the process of possibly admitting Puerto Rico into the union.

Vote for statehood

In November 2012, Puerto Rico achieved a first clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status, and requesting the U.S. Congress to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America. In all earlier referenda, votes for statehood were matched almost equally by votes for remaining an American territory, with a small balance of votes cast for independence. Support for U.S. statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum until a clear majority of 61.15% was attained on November 2012.^[1][2] The most recent referendum process began in October 2011 when Governor Luis Fortuño proposed a bill, following the recommendation of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status to provide for self-determination. The proposed bill set the date of August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. The first question on the plebiscite would ask voters whether they wanted to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they preferred a non-territorial option. A second question on the plebiscite would offer three status options: statehood, independence or free association.^[3] This bill was brought before the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, then the Senate of Puerto Rico in 2011 to effect the governor's proposal. The bill passed on December 28, 2011. The date was revised such that both steps were voted on in a single ballot on November 6, 2012. As a result of that ballot, 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, with 61.2% of the population voting for statehood as the preferred change from the status quo. ^[4][5][6]

The Plebiscite proposal and guidelines was recommended by the following U.S. Government Reports:

• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) - President William J. Clinton.
• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) - President George W. Bush.
• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (March 2011) - President Barack Obama.
• Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)
• Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)

The Democratic Party platform of 2012 says:

As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. We have made great progress for Puerto Rico over the past four years, including a sharp, historic increase in Medicaid funding for the people of Puerto Rico and fair and equitable inclusion in the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act. Going forward, we will continue working toward fair and equitable participation for Puerto Rico in federal programs. We support increased efforts by the federal government to improve public safety in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, with a particular emphasis on efforts to combat drug trafficking and crime throughout our Caribbean border. In addition, consistent with the task force report, we will continue to work on improving Puerto Rico's economic status by promoting job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island.

The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.

U.S. Constitution and in federal law, apply to Puerto Rico as if it were a State. The following quote by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (United States Court of Appeals For The Third District, No. 08-1220, pages 13-16, United States of America v. Marco Laboy Torres (see Appendix C)) is very eloquent in this regard. Please notice the so many different sources: To the contrary, we conclude that Congress intended to include Puerto Rican convictions as predicates for purposes of 14 §922(g)(1). This conclusion is consistent with Congress’ and courts’ treatment of Puerto Rico in other contexts. Puerto Rico possesses “a measure of autonomy comparable to that possessed by the States.” Examining Board, 426 U.S. at 597; see also United States v. Acosta-Martinez, 252 F. 3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2001) (“Congress maintains similar powers over Puerto Rico as it possesses over the federal states.”). Like the States, it has a republican form of government, organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people, and a bill of rights. E.g., 48 U. S. C. §§731b–731e. This government enjoys the same immunity from suit possessed by the States, Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire Service, 715 F. 2d 694, 697 (1st Cir. 1983). Like the States, Puerto Rico lacks “the full sovereignty of an independent nation,” for example, the power to manage its “external relations with other nations,” which was retained by the Federal Government. Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F. 2d 431, 435 (3d Cir. 1966). As with citizens of the States, Puerto Rican citizens are accorded United States citizenship, id., at 434, and the fundamental protections of the United States Constitution, supra, at 11. The rights, privileges, and immunities attendant to United States citizenship are “respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union.” 48 U. S. C. §737. Finally, Puerto Rican judgments are guaranteed the same full faith and credit as are those of the States. 28 U. S. C. §1738; Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 368 F.2d at 437.15. It is thus not surprising that “although Puerto Rico is not a state in the federal Union, ‘it . . . seem[s] to have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of the word.’ ” United States v. Steele, 685 F. 2d 793, 805 n.7 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Mora v. Mejias, 206 F. 2d 377, 387 (1st Cir. 1953)); see also Calero-Toledo, 416 U.S. at 672 (quoting the same passage with approval). Consistent with this common and accepted understanding, Congress frequently uses the term “State” to refer also to Puerto Rico. Indeed, it did so in the section at issue here, §922(a)(2)(c). See also, e.g., 15 U. S. C. §1171(b) (transportation of gambling devices); 16 U. S. C. §3371(h) (transportation of illegally taken wildlife); 18 U. S. C. §891(8) (extortionate credit transactions); 18 U. S. C. §1953(d)(1) (interstate transport ati on of wageri ng paraphernalia); 18 U. S. C. §1955(b)(3) (illegal gambling); 18 U. S. C. §1961(2) (racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations); 28 U. S. C. §1332(d) (defining “state” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction). More significantly, when Congress fails explicitly to refer to Puerto Rico, courts must nonetheless inquire whether it intended to do so. E.g., Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd., 302 U.S. 253 (1937) (determining a statute’s applicability to Puerto Rico is a question of congressional intent); Acosta-Martinez, 252 F. 3d at 11 (“When determining the applicability of a federal statute to Puerto Rico, courts must construe the language . . . to effectuate the intent of the lawmakers.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Conducting this inquiry, courts routinely conclude that Congress intended to include Puerto Rico even when a statute is silent on 16 that front. E.g., Examining Board, 426 U.S. at 597 (defining “State” to include Puerto Rico for purposes of 42 U. S. C. §1983 and 28 U. S. C. §1343(3)); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 368 F. 2d, at 437 (federal statute that referred to the proceedings of any “State, Territory, or Possession,” applied to Puerto Rico even though Puerto Rico was not a State, Territory, or Possession); U.S.I. Properties Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co., 230 F. 3d 489, 499–500 (1st Cir. 2000) (defining “State” to include Puerto Rico for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1332); Cordova & Simonpietri Insurance Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N. A., 649 F. 2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1981) (treating Puerto Rico as a “State” under the Sherman Antitrust Act).

Of particular relevance here, courts—including this one—have included Puerto Rican convictions when construing statutory references to predicate “State” offenses. For example, in United States v. Steele, 685 F. 2d 793, 805 (3d Cir. 1982), this Court construed the definition of predicate offenses under the Travel Act, 18 U. S. C. §1952.

The following Puerto Rico information has been on this article for more than two years. I did not see any consensus or proposal to delete or split out to a separate article on this Talk page. The information belong to this article.

I submitted the proposal to keep the complete information of Puerto Rico on this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 November 2012‎ (UTC)

IMO, a summary style approach to the details of the PR statehood issue is appropriate here, with a {{main}} link to the Puerto Rico (proposed state) article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinions that should be evaluated the inclusion on this article.

Please read the Washington Post Opinion: A good deal for the District and Puerto Rico

Please read The New York Times Opinion: Will Puerto Rico Be America’s 51st State? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.55.29 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the Boston Herald Opinion:

Puerto Rican statehood By Boston Herald Editorial Staff

I recently edited the section on the 2012 referendum to remove its pro-statehood bias. I was not surprised to find that my edit was reverted but I was surprised that it was by an anonymous IP claiming that my edits constituted Original Research with no comment on the talk page or mention of the citations I included. The current article does not reflect that there is disagreement over what the outcome of the referendum means. Statehood proponents claim a clear victory while opponents point to the facts that I cited (strong abstention campaign resulting in 26% abstention in second vote, leaving statehood a minority if you include abstentions. Furthermore, if you exclude independence supporters from the first question you find only 30% support for non-independence change). The results were not the decisive victory for statehood proponents that the article indicates. I cited a newspaper report from The Hill[1], El Nuevo Dia [2] (Spanish), and a letter from the Governor-Elect of PR to President Obama [3]. Furthermore, there is already a parenthetical not hinting at this issue with a citation to the Huffington Post in the previous paragraph. This is not original research, there were plenty of citations to news analysis. It should not be news to anyone who has been following the issue at all.

On an unrelated note, also reverted was my removal of information which really is no longer relevant like the date that the bill for the referendum was introduced and passed. This info was relevant here before the referendum but now should be in the article on the referendum while here only the results are reported. If people want to know the precise legislative history of the referendum they can click the link. I am restoring my edits and if you have any particular questions about anything I change, please don't hesitate to put a citation needed note by it, post here, or remove the offending phrase. Thanks -- InspectorTiger (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your probably wrong on all counts. Elections Rarely have a 100% turn out, and only 26% not voting is actually much less than most. It's highly doubtful that a "abstination campaign" had anything to do with it. Besides, if people wanted to vote against state hood, they'd have VOTED AGAINST STATEHOOD. Seriously, it was an option on the ballot, no reason to abstain. the abstination campaign seems more likely to have been an attempt to claim a vote against statehood when the proponents of statehood clearly won. 24.187.19.109 (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit caught my eye. I have no problem with it as it seems to simply remove an unsupported editorial assertion which may be WP:OR. The edit summary, however, says "Population of 60000 required for statehood. With no permanent residents, these islands aren't prospective candidates for the foreseeable future". I note that Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution doesn't mention a minimum population requirement for statehood; if there is such a requirement (perhaps embodied in some Congressional rule), this article probably ought to mention it and cite a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, in the negative sense of "51th state", the alleged "cultural" influence of the USA, is the direct result of the presence of US troops, who can force the local government to ignore elections and tell local stations what to broadcast (otherwise some people would be killed, and US soldiers can't be prosecuted).

I admit that's painting US troops in a negative light, but we are talking about the "negative sense of 51th state". --80.114.178.7 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In the Official Monster Raving Loony Party article it has this reference to the 51st State:

The 2009 adventure game, Time Gentlemen, Please!, displayed an alternative reality where the OMRLP were voted in and handed Britain over to the United States, allowing it to become the 51st state.

Should this be included in this article?

Wetter88 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

From the book "Americans and the Making of the Riviera" by Michael Nelson: http://books.google.it/books?ei=NOqbUZ7BE47FPImPgMgH&hl=it&id=3ZAiAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Americans+and+the+Making+of+the+Riviera%22&q=Annexation#search_anchor "Monaco was neutral during the war, but so eager was Prince Louis to dissociate the principality from the French and so impressed had he been by the Americans that he requested the United States to annex Monaco as American territory. The minister of state made the request to Major-General Robert Frederick, the general commanding the Riviera coastline and the Italian border. The general recovered from the shock and told him that such an annexation was no function of the military and that he should make such a representation through the State Department." --151.41.180.137 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Which Michael Nelson? What are their qualifications? --80.114.178.7 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

According to http://www.michaelnelsonbooks.com/ "Michael Nelson was General Manager of Reuters. He was one of the principal architects of Reuters development of computerised financial information, which caused a revolution in world markets." The link to the section of Google Books above is for the Italian version. The spelling of computerized in the quote from Nelson's website is British. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"The phrase has been applied to external territories as well as parts of existing states which would be admitted as separate states in their own right."

what are you trying to say about "separate states". Very ambiguous sentence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.215.192 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 51st state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061020114114/http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/SPCLM/010910ENG.pdf to http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/SPCLM/010910ENG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041030004804/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/nr_comment/nr_comment050701b.shtml to http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment050701b.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 51st state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070226032921/http://www.tvbs.com.tw:80/FILE_DB/files/osaka/200310/osaka-20031030182612.doc to http://www.tvbs.com.tw/FILE_DB/files/osaka/200310/osaka-20031030182612.doc
• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20090423070333/http://spacestudiesinstitute.wordpress.com/1975/12/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20090423070333/http://spacestudiesinstitute.wordpress.com/1975/12/ on http://spacestudiesinstitute.wordpress.com/1975/12/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 51st state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100522040751/http://www.elections.org.nz/news/application-to-register-51st-state-party-logo.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/news/application-to-register-51st-state-party-logo.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090326142909/http://www.tvbs.com.tw/FILE_DB/files/osaka/200310/osaka-20031030182612.doc to http://www.tvbs.com.tw/FILE_DB/files/osaka/200310/osaka-20031030182612.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 51st state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090309172039/http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf to http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 51st state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119031241/http://recend.apextech.netdna-cdn.com:80/static/docs/editor/20121114_politica_pierluisi.pdf to http://recend.apextech.netdna-cdn.com/static/docs/editor/20121114_politica_pierluisi.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113180223/http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2011/08/us-interest-will-us-help-greenland-to.html to http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2011/08/us-interest-will-us-help-greenland-to.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 51st state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929120239/http://www.journalisten.se/artikel/20463/eu-kritiserar-svensk-tv to http://www.journalisten.se/artikel/20463/eu-kritiserar-svensk-tv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130085952/http://207.150.251.12:80/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html to http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/CONDICION_POLITICA_TERRITORIAL_ACTUAL_ISLA.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115202429/http://207.150.251.12:80/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html to http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118053203/http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/mdrretro062004.pdf to http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/mdrretro062004.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219091052/http://www.annexation.ca/reports/2004%20Leger%20Marketing%20-%20Canada%20US%20Relations.pdf to http://www.annexation.ca/reports/2004%20Leger%20Marketing%20-%20Canada%20US%20Relations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a very strong pro-statehood movement in Guam, and the territory's governor is attempting to organize a referendum there. This article previously contained a small amount of information on the prospect of Guamian statehood, but a user removed it. Given that its probably the most likely of the territories to choose statehood, it definately deserves a section here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I researched this and added a section about Guam. It might need some fine-tuning. Will look at it again in a couple of hours. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@XavierGreen The new section on Guam is done now; I expanded it, revised it and added the sub section about the United Nations' support for the island's plans. (I also updated the Guam article which had no recent information on this topic.) Peter K Burian (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian Great work!XavierGreen (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised by the lack of mention of the UK so did some digging through the talk archives. Seems there was a debate in 2007 around sources and whether the section was appropriate, but no mention of plans to remove. Is there something I'm missing? I feel that the UK is conspicuous by its absence. Username 231241 (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the partition section functions more of as a bulleted list, whereas the other sections all use subheaders for different places. I'm thinking of moving the state partition movements to subheaders, so that they can be better expanded upon. What do you think? ForksForks (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a definite Maybe on this. I agree in theory, but there will be an awful lot of one-line subsections. I recognize your suggestion that this would make them more expanded upon, but if they're to be more expanded upon, the better spot for that is List of U.S. state partition proposals. In fact, maybe it's best to just highlight a small number of the more prominent ones (moving any deleted text to the list article), and let the {{main}} template guide the reader to the list article. TJRC (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of stuff in here that is or should be in Statehood movement in Puerto Rico or maybe in Proposed political status for Puerto Rico, both of which are linked at the beginning of the section (and I don't quite understand why there are two articles for that either.) My tendency would be to excise pretty much everything from this article in favor of the "main article" and "see also" sections. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

When you move out of your current state, you acquire new representatives (2 Senators and 1 House Rep.) This is always true until you move out of the country. Then you keep your past state Representatives.

If we live in Wisconsin, then we follow Wisconsin laws. California, California Laws. But South Korea? We don't follow some global standard. we follow a hodgepodge of different state laws. You can't even talk to your friends for advice because they live in different states and follow different laws.

There should be a lot more talk of standardizing registration, voting, and basic needs of American citizens from distinct representatives rather than from my old local representatives that don't think about my needs on a daily or weekly basis. This could be a "virtual" State that has 2 Senators and any number of representatives appropriate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_diaspora Ciscorucinski (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that we have two articles, Statehood movement in Puerto Rico and Proposed political status for Puerto Rico (which probably should be merged), I propose we move the entire Puerto Rico section out of this article; it is or should be completely duplicated by Statehood movement in Puerto Rico, and it's hard to envision anything that should be in this section that would not duplicated. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree but you should leave a summary under a section for Puerto Rico, in this article. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Pinging jpgordon. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I like The Eloquent Peasant's approach: leave a summary, with a single {{main}} template pointing to the article on the PR statehood effort. It would be strange indeed to completely cut any mention of one of the the most prominent proposals for statehood completely from this article.

I think the DC statehood discussion should be treated in the same manner, by the way. TJRC (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree with the idea of merging Proposed political status for Puerto Rico and Statehood movement in Puerto Rico. We shouldn't assume that the concept (as opposed to the article per se) of a proposed political status for Puerto Rico automatically implies statehood, it doesn't at all. What is talked about when the subject of proposed (or 'future') political status of Puerto Rico is discussed are the various political options that have been the subject of discussion for decades, namely, (1)independence, (2)continuance of the current commonwealth state, (3)the so-called enhance commonwealth state, (4)the associated free state in the fashion of the Northern Mariana Islands and, yes, (5)statehood. Statehood movement in Puerto Rico, imo, is the counterpart of the current Independence movement in Puerto Rico article, and should stay that way. Plebiscites haven't been one of the proposed future statsu of Puerto Rico; they have been one of the tools, together with other tools such as bills in Congress, votes at the UN, etc., that have been used to gauge how a group of people feel about the options on the table. My point is that the subject of plebiscites comes up naturally when a discussion of proposed political status for Puerto Rico comes up, but not becuase it's anoe of them but rather becuase it's one of the tools used, and this is not always made clear in the articles.

As for abstracting the Puerto Rico section out of the 51st state article, if we do that, leaving just, say, a one-liner (or link via the Main template), and then we do the same, as it has already surfaced, with DC, we would have removed pretty much the 2 longest "51st-state" candidate states out of this article. In fact, to stay consistent, we would also have to remove Guam, and, then, why not do the same with the rest of everything there as well? Of course, I am only trying to drive home a point, but a valid one nevertheless.

Having established that Statehood movement in Puerto Rico and Proposed political status of Puerto Rico are two totally different --and to an extent, mutually-exclusive -- subjects and that, statehood (nor any other form) should be allowed to dominate, or worse, monopolize, the Proposed political status of Puerto Rico article, the real problem I see relative to making an argument about abstracting PR info from this 51st state article is that the PR info has grown beyond WP:UNDUE relative to the other potential 51st state candidates listed in this article. The problem is that there is just too much infomation on PR plebiscites. That is, imo, information that should removed from this article for it is a duplicate of information already found (and chances are, was taken from) Puerto Rico political status plebiscites. In would thus, support the idea that the long sections of PR plebiscites here become a template directing readers to Puerto Rico political status plebiscites and perhaps an additional one-liner summarizing the plebiscites history, but no more prose than that. That way PR, a main candidate for 51st state, stays in this article with an amount of text proportional to the other candidate body politics of DC, Guam, etc., but at the same time we do not duplicate information that is already found (pretty much verbatim), elsewhere. Mercy11 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon:I agree. This article should be much shorter.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)